Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/13/2002 STRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Collier County Planning Commission Naples, FL, November 13, 2002 November 13, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:00 PM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Paul Midney Russel A. Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lora Jean Young Dwight Richardson David J. Wolfley Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Joe Schmitt, Patrick White, Susan Murray, Tom Kuck, Don Schneider, Kay Deselem, Don Scott, Norman Feder, Mike Bosi, Barb Burgeson, Bill Lorenz, Ray Smith Page 1 November 13, 2002 The Collier County Planning Commission The LDC Amendment Workshop County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 5:00 PM Minutes November 13, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 5:13 PM. Attendance: Members: Paul Midney, Russel A. Budd, Kenneth Abemathy, Lora Jean Young, Dwight Richardson, David J. Wolfley -Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Fry, and Mr. Strain were absent. Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Joe Schmitt, Patrick White, Susan Murray, Tom Kuck, Don Schneider, Kay Deselem, Don Scott, Norman Feder, Mike Bosi, Barbara Burgeson, Bill Lorenz, Ray Smith II. LDC Amendment division 3.15 -Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager, explained that this meeting was second and final public hearing in front of the CCPC for the LDC Amendments this cycle. She informed the commission that they were expected to vote on the amendments, which would then be forwarded to the BCC. She noted that the summary sheet, in the front of the handout, outlined the commission's recommendations from the last meeting. As well, it outlined the DSAC, sub-committee, and the EAC recommendations. She added that there was another handout that she would reference later in the meeting. The last meeting they reviewed the amendments to LDC 3.15. She informed the commission that this would be incorporated into this meeting as well. Page 2 November 13, 2002 -Stan Litzenger, Comprehensive Planning Manager, provided the commission with a handout and explained that it has not changed since the one included in the agenda packet, but it had been highlighted and noted for clarification purposes. Stan Litzenger gave a presentation that reviewed the LDC Amendments to 3.15 and its changes since the last meeting. The changes listed in the handout were: A) Page 3 - here there is an ongoing policy issue based on the ten-month average, omitting February and March. B) Page 4 - It now reads, "If the standard service volume is exceeded by 10%" rather than by 110%. C) Page 5 - These items were re-organized so that they were in the proper numerical reference. D) Page 6 - The underlined language had been added to this section. E) Page 7 - They clarified level of service calculations, just add the current LDC amendment 3.15 language and then strike it. F) Page 13 - They removed the language "peak season". It now reads, "The peak hour is based on the average of 10 months..". G) Page 16 - For consistency, they have referred to the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator as the individual, who administers this particular division of the LDC. -Mr. Litzenger informed the commission that the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator was Mr. Schmitt. He also explained that in some of the cases where this change occurred, it was originally listed as "County Manager of Development" or "Transportation". H) Page 17 -The old language had been stricken. Also, in all cases under 3.15.6, they have referred to the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator as the individual, who administers this particular division of the LDC. This was for purposes of consistency. I) Page 19 - The original draft language, relative to the percentages of ASI, have been removed, since it was not in the adopted ordinance. J) Page 22 - They had stricken a reference to health safety and welfare in the areas of developments of regional impact, since it was redundant in reference to the next paragraph. K) Page 25 - 3.15.7.2.6.9 had some new policy issue language. He explained they would discuss this further in the meeting. Page 3 November 13, 2002 L) Page 26 - The policy issue of waiver and release. It is staff's position that it still will not be a waiver and release. M) Page 27 - They made a clarification on the impact fees, 3.15.7.3.2.2, the fee is now due at issuance not at application. Also, in all cases, they have made reference to "final local development order" as opposed to the "individual development orders". N) Page 28 - Policy Issue COA timeline: They still indicate, "three years from the date of its approval...". This policy issue is still under review. Another policy issue: They indicate a certificate for up to five years for certain thresholds. This remains a policy issue under developmental review. O) Page 29 - Policy Issue: notifications methods are by facsimile mail. They are considering other ways of notification. P) Page 30 - Policy Issue: They are considering the period of time in which to redeem the approved certificate and pick up approved development orders. It is currently listed as five days. -Mr. Litzenger summarized that these were all the changes and considerations made to the first draft reviewed by the CCPC. Mr. Litzenger summarized the nature of the changes since the first draft. The changes were due to the direction given by the CCPC at the last meeting. 1) Consider the 10 months, excluding February and March, with the traffic count methodology. He explained they would discuss this further in the meeting. 2) Changed all the references to "Final Local Development Order" as opposed to the individual references. 3) The issue of waiver and release in lieu of COA is still under discussion. 4) Changed the payment of impact fees to submittal. The policy issue is still being considered, as to the length of time that a COA is effective and issued. 5) The COA notification process is still listed as facsimile mail. -Mr. Abemathy asked about the items still under discussion. He wanted to know when they would be finalized. Mr. Litzenger explained that they would possibly be continued to the CCPC's meeting in December. -Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator, added that they are continuing to work through these issues. He referred to a handout that he provided to the commission, (Current AUIR vs. REAL TIME), that reviewed the issues. He pointed out, that on page 28 of the first handout, that the board gave direction the impact fees be paid at the time of final plat or plan, and that they not go into an escrow, but go into stock to provide for the Page 4 November 13, 2002 replacement capacity. Then the issue of 3 years vs. 5 years came up. He explained that this was not enough time to develop a project. He believes that a consensus is coming about to establish a process where the impact fees are paid, but they are at "risk". This means, at the final sub-division plat or plan, that the impact fees are paid. Once they are paid, if the development does not proceed, they cannot ask for a refund. There were two concerns to this plan. One was, on Page 29, that five days was not enough time to get the permit, since you had to pay the impact fees and make sure all funding and contract issues are resolved in that time frame. They are now discussing up to 90 days to pick up the final development order. Once they pick up the final development order, they would have to pay the fees, based on the fees that exist at that time, and the money would no longer be refundable. There was also a concern that if someone had a 500 unit residential building, that they may not be in a position to pay all the fees up front. Due to this, there was a request to return to the waiver. They do not want to do this, so they are working on language that will allow for a full plat or plan approval and pay upfront only the impact fees for a "phase" that will be developed. However, vesting for concurrency would only be for that one phase. -Mr. Abernathy asked if a certificate of adequate public facilities meant that at that point in time, the facilities that they speak of are adequate for development. Mr. Feder stated that this was correct at this time. He noted that the provision "if it is available now or in three years" has not been changed. Mr. Abemathy then asked, if this was the case, why are they trying to get the money upfront. Mr. Feder informed him, the impact fees were needed to provide the replacement capacity of what has been consumed. The attempt is to be ahead of the game rather than behind. -Mr. Feder summarized that the major changes were: providing up to 90 days rather than 5 days to pick up the permit and leave the fees, once paid, at risk. -Mr. Richardson asked if the seven years was the developer's project. Mr. Feder said it was not. He explained that this takes away a timeframe; therefore, once the impact fees are paid and the final plat or plan is picked up, the fees are no longer refundable. At this point they are saying that there is no timeframe. The issue with seven years was when they began to discuss the possibilities. -Mr. Wolfley asked what would happen if you have a road that is built out except for one piece, 100 units. His concern was if the owner would be paying replacement fees when there was no way the road could be used anymore. Mr. Feder stated that there are other uses of a roadway than the buildings adjacent to it. Mr. Wolfley said that he understood Page 5 November 13, 2002 this and he then asked what would happen if the county was built out. Again, his concern was that the last people would be paying replacement costs of which there will be no replacement. Mr. Feder replied, that the land development code would be changed closer to build out. This issue is a concern that Mr. Feder thought needed to be discussed closer to build out, and until they get there, they need this, so that they do not replicate the problems of the past. -Mr. Budd asked if this matter was going to be continued to December, as mentioned previously. Mr. Feder stated that he would defer to legal counsel for the exact answer, but his ideal was that the CCPC would act on it at this meeting and give direction relative to the concept and issues discussed. If legal counsel states that they cannot do this, then Mr. Feder hoped that they could find a time before December, to come back before the CCPC with the refined language. -Mr. Budd stated that his concems were they would go through the information and here the testimony when they were not capable of acting on it. He did not want the commission to go through the entire process and then do so again in December. He asked the chairman if they could focus in, today, only on the issues they were capable of acting on and providing direction for. He added that he knew of developers, who were hoping for more time to review and discuss the information, before it is decided on. Mr. Abernathy stated he had the same concerns. He added that if it has to come back, they should continue the matter, so as to allow the dialog of developers and planning to take due course. Mr. Budd stated that he would support this, and added, that in December there would still be every opportunity for testimony, dialog, and the various issues. He felt that they would lose nothing in the continuance except overlap. Mr. Abemathy explained that his understanding of the statutes was, that the CCPC would have final say before the matter goes to the BCC. He felt that there would still be dialog and discussion after this meeting. He explained that if there decision was not taken as final word by all parties involved and there was further discussion, then it would go against the intentions of the statutes. Marjorie Student elaborated, stating that the CCPC must make a finding of consistency between the land development "rag" and the comprehensive plan. If the concept changes, it would have to come back before the CCPC in order to fulfill their statutory requirements. Her other concern was, this was a complex ordinance and when concepts change, they will affect other parts of it. She believed that it needed its full and fair hearing before the CCPC. Page 6 November 13, 2002 -Mr. Feder informed the commission that if they chose to address this on December 5, 2002, then they would make sure the CCPC had a copy of the language and changes before the meeting. He explained, that he wanted this to have a chance for all the input of the CCPC. Mr. Schmitt added, additional staff work was done that day and they did need to "hammer out" some more of these items. He wanted to bring the final version on December 5, 2002. -Mr. Richardson stated that he supported continuing this. He added that he had many comments and questions. He asked if it would be appropriate to prepare a written document and circulate them, as well as providing them to staff. Mr. Abemathy informed him that he could do both; circulate them to staff and the CCPC. Marjorie Student verified that this would be appropriate and it could become part of the public record. -Mr. Budd made a motion that the LDC division 3.15 be continued to the regular meeting on December 5th, 2002. Lora Jean Young seconded the motion. -Mr. Abernathy asked if there were any problem continuing this during the day as opposed to night. Marjorie Student stated that it did not, since it did not change the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses. She added, in reference to Mr. Richardson's idea of circulating his concerns, that they needed to go through staff because of Sunshine Laws. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor. The motion for continuance passed unanimously, 6-0. III. Items with registered speakers. A) Item 2.2.36: Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist District Overlay -Mr. Richardson stated that he had spoken with Don Snyder about the 6 vs. 12 months discussed in the last meeting. They had the same concern, that 6 months would not allow all the proper discussions. He added that he would like to see the 6 months extended to 12. -Don Snyder, Planning Services, stated that he agreed, added that 12 months would be in their best interest. This would allow the issues to be covered, and he suggested expanding the study area to include the entire area. Page 7 November 13, 2002 -Mr. Abemathy asked what the reactions of the residents were. Mr. Snyder informed him that the residents he had spoken with, were in favor of the 12 months and the expansion of the study area. Public Speakers -Doctor Richard Bing, 10951 Gulfshore Drive, stated that he was the president of Vanderbilt Gulfside Condominium Association and a board member of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. He explained that they would like to have input in the new overlay zone. They would be in favor of the expansion of the study area, so that they can control the whole Gulfshore Drive span. He informed the commission, that they were in favor of the moratorium because of concerns that property was losing value and preservation of the character of the neighborhood. They also support the extension for 12 months, and asked the commission to put the appropriate resources into the plan, that will allow them to have input in the coming process. -Mr. Abemathy asked if the proposal in front of the commission was only the RT. Mr. Schneider informed him that it was. Mr. Bing stated that at the last meeting, one of the members proposed expanding the area. Mr. Richardson informed them that he was the one, who had made the proposal. -Marjorie Student stated that they would have to have other advertised public hearings, so that it could be advertised and brought through the full planning commission and BCC. So, tonight the only action would be on the 12-month extension. -Mr. Abemathy advised Mr. Bing, to be persistent that staff stays focused on their concerns. Susan Murray replied that she did not believe there was a serious resource issue in this case. She objected to the implication and stated that the reason for the extension was to ensure that they included the individuals, who live here during season. She explained that this was the reason they were asking for six months, but if the area for the study were expanded, then she would agree that 12 months would become a need. Mr. Abernathy asked when the six months was over. Mr. Schneider stated that it would be over July 9, 2003. -Mr. Bing stated that 12 months would hit both times that seasonal residents are available, since it would cover this winter and next winter. He feels the extra time would be necessary. Page 8 November 13, 2002 -Susan Murray informed the chairman that they could carry forth a recommendation from the CCPC, to extend the study to 12 months and expand the area, to the BCC and follow the desires of the BCC and direction from the County Attorney's Office on how to do so. Mr. Abernathy asked if they could stop short of 12 months if that was the chosen time. Susan Murray stated that they could finish the work, but the moratorium would stay effective till the date decided upon. -Mr. Bing stated that it was not in the best interest of the seasonal residents to extend it only 6 months, since the decision would be made at a time they were not here. -Lora Jean Young stated that she was in support of the 12-month extension and the expansion to the entire region. Marjorie Student stated that they would have to seek board direction on the expansion of the study area and bring it back in another cycle, due to the advertising requirements. Mr. Richardson asked if they could apply the 12 months to just the moratorium area, but the study area could be expanded to include the RMF 16 and the RSF3 without adding moratorium to that. Marjorie Student informed him that they could expand the study area, and that would mean that the moratorium could continue in that area. Mr. Richardson felt it would be could to include the concerns of the residents and expand the study area, but not do anything that would stop development. -Carol Reicht, president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, representing almost 800 members. She stated that her speech reiterated Mr. Bing's speech and that her main point was: if they added the other side of the lagoon, then they would really need to extend the timeframe to 12 months. She added that she would like to see every piece of property on Gulfshore Drive zoned, not only the RT. -Mr. Schmitt cautioned the commission to keep in mind the cost. This is currently funded through 113. His concern was if they expand the study, the scope of work and the cost would need to be taken up with the board. Mr. Abernathy agreed, stating they should limit their decision making in this meeting, to the 6 or 12-month extension. Mr. Schmitt recommended that Mr. Bing and Ms. Reicht to petition the board on the expansion of the study area. -Mr. Richardson stated that after all this was heard, he felt they should limit the vote to only the 6 or 12-month extension of the moratorium for the original area. Page 9 November 13, 2002 After that, they could express their interest in the expansion of the study, as another matter. -All of the commission members were in favor of the 12-month extension of the original moratorium. -Mr. Richardson stated that he found that this to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and made a motion to act on this item as previously stated. It was seconded by Mr. Abernathy. All were in favor. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. (It was clarified that they were not discussing the expansion of the study area). B) CCSL Amendment 3.13.8 -Barbara Burgeson stated that at the last meeting it was denied 6-0. Susan Murray corrected this, stating that they could not vote at the last meeting on this matter and that actually they were "inclined" to deny. The applicant was not present. Public Speakers -Sally Barker, representing the Property Owners Association of North Collier County, stated that she encouraged them to decline this. She added that they strongly support staff's proposed amendments, section 3.13.6. They feel that these are good amendments, but the privately proposed amendment by Mr. Pickwarth was not. -Doug Fee, 921 Carrot Bend Circle, stated that he was president of the North Bay Civic Association. They asked that they deny the language change, as far as, the lawn, the pavers, and the fifteen feet non-native vegetation. He added that many of the citizens that are seasonal, are just coming down and becoming aware of these issues. The North Bay Civic Association has written a petition, which they are currently circulating, and plan to give to the BCC. The petition states that they object to this proposed amendment. They feel that allowing this is unacceptable, since the CCSL was established in order to protect the coastal barrier dunes and beaches. On the second amendment, they support the language change. He added that the members are not for variances on the CCSL, they are just for the notification changes. -Mr. Richardson had a concern that DSAC had voted in favor of this item. He felt they were out of touch with the environmental needs of the county. Barbara Page 10 November 13, 2002 Burgeson informed them that the sub-committee had recommended supporting staff in NOT recommending approval of this item. The summary language was somewhat confusing, when the DSAC read this, they misunderstood and they were merely trying to support their sub-committee. Mr. Schmitt added that this was clarified to them and DSAC did vote against this item. Mr. Richardson stated that this was a relief, because the record appeared to state something else. -Mr. Richardson made a motion that 3.13.8 be denied as submitted, with the clarification that their denial is consistent with the growth management plan. It was seconded by Lora Jean Young. All were in favor. The motion for denial passed unanimously, 6-0. -Mr. Richardson stated that he believed they have found support for 3.13.6; for the modification from 15 to 45 days notice. He recommended that they approve this item. The committee agreed and stated that they would add this into the blanket approval at the end of the meeting. C) 2.2.20 Planned Unit Development District -Susan Murray informed the commission that there was an outline of their comments in the summary sheet, concerning notification of the closure of rezoning applications should there be inactivity. Staff wanted lapsed and inactive applications to be closed. The commission had asked that the applicant be notified. Staff did add this. There also, had been discussion of the inter- connection of collector and local streets within the PUD, to adjacent lands or developments, shall be required. She stated that this had not been addressed yet, but she understood that the commission's direction was to not require this but provide some form of leeway. They will amend this in the future. -Mr. Richardson asked if this was where the 1500ft came in. Susan Murray stated that no it was not, that was another part of the code. Mr. Richardson stated that he did not want this to be softened "to the point that it disappeared". Susan Murray stated that it would be her intention to tighten it up as much as possible. She suggested that administrative process may be a way of doing so. -Mr. Richardson asked to be reminded why they crossed out all the items about multiple housing on page 41. Susan Murray stated that it was taken out, consistent with the recommendation of the comprehensive planning staff, Page 11 November 13, 2002 because these standards are not used and applied and there is nothing in the comprehensive plan requiring them to do so. -Marj orie Student stated, on the interconnect language, they may need to add "where applicable or something more specific". Her concern was, if there is a neighboring community that has a private street, it may put the county in a position to maintain the interconnect or acquire it. Mr. Richardson stated that his view is the county should step up to this. He explained that he was suggesting that this should not be an area excluded from consideration from the county. Marjorie Student stated that it is fine, she just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that this may come up. Public Speakers -Bob Mulhere, RWA Consultants Inc., stated that the revisions of staff since the first meeting were very good. He added that his purpose was to speak on the interconnect issue on Page 47. He did not want to argue that they should look for every opporttmity to interconnect, but he believes that they need to make provisions for those situations were an interconnect is not possible. He suggested that "the interconnection of collector and local streets within the PUD to adjacent lands and developments shall be required" be revised to read "vehicular interconnection between the PUD and adjacent lands or development shall be required". He added that they could add another component to that sentence, something along the lines of "where interconnection is not possible due to constraints of existing adjacent development, the BCC may waive the interconnection requirement". He added that he did supported the concept of maximizing opportunities for interconnection. -Susan Murray outlined the changes they made since the last meeting. The table in the packet refers to the research and technology PUD, which is clearly stated in the GMP as to the uses. They eliminated the table that referred to all the uses that would be permitted in a commercial PUD. They now only identify what would be a residential PUD and the districts that would be consistent with that. They did the same with commercial, mixed use, and industrial. They will allow the uses to be selected from those districts as outlined in the code at the time the PUD was being drafted. This was in response to speaker concerns and that of the commission at the last meeting. Page 12 November 13, 2002 -Marjorie Student added that it needed to be clearer in stating what it was doing, because it could be read that a PUD district is not any more than one of the other districts. She suggested that this be re-worded or clarified. She added that this was tree not only for the residential, but the commercial, industrial, and anywhere else that language appears. -Don Schneider stated that he concurred with this. He explained that essentially, they were trying to refer back to the existing language in the LDC. -Susan Murray summarized that they did put in the language regarding the application to be considered open or closed. They added that the county would notify the applicant of the closure, but if the county failed to do so, it would not mean that the application would not be closed, (Page 37 2.2.20.2.3). -Mr. Budd stated that he agreed with Mr. Mulhere's suggestions and asked if they were agreeable. Susan Murray replied that they did not seem unreasonable from what she heard and was along the lines of what they were thinking as well. She added that if this was their direction, then she could go along with it. Mr. Richardson stated that he supported it. D) 2.7.3 (referenced on Page 73 of the packe0 -Don Schneider reviewed the changes made since the last meeting. He stated that this section was essentially procedures for PUD's. They have tried to improve the applications they receive in the office for evaluation. They were attempting to increase the specificity of the information they received on the applications. They discussed the 1500ft, which is the location of proposed road and existing road right-of-ways of pedestrian systems within 1500ft. The Transportation Department requested this item, so they could see what was there. They also discussed typical cross sections for the particular streets. They wanted to understand what they had planned, including the vehicular egress and ingress points of the particular development. -Mr. Abernathy asked if there was a question about at "what point you get to the specificity, rather than the specificity itself". Mr. Schneider stated that the point here was they wanted this to come in the application, so they can fully evaluate it and make sure that there are no conflicts. Mr. Abemathy asked if this was the master plan. Mr. Schneider stated that it was. -Susan Murray added that they removed the requirement to require legal descriptions to identify tracts. They have tried to achieve the same objective by Page 13 November 13, 2002 putting in a requirement that shows the dimensions and the boundaries of non- residential tracts. This allowed them to review the relationships of the tracts without the extra expense of staff and staff review time for a legal description. She added that they would like to see the sizes of the tracts. -Mr. Abernathy asked if they would need building footprints, noting that at the last meeting there was objection to this. Susan Murray stated that there was some objection, but it was left in. This was for residential not non-residential. It was left in due to their perceived direction of the BCC. Mr. Richardson stated that one of the problems is that surprises arise, because they did not understand the consequences of what they were permitting. He explained that this is attempting to alleviate that problem, by allowing them to evaluate at least some of the consequences upfront. -Susan Murray stated that on page 80, there was a need for her to re-word the information under 2.7.3.4 (time limits). She would re-word it to be consistent with the information on Page 87. She added that on Page 81, under the second item #3, she would add the words, "for all PUD's", in the front of the sentence. This, as well, was for consistency. -Mr. Richardson asked, on Page 80 - item 2.7.34 - #2, for clarification of the phrase. Marjorie Student stated that it might be helpful to say, "for the uses permitted". Kay Deselem agreed that it was confusing and needed to be revised. She explained that it was trying to identify what amount of development needs to occur every six years, within two types of projects, so that those projects will not be subject to sunsetting provisions. The 15% is the approved dwelling units, residential. The 30% is non-residential. The two measuring units are gross leasable and the number of dwelling units. The six years is the time that they have to do this, every six years. Mr. Richardson stated that this leaves the developer 20 years to complete the project and he did not believe that this was reasonable. Mr. Abemathy stated the confusion was because there was no verb. Susan Murray and Kay Deselem stated that they would look at this again and try to link it up to the next action more clearly. -Mr. Richardson asked what the section was supposed to mean. Susan Murray explained that in order to tighten up the sunsetting requirements, the BCC decided to leave all PUD's, approved prior to October 24, 2001 as they were under the old criteria. New PUD's would be subject to the new, more stringent Page 14 November 13, 2002 criteria. In this section they tried to re-locate the language. She informed the commission that this language was not new, only re-located, so someone could find which criteria they fell under. Mr. Abemathy asked what would happen, if the landowner fails to receive final local development order. Susan Murray informed him that the PUD does not expire, but the staff has the right to take the PUD back to the BCC for direction. At this point they have a set of options, one of which is, that they may submit for an amendment. Joe Schmitt added that 96 has to do with the final acceptance, it is not the development process. Mr. Richardson asked if one of the PUD's with 30% of its development complete in six years, would it have to provide all of the info structure requirements in the 18-month period, called for on Page 96. Kay Deselem informed him that the PUD's approved prior to October 24, 2001 would be required to obtain approval, it did not require that they do vertical construction or anything of that nature. This re-iterates what was in the code originally, which is why they have changed things. She explained that the "jump" is to Page 81, where it explains that if one did not do this, then the development services director determines that they did not develop in earnest and it then talks about extension or amendment. Susan Murray and Kay Deselem reiterated that they would clarify this. -Mr. Richardson asked how the completion of work effort involved for a PUD tied in and what the requirement was for the developer to have completed the info structure and improvements. (Page 96) Joe Schmitt stated that this deals with the time when the developer asks the BCC for final acceptance, the county engineer then deems that they have 18 months from the date that they complete the work or they will file a lien. Tom Kuck added that it is confusing because they are discussing PUD's on one hand and Plats or sub-divisions on the other. He explained that a typical PUD could have 5 or more Plats and this is what they are discussing in this section. Mr. Schmitt stated that this is trying to make sure that the developer complies with what is specified after final acceptance or the county engineer will take action. Public Speakers -Dwight Nadoo, Planning Manager for RWA, stated that he commends staff on the changes they have made on this section since the last meeting. He felt that "maybe" they should have more definition of the building footprints at the time of site development plans. In his opinion, there was no "typical" of a building Page 15 November 13, 2002 footprint or height. He feels that this may be onerous on staff to review what may be considered typical for that type of development. He added that there was a unwritten policy for a primer; that one has to exclude the commercial land area from the PUD, where there is a residential development, so that one does not have a residential density over the top of the commercial land use allocation. This is why they define the boundary. He felt that this relationship shows that these PUD masterplan are flexible in nature and they are dynamic as one moves through the development process, so that one can identify the process that will be residential, which may affect the boundary of a commercial tract, so long as one does not decrease the commercial allocation that was approved in the PUD. This means the boundaries are somewhat flexible. He fully supports this idea, but feels that it is onerous to place footprints inside those PUD tracts. Therefore, he agrees with the chairman, that the specificity of footprints and building heights, comes forward at the time of site development plans. He urged the commission to consider doing a typical footprint and a typical building height for non- residential uses, because non-residential buildings vary. -Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Nadoo had outlined the problem that he was having as well and asked what he suggested. Mr. Nadoo suggested that they move forward with this, without having typical footprints, but they identify the building tracts, then the development standards within the PUD will dictate which building footprint would be, and the developer of that tract would have to follow those regulations. Mr. Richardson stated that what Mr. Nadoo defined as typical, may mm out to be something they would not want to approve. Mr. Nadoo replied that they could look at it somewhat by the land use proposed. Mr. Richardson stated that this was "very gross for residential", and this is why they are trying to improve the process at the residential stage, so they may make some comments about what the developer intends to do. Mr. Nadoo asked if this meant that the basis for approval of a PUD, while in compliance with the comprehensive plan, would be a building footprint that really has no relationship to the plan. Mr. Richardson replied that the way he stated it, he could not agree with it, but that is not the way it would really work, because a PUD is a negotiation. Susan Murray added that the LDC outlines the criteria upon which an evaluation for re-zoning shall be judged, one of these is compatibility, which Page 16 November 13, 2002 can be determined in a number of factors. One of the evaluations used is compatibility with adjacent uses. -Mr. Abernathy asked what they were trying to overcome by moving the specificity up, earlier in the process. Susan Murray stated that they were tending to see a debate between the BCC and the property owners in the neighborhood, where it gets down to selecting uses, buffer types, etc... Mr. Schmitt stated that it was the public comment requesting the BCC involvement and then the BCC looking to the developer for specificity. -Mr. Wolfley stated that he was concerned, because when you put a PUD together, a lot of the times commercial is towards the end, and it would be difficult to know what the market is at the beginning. Mr. Schmitt stated that this was Mr. Nadoo's point, and that they were looking for the re-zoning first, since they don't know what the market will bring. Susan Murray stated that this allows for speculative re-zoning, which is what the BCC had a concern about, since some people were re-zoning to turn around, speculate, and sell the property. -Mr. Nadoo stated that he supported the public hearing process, but that these items are not dependent on a footprint. Mr. Schmitt stated that the board is looking for this to get a PUD approved. -Ron Nino, Vanasse and Daylor, stated that he had mailed the commission comments. He appreciated the changes staff made since the previous meeting, but he still had some concerns with the requirements for the footprints. He reminded the commission that zoning was about determining the most appropriate use of the land, based on the community's comprehensive plan. He added that vertical improvements are not part of the zoning process. He feels elected officials and the general public, have been demanding more of the zoning process than was ever intended. He asked what difference it made, if a tract is illustrated as five acres in one scenario or six in another. He didn't feel that one could deduce a better or worse form of development, based on this information. He added that this level of specificity would bring countless inundations. If the BCC and staff's intention is to get a handle on vertical improvements, then he suggested that they require legislative approval of site development plans, since this is the point in which a developer makes this decision. He wanted to know why they wanted this information. Page 17 November 13, 2002 -Mr. Abemathy informed him that it was because the CCPC and the BCC don't review STP's, as in the city. Mr. Nino replied that maybe that is what they need to do. His point was that, that level of detail is not a function of zoning decisions. -Mr. Schneider responding, "with a planner's perspective", stated that he is required to look at these PUD's in consideration to the entire county and the compatibility, which is why they need an underlining theme to consider. Mr. Abernathy asked why it was that they do not review STP's. Mr. Schmitt informed him that it would cost a lot of money and time. Marjorie Student added that they would always be in hearing, when one considers the how large the county is and the amount of public input. Mr. Abernathy stated that all they were doing was moving this back to the site development stage. -Mr. Nino stated that he was not an advocate of legislative review of site plans. His concern is that the legislature or the planning commission would not deal with legitimate site development plan issues, but that it would get into a subjective condition where the job would never be done. He added that this should be left to administrative staff. -Mr. Richardson stated that this could be an area where they could work with this with staff on a workshop level. Mr. Abemathy asked what they wanted to do with this at the time. -Susan Murray noted that they removed the deviations from being listed in the PUD's and said they should be listed in the application. -Mr. Richardson stated that he was inclined to support staff and give this a try, if it creates problems they can look at it again. Mr. Wolfley stated that the PUD level of specificity was way too close. Mr. Budd agreed with Mr. Wolfley. -Mr. Richardson made a motion to support staff in the discussion they had about leaving the footprints in and making the other changes, which would be consistent with the growth management plan. It was seconded by Mr. Abernathy. The vote was 4 for - 2 opposed, (Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Budd were opposed). A ten-minute recess was taken. Page 18 November 13, 2002 IV. Items without registered speakers -Susan Murray stated that she would read through the numbers and stop at any that she had comments on. The commission agreed, and stated that they would stop her if they had any comments or questions as well. Susan Murray informed the commission that there was a new amendment in this packet, since the last meeting. The information reviewed in this portion of the meeting can be found in the staff memorandum packet, (referred to as the summary sheet). Section: 1.9.9 2.2.2.2-17.3: She reiterated that this was the public and private schools amendment. This was changed to just have the schools permitted uses in agricultural and estates. They removed the references to the residential districts. This essentially is consistent with the inteflocal agreement they are in with the school board. After the new interlocal, they would come back and make any changes needed. She is under the impression that they are in agreement with any state statutes. 2.2.3.4.3 2.2.12 2.2.12.1 -2.2.17 2.2.20 2.2.36 2.6.9, 2.6.9.1 & 2.6.9.2 2.6.15: They went through with the changes here and then discovered that there were some conflicts between departments. They suggested that this amendment be withdrawn at the time. Both departments agreed and the Solid Waste Amendment was withdrawn. 2.6.30 2.7.2.3.5: This is a new item. It is to move the public information time, to a time after submittal of an application, currently it is before application submittal. The change was partly because of the public information and staff review comments somewhat changing the scope. Mr. Abemathy asked if the public hearing examiner program affect the informational meetings. Mr. Schmitt stated that they would continue regardless. Mr. Richardson stated that he agreed with what they will accomplish by the change, but had concerns that staff would have to keep an open mind in this process. Mr. Schmitt stated that the meeting is the petitioner's meeting and is only facilitated by staff, and staff will stay impartial at this meeting. Mr. Richardson asked if it implied some level of approval Page 19 November 13, 2002 on the part of the planners at this stage. Mr. Schmitt stated, "absolutely not". The staff is only there as the advocate for citizens of Collier County, representing and providing guidance on the LDC and the GMP. -Mr. Richardson asked, in reference to item #2 -Page 71, if the written commitments were part of the original ordinance and where they were. Susan Murray replied that is more of a re-write of the following paragraph, and that it was more of an organizational change. Mr. Schmitt stated that the comments would be incorporated in with the staff comments or summarized in the findings, but most times the entire packet is not incorporated. Mr. Richardson stated he would begin to look closer for these promises. 2.7.3.1 2.7.3.4 2.7.5 3.2.4.8 3.2.6.4.8 3.2.6.5.1 3.2.6.5.8 3.2.8.2 3.2.8.3.14 3.3.7.1 3.3.7.1.2 3.3.7.1.10 3.3.8.4 3.3.8.6 3.3.10: She referenced the handout that she gave to the commission that day and the highlighted section. In regards to open and closed applications, she explained that this is the same language for the PUD section, but that it would apply to the conventional rezoning districts as well. This was to maintain consistency and was the only difference since the last time. Mr. Richardson asked for some clarification. Susan Murray informed him that the current language allowed the one-year extension of an approved STP, but to get the extension, the plan must be in compliance with the code. In order to determine compliance, there must be a review, which means that the STP would have to be re- submitted in its entirety. Basically, staff has the opinion that a two-year life span is adequate, which encompasses four LDC amendment cycles. They have attempted to put Page 20 November 13, 2002 in a straight lifespan of the STP, rather than providing an extension and those requirements. -Mr. Richardson asked if the comments of DSAC and their request for a change in language, had been accommodated. Mr. Schmitt stated that it was the sub-committee, who made the comments, but the overall committee approved this. Susan Murray stated they did make the changes that they wanted. -Mr. Richardson asked if it could be extended and if so what are the conditions for the extension. Patrick White explained, that this paragraph discusses a one-time opportunity for them to come in and amend, if in part of that amendment, they bring it up to code. So arguably there is an opportunity for four years, but really one only gets two years, because one must comply with the zoning districts code. This is what has driven the changes. Mr. Richardson asked, if they have to bring it up to code at the end of the two years in order to get another two years, what difference does it make. Mr. White stated that the key word might be impact fees. He explained that one of the forces driving this is the attempt to try and align the times that these development approvals live to a time that is no greater than what was contemplated as the maximum, shall apply for the certificate of adequate public facilities. Some of the discussion is that those COA's would have a maximum life of 7 years, based on the idea that is the longest period of time to create different types of info structure that can be built, that being roads. This is the exception to the rule, most people know what they want and have it built within two years. 3.4.5.1 3.4.5.1.7 3.4.5.1.10 3.4.5.2.2 3.4.7.1 3.4.7.1.3 - 3.4.7.1.4 3.4.7.2 3.4.7.2.1: Susan Murray noted that it should read: "approved the application and issue a permit with such conditions, if any which may be deemed necessary or..." 3.4.13.5.1 3.9.7: Mr. Richardson asked if the appeal process only applied to the vegetative process. Mr. White informed him that it applies solely to that section. This provision previously existed without this degree of specificity and without the apparent opportunity Page 21 November 13, 2002 for a code enforcement violator to side step the code enforcement process by using the appellate route. 3.13.6 3.13.8: Susan Murray reminded the commission that they already took action on this to deny, 6-0. 3.15.1: Susan Murray reminded the commission that they continued this to December 5, 2002. 3.16.2.1.2.1.7 - 3.16.2.1.2.1.10 3.16.2.1.2.2.1 - 3.16.2.1.2.2.3 3.16.2.4.1.1 - 3.16.2.4.1.9 5.22: Marjorie Student stated that Mr. Richardson had asked about the term for the member of the school board and residency requirements. She added that this is statutory and she spoke with the Department of Community Affairs, who advised her that these things were not considered. She suggested a four-year term for the school member and she would like to add this to the motion. The school board is allowed to pick the person, so she did not think they should discuss residency issues. She also pointed out that there are additional areas that may need to be worked out with the school board in the future. Mr. Abernathy asked if it was a voting member. Marjorie Student replied that this was up to the BCC, but she felt the commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Abernathy stated that his opinion was that it should be an advisory position. Mr. Wolfley stated that there was a reason they were a commission of 9, one being to avoid a deadlock. The commission agreed to recommend that the school district member should be an advisory member in those cases specified in 5.2.2.11 with a four-year term. 5.2.3.1 5.13.2.3 6.3 -The commission decided to do a blanket vote, with the finding of consistency with the GMP, the inclusion of the recommendation of the four-year term and an advisory position for the school board member. Mr. Schmitt stated that this would exclude the separate pieces that they have already taken action on. The commission agreed. -Mr. Budd made a motion for approval, with the finding of consistency with the GMP, the inclusion of the recommendation of the four-year term and an advisory position for the school board member, excluding the separate pieces that they have already taken Page 22 November 13, 2002 action on. Lora Jean Young seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. -The commission inquired as to the health of commissioner Fry. They stated they would send an email of concern to his wife and expressed hope for his good health. V. Adjournment - Adjournment was at 8:10 PM. Page 23