Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/09/2003 SApril9,2003 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LDC AMENDMENTS - Cycle One 2003 Board Meeting Room, 3rtl Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 5:05 PM April 9, 2003 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 5:05 PM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Mark Strain David J. Wolfey Speakers & Staff: Patrick White Marjorie Student Bill Lorenz Joe Schmitt Susan Murray Barb Burgeson Ross Gochenaur Tom Kuck Michelle Crowley Russ Mueller Stan Chrzanowski Tom Tomerlin John Yonkoski Doug Suitor Stan Litsinger Aaron Blair Kay Deselem Bob Mulhere Nancy Linnan Page 1 April 9, 2003 I. The Pledge of Allegiance -The meeting was called to order at 5:14 PM. -Roll call was done: Mr. Richardson, Mr. Budd, Mr. Adelstein, and Ms. Young were absent. -A quorum was established. II. Rural Land Stewardship Area Amendments -Mr. Schmitt stated that they would provide the CCPC with an overview of the amendments, but they are currently "evolving" and the final draft of these amendments will be reviewed on April 17 or April 30. -The CCPC agreed to review the final draft of RLSA amendments on April 30, 2003. -Robert Duane, representing DSAC, stated that DSAC mailed a letter to the CCPC, explaining that they were able to reach an agreement with staff on most of the LDC amendments for the RLSA, but there were 8 or 9 items that they have been unable to reach agreement on. He handed a copy of the letter to the court reporter. -Nancy Linnan, County's outside consultant for Growth Management, stated that this is the first hearing for the implementation of the Eastem Lands Goals, Objectives, and Policies. In the first cycle they will implement the mechanics of the designations of the SSAs and the SRAs. She explained that if adopted this cycle, one would be able to apply, but NOT be approved until all the relevant amendments have been adopted. The second cycle will cover the environmental standards for the fringe, if it goes into effect, and the baseline standards. The third cycle will cover transfer developments rights and design criteria. When the board deals with these amendments, they will be taking two actions: adopting the zoning areas and rezoning. Changes that they are currently working on in these amendments are: defining terms, determining EAC's involvement, set out of objective criteria, credit system details, details on the interaction of the DRI process and SRA process, and adding certain facilities to the facilities impact assessment. Staff is also looking into certain policy areas of the amendments. They want to encourage people to put land into SSAs, so they are reviewing the proper balance of requirements for restoration. The criteria are set out for the SSAs, they are now looking at whether or not the board will be able to turn down an applicant who meets all the criteria. The staff will Page 2 April9,2003 have a draft by April 18, 2003. They are scheduling a meeting with all groups who have commented or would like to comment on the environmental perspective. This meeting will probably be in two weeks. The EAC supported the overall concept of the RLSA overlay, but asked that staff continue to work with the three "bodies" that presented concerns and try to incorporate all their recommendations. Staff has committed to do this. -Mr. Abernathy asked what the compensation for this was and who was paying it. Nancy Linnan explained that the county has the ability to become a "banker", if they choose to, but probably it is not the likely option. She explained that they expect money to be given from federal and state government. Mr. Abernathy stated that he hoped it would not involve the county taxpayer funds. -Mr. Midney asked if the EAC would meet on this topic again and if the CCPC would be able to see the outcome of the meeting with the three agencies. Mr. Mulhere stated that the EAC decided not to meet on this topic again, but reserved the right to discuss the topic again before the matter goes before the board. -Mr. Strain asked if something at a later date affected the matters approved during this cycle, could they return to this material and make changes. Nancy Linnan stated that they could return to this and do amendments. -Mr. Schmitt stated that there are no registered speakers for section 2.27. -Mr. White reviewed the affa davit of publication provided by the Naples Daily News and found that it was legally sufficient, therefore the meeting could go forward with respect to all of the matters included in the CCPC packet, with the exception of those provisions of 1.18, 5.4, and 2.27. Therefore, this meeting was not the first of the two public meetings for any of these provisions. He handed the alfa davit of publication over to the records custodian. Mr. White asked the CCPC to choose if they would like 1 or 2 meetings for each portion of this LDC amendment cycle; the provision in the LDC that allows this choice is located in section 2.7.2.3.4. Mr. White added that because they do not have adequate notice, in terms of publication, this is not the first meeting for section 2.27. Page 3 April9,2003 -Mr. Strain moved that the first 41 items listed in the summary table, with the exception of 1.18 and 5.4, be heard in two meetings. It was seconded by Mr. Midney. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. -Mr. White recommended that the CCPC have only 1 public meeting on sections 1.18 and 5.4, since they are merely housekeeping matters and will not need a large amount of time for discussion. Mr. Abernathy said he would be fine with it as long as it was not cited to him in the future as authority for doing it again. Mr. White agreed. -Mr. Schiffer moved that the CCPC have 1 public meeting on sections 1.18 and 5.4. It was seconded by Mr. Strain. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. -Mr. Strain moved that the CCPC have 2 meetings on 2.2.27 provisions for the actual text. It was seconded by Mr. Midney. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. -Mr. White suggested that they have 1 public meeting regarding the matter pertaining to the actual creation of the rezoning overlay; RLSA overlay zoning district. -Mr. Strain moved that the CCPC have 2 meetings on this section, the RLSA overlay zoning district. It was seconded by Mr. Midney. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. III. The first Public hearing for the forty listed items, with the exception of sections 1.18, 5.4, and 2.27 -Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager, stated that item 2.7.6 has been withdrawn. Staffwill be taking a closer look at and revising this section. A) Section 2.6.22 Manatee Protection - Page 27 of the packet -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, stated that this amendment is an attempt to incorporate the manatee protection plan into the LDC. He clarified that the language being used in the LDC amendment, is how staff has been interpreting the MPP since 1995. The DSAC reviewed and concurred with all of the amendment, except for the STP approval portion. The DSAC would like the issuance of permits to be stipulated at the time of STP approval, rather than have the permits in hand before STP approval. The EAC reviewed the amendment, took a motion that failed, and asked staff to meet with certain concerned parties and discuss the five mile area Page 4 April9,2003 of influence. Staffhas set this meeting up for next Tuesday. The EAC took no formal motion. There were a few issues that emerged regarding this amendment and Mr. Lorenz stated that he would like to clarify them. Mr. Lorenz explained that the MPP does not apply to single family docks. The MPP does apply to all multi-dock facilities, regardless of size. And the third issue, was that the rating system is the same system that exists in the MPP, but it gives clarification on the five mile travel distance to ensure that there is adequate depth to a boat dock facility; preferred site rating. Mr. Lorenz explained that the rating for a preferred site rating allows for 18 boat docks per foot of shoreline. -Mr. Abernathy asked for clarification on the difference of opinion between staff and DSAC. Mr. Lorenz informed him, that in order to get the preferred site ranking, one has to have five miles of adequate water depth from a facility. Staff allows this to occur with the use of dredging. Staff says that in order to get the preferred rating, they will have to have the federal and state permits in hand, before they can approve the STP associated with the facility. DSAC recommends that the STP could be approved stipulated upon the state and federal permits. -Barbara Burgeson explained that staff requires the federal and state permits for dredging prior to the STP approval, because prior to state and federal permits, staff does not know that the site will be approved for dredging and they do not know what the impacts will be on native and marine habitat. She explained that they also need to make sure that the applicant complies with and state or federal conditions, which are added to the STP approval after the state and federal permits are issued. She explained that staff has no way to re-open an already approved STP and add these special conditions after the fact. Also, SWFL Water Management District informed Barbara Burgeson, that when staff approves a site development plan prior to state and federal permitting, then staff is allowing site improvements and clearing to be done by the applicant before a final site inspection can be done by state or federal agencies. Public Speakers 1) Butch Morgan, representing Marine Industries of Collier County, stated that they do not agree with the changes made to the MPP. They do not agree Page 5 April9,2003 with the issue of adequate water depth for a five mile water travel distance. He explained that they believe this amendment needs further review and that they do not support the language being changed to be stricter than the original legislation. He informed the CCPC that there is currently a lawsuit with the interior department of the Manatee Club. They believe that they need to first here the rulings of this lawsuit before placing the MPP into the LDC, since the county may have to adjust some of the MPP due to the rulings of the federal lawsuit. Marine Industries wants the MPP to stay exactly as it is, when it is placed in the LDC, or they would like a better understanding of the changes. They asked for a chance to review this amendment further and reminded the CCPC that the EAC recommended that a meeting be held to discuss this plan further. -Barbara Burgeson stated that the EAC did not vote to deny the MPP amendment. She explained that the EAC attempted two motions that failed and then decided to take no formal motion on the matter, but they made a motion to have staff work with the groups that were present and try to come to a solution. She clarified that the EAC was concerned about the five mile distance requirement. Staff explained to the EAC that the way the amendment was written, was the way that staff had always interpreted and applied the MPP. -Bill Lorenz added that they sent the documentation of the amendment to the state in January 2003 and they have since received a letter from the state, agreeing with staff's interpretation of the five mile travel distance. He further explained that it is staff's intent to clarify the language in the MPP and the way that staff has been applying the plan. 2) Todd Turrell, owner of a local marine consulting company, stated that he was on the Marine Industries committee that drafted the original MPP. He informed the CCPC that he disagrees with the five mile radius, explaining that the original committee approved the five mile radius in regards to Manatee mortality, but it had nothing to do with water depths. He was concerned about current business that would not be able to get a preferred ranking. He felt that the Protected Species Department of the state of Florida, would agree with any legislation that was more restrictive of the original interpretation. He did Page 6 April9,2003 not feel that this was practical. He noted that there is a part of the MPP that says water depths "may" be considered. He felt that changing this to what "has to be", would eliminating and damaging existing marinas from the ability to get the preferred ranking. 3) Dan Cox, representing the finn Young, Van Assenderp, Vamdoe, & Anderson, showed the CCPC the proposed language for section 2.6.22.4.3 and the existing language of the MPP section 3.2.4. He explained that the MPP has no requirement that adequate water depth apply for a five mile length, only to any natural or man-made navigable channel. They believe that that Manatee morality should only be counted one time, and not twice, in two separate spheres of influence. This is why they feel that the five mile distance only applies to the Manatee mortality criteria. They feel that the proposed amendment is expansive from the language in the MPP and goes beyond the scope of what was originally intended in the MPP. -Mr. Strain felt that they should endorse the EAC's position, that this matter be further looked into between now and the final reading. The CCPC agreed. B) Section 2.2.32.3.9 - Sidewalks -Mr. Tom Tomerlin, Transportation Department, stated that this amendment was basically a definition and clarification. Staff is adding the word "bicycle traffic" and an interconnection reference into the definition of sidewalks. Public Speakers 1) Michael Fernandez, Planning Development, stated their concern is that, by inserting this text, one adjoining property may have to meet a specific location for interconnection, when that location may not work for the intended use on the parcel. This would make the second parcel to always work toward the first. Currently it is addressed by allowing people to connect to the right-of-way sidewalk that then connects to the adjoining parcel, if unable to do it intemally. He asked that the language be let~ as it currently is. -Mr. Tomerlin felt that the language was general and basically saying that adjacent projects shall coordinate the location and interconnection of sidewalks. Page 7 April9,2003 -Mr. Strain suggested that they add the words "and encourage the interconnection of sidewalks". Mr. Fernandez felt that this would be appropriate. Russ Mueller, Engineering, stated that they currently use the word "encourage" and that it does not work. He explained that they are hoping that when a subdivision is built next to a shopping center that a sidewalk would connect the subdivision and the commercial area, so that pedestrians do not have to go into the major arterial roadways. Mr. Schiffer did not feel that this amendment clearly stated the intentions of staff. -Mr. Strain stated that in the past neighborhoods have not wanted this connection and asked if there was a way to address this in the amendment. Mr. Tomerlin stated that they can explore this, but cautioned that it is only a definition. Mr. Strain felt that it was more than a definition since the word "shall" was used. Mr. Tomerlin replied that it does require that they coordinate the location and interconnection of sidewalks with other properties, but it does not tell one how to go about doing so. C) Section 3.2.83.3.17 & Other Sidewalk Amendments (Increasing width and removing the definition of bike paths) -Tom Tomerlin, Transportation Department, stated that this amendment calls for extra width for sidewalks on collectors, arterials, and local streets. He used a pictorial to show the CCPC the current code (6ft) and the proposed code (8fi). He added that this change was generated from citizen's involvement; members of the Pathway Advisory Committee were present. The code is an attempt to be more accommodating to the variety of uses for sidewalks. -Mr. Strain asked what the narrowest fight-of-way was to accommodate a sidewalk. Mr. Mueller stated that the smallest would be 70fi. Mr. Schiffer asked if the bike path and sidewalk would be right alongside the road. Mr. Mueller replied that a sidewalk is separated from the road as much as the right-of-way allows and a bike lane is contiguous. Mr. Mueller explained that the increase in width is to allow for all the uses and that bicycles are allowed on sidewalks unless there is a specific ordinance against it. Mr. Chrznowski explained that small children or slow speed bikers would be able to use the new sidewalks for bikes, while the higher speed bikers will be able to use the bike lanes. Page 8 April9,2003 -Mr. Strain asked if they could leave this amendment for the arterial and collector roads, but remove it from local roads. Mr. Mueller stated that people on local roads generally bike on the road, but it is advised to allow this use on the sidewalks of local streets. Mr. Tomerlin clarified that on local streets, staff'was proposing a 12inch increase on sidewalks on both sides, but bike lanes would only be constructed on collectors and arterials; they are not requiring bike lanes on local roads. Tom Kuck, Engineering Director, stated that they will come back at the next meeting with examples of typical sections for arterial, collector, and local streets that show the current widths and possible changes. -Mr. Midney asked what would happen to all the asphalt sidewalks. Mr. Tomerlin replied that asphalt sidewalks are being deleted and this would not do anything about the currently existing ones. -The CCPC decided to hear this amendment and the other sidewalk amendments together and then go to public speakers for all sidewalk items. Section 3.2.8.4.14 -Mr. Tomerlin stated that the first sentence should be stricken out and not underlined, since they are eliminating the definitions of bike paths. This means that bikes travel in bike lanes or on the sidewalks with pedestrians. He explained that this requires an extra 2inches of thickness to concrete sidewalks. DSAC recommended approval, but to leave the thickness of the sidewalks at 4inches. This section also requires that bike lanes be constructed in compliance with FDOT standards and eliminates asphalt sidewalks. -Mr. Strain believed that the elimination of asphalt was a good idea, but saw no need to increase the sidewalks to 6inches in thickness. Mr. Mueller stated that the change in thickness was because the 4inches was not always met due to the use of a smaller 2 by 4's. The hope is that the extra 2inches will promote the use ora 2 by 6 and therefore the four inches at least will be met. It will also be better for maintenance. -Mr. Midney asked why a better base isn't used when pouring concrete, which would decrease the amount of concrete needed. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the inspectors do not test the base under the sidewalk. He stated that staff could require some kind of base testing, if the development community would be amenable to it. Page 9 April9,2003 -Mr. Strain did not feel that increasing the thickness to 6inches was the answer. Mr. Schiffer asked if staff could allow those, who were willing to provide a compaction test, to pour concrete to 4inches or 5 ½ inches. Mr. Chrzanowski explained that this was a suggestion of the TECM, since they are the ones replacing the sidewalks, and stated that the sidewalks were too thin or improperly poured. Mr. Chrzanowski added that they could hire more inspectors and require more testing, but it may be cheaper to just pour to 6inches. He stated that it was up to the development community. -Tom Kuck stated that another option was to require corings every 300-500ft and if found to be insufficient, the pavement would have to be replaced. -The CCPC directed staff to look further into the different options discussed and bring back the final version at the next meeting. Page 90 & Page 91 - Definitional Changes. -Mr. Tomerlin stated that they are eliminating the definition of bike path, adding the definition of bike lane (FDOT definition), and deleting "if properly sized" from page 91 under the definition of sidewalk. -Mr. Abernathy, with regard to the bike lane, asked if the FDOT standards were to both the markings and width. Mr. Tomerlin stated that the bike lanes would be constructed in accordance with the standards of FDOT for the markings and the width. -Mr. Schiffer asked if the code prohibited motorized vehicles from the bike paths. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that it does happen, but he doesn't know how to word it since sometimes it is maintenance golf carts. Mr. Mueller stated that the law says you cannot have a motorized vehicle on a sidewalk, but it will happen. He added that you cannot park on a sidewalk. Public Speakers 1)-Michael Fernandez, stated that in their cross-section they show a compacted base and if the county put this in their specifications there would not be a problem in achieving the 4inches. He added that the problem is that there are no standards. He did not believe that the testing was necessary, but felt the standards would suffice. He was in favor of wider sidewalks, but wanted them in proportion to how much pedestrian traffic was anticipated on a roadway. This provision Page 10 April9,2003 removes the ability of the BCC to exempt a project, he believed that this provision should stay in. He also felt they needed to look at the cross-section and whether or not they are loosing green-space. He wants staff to look at the cross-sections in conjunction with turning lanes. He feels that state guidelines are merely suggestions and would like to see the standards consolidated and written into the code. -Mr. Tomerlin stated that the cross-section points were good and they would look at this. In regards to the bike lane definition that references FDOT standards, he stated that the intent is to follow the minimum listed requirements. He stated that both guidebooks were online at myflorida.com. -Mr. Abernathy stated that staff should use the word "requirements", when they reference FDOT standards and guidelines. Mr. Tomerlin stated this was a good suggestion and they will look at this. 2) Deborah Forester, with the Bonita Bay Group, stated that she supports DSAC's recommendation of not changing the width and depths of sidewalks, due to cost and use of more land. She thought it was a good idea to look at cross- sections and asked that they look at some of the financial costs associated. On Page 51, multi-family districts and all residential components of PUD districts, she asked for further clarification. -Mr. Strain stated that this was what he was trying to get at as well and he felt this would be "flushed out" when staff returns with more details. Mr. Chrzanowski replied that those words were added due to discussions with residents of Pelican Marsh, because they do not have standards for putting sidewalks in a project that is not a sub-division. Mr. Mueller stated that he might have been in error about the different sections, but they will return with some sections and examples that provide more detail. 3) Peter IL Lilienthal, stated that he is a member of the MPO's Pathway Committee. He expressed disappointment that the school district was not present to support additional sidewalks in the county for school children. He explained that originally he was in support of these amendments, but has seen that more work needs to be done. His committee was looking for "fill in the gap type segments" to provide interconnectivity in sidewalks. He added that the benefits Page 11 April9,2003 of sidewalks are increased safety for school children, less need to use roadways to get to adjoining properties, increased property values, and less cost to sidewalk maintenance. 4) Robert Mulhere, stated that he is a member of DSAC, but he was representing himself. He suggested the CCPC use DSAC as a resource when they make decisions concerning development standards and regulations. Regarding the matter that dealt with connection of sidewalks of adjacent properties, DSAC recommended "internal connection" be removed. DSAC determined to write a report that provided the CCPC with details on the matters that concerned them. The CCPC had this report in their packets. Mr. Mulhere added that on page 51, in regards to sidewalks in multi-residential facilities, he advised they try to develop a minimum number of units where sidewalks are required. A ten minute recess was taken at 7:15 PM. D) Section 3.9.5.5.6 - Page 70 of the CCPC Packet -Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services, stated that this amendment takes existing sections of the LDC and existing policies that staff applies, and adds new criteria to identify the criteria that should be applied to native vegetation preservation areas. Staff is requiring that they be identified as preserve areas, platted, and the largest most contiguous areas set aside for preservation. Some criteria have been added to the minimum width of preserves and to the amount of preserves that must be created in relation to the size of the parcel. One change has been made since this has been sent to the EAC. The change is in regards to setback requirements, which as it is currently written in the LDC, does not allow for any impacts within the first 10ft adjacent to preserve areas. Staff is changing the language to allow for some impacts, placement of fill, within the first 1 Oft as long as there is no negative impact to the preserve as a result of that placement of fill. She added that no one contacted her with any negative concerns, questions, or issues. -Mr. Strain asked if it was an average width or a minimum width. Barbara Burgeson replied that there are two issues; the wetland buffers are determined by SWFL Water Page 12 April9,2003 District and a setback to all preserves. She explained that the county setback is measured from the edge of the boundary of the preserve. Public Speakers 1) Jeff Davidson, stated that he was an engineer in Naples, Florida. He explained that he understood that they are supposed to send water management into the preserve areas, whether they are dry or wet. He felt this functioned well and wanted to see the developer maintain the ability to use the preserve areas for water management, rather than digging lakes. -Barbara Burgeson stated that this amendment does not address or preclude the issue that Mr. Davidson was discussing. 2) William Hoover, Land Planner for Hoover Planning, stated that he was concerned with some of the native vegetation requirements. He asked for more flexibility; an average distance from setback preserves rather than a minimum. He proposed a 25ft setback from, even in an upland, native vegetation area. He did not have a problem with the wetland restrictions being 25ft, even without the flexibility of 15ft. He wanted the upland buffer to only be 10ft to accessory and principal structures, stating that he saw no need for the extra 15ft. If the site planner was not allowed to count buffers, then he believed that they should be allowed some flexibility if they agree to make the buffers wider. His biggest concern was that they would be pricing people out of the market. He asked that staff explore the possibility of creating an incentive system, especially when considering single-family homes. -Barbara Burgeson stated that the 25ft and 15ft on wetland buffers has nothing to do with this amendment; this LDC amendment was on setbacks, not buffers. She clarified that the setbacks of 25ft and 10ft have always been in the LDC. The proposed amendment is to make this more flexible by allowing some impacts in the 1 Oft. She added that she was willing to sit down with Mr. Hoover and explain the differences. -Mr. Strain asked if staff could bring some diagrams that show how the buffers fit together, the setback, etc.., to the next meeting. Barbara Burgeson stated that she would bring in some diagrams at the next meeting. Page 13 April9,2003 -Mr. Abemathy noted that the only objection or suggestion that DSAC had with this amendment, was that the preserve area widths not apply to projects currently under review or PUD masterplans indicate small buffer widths on approved PUD masterplans. Barbara Burgeson stated that the EAC and DSAC recommended approval as submitted. 3) Dwight Nadean, Planning Manager for RWA, represented various clients. He stated that they had an objection to the development standards that were being imposed on the code for these native preserves. He explained that this goes beyond what the regulating agencies, who hold the permits, require. He added that now, when he does his site planning, he must look at the native vegetation areas on the site that can qualify to be defined as "native vegetation". This leads to a new site analysis and he recommended that they not apply these standards to PUDs currently in review. He used a diagram of 175fi deep lot, to show the CCPC an example of how this would change PUDs currently in review. He asked for PUDs currently in review to be exempted from a "date certain". He also felt that they needed to be able to "create" their wetland preserves in their developments. He clarified that he would like the prohibition on creation of wetland preserves to be removed and to have the width of the required buffers re- considered. He provided the diagram to one of the members of the CCPC for review; a copy was not provided to the court reporter. -Barbara Burgeson stated that the current GMP prohibits the preserve area from being a part of a residential lot, so the example, provided by Mr. Nadeau, should not apply. She added that they do allow fill within the first 10fi of a wetland as long as it does not negatively impact the preserve area. She reminded the CCPC that they are not requiring a 50ft preserve area around the perimeter of the project; the opportunity is there if the developer chooses to do it that way. She stated that she would meet with Mr. Nadeau between now and the next meeting to discuss these items, if he chose to. She added that if SFL water management or another permit requires the creation of wetland preserves on site, then it is important and she agrees this needs to be placed into the amendment. -Mr. Strain stated that it would be helpful if agencies that objected to proposed amendments would meet with staff to discuss the issues, before bringing it before the Page 14 April9,2003 CCPC. Mr. Nadeau agreed, but stated that the information is not made "readily available" to them in order to do so. 4) Michael Fernandez, Planning Development, stated that he did not believe that this is current policy. He added that these issues are new ones and the old ones that they "tackled" when they dealt with preserving a percentage of the site. One of the compromises in that discussion was development standards that allow for flexibility, because they allowed you to preserve without minimum width requirements. He cited an example of a current proposed project that could not be built with the new requirements. He noted that nothing in the amendment addresses the sites that have a limited amount of vegetation. He added that they need to be able to address this issue as though not all sites were vegetated, with the ability to mitigate, and standards that provide more flexibility than they currently have. He stated that he is willing to meet with staff. -Barbara Burgeson stated that in regards to the minimum widths, the small areas that have been acceptable in the past do not function as native vegetation areas, which is why they are looking to require minimum widths in these areas. She added that they can put an exemption section in this amendment for the areas with unusual circumstances. E) Littoral Standards - Page 61 of the CCPC Packet -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, stated that this was a change to the littoral standards in the LDC. It provides for better standards for designing the littoral zones. Staff has found that the designs in the current code do not allow for survivability of the littoral zones that have been planted. Staff worked with a number of individuals and designer professionals, and incorporated their suggestions into the proposed amendment. Mr. Lorenz refers to these changes as the "technical standards". The existing code requires the littoral zone to be equal to 2% of the surface area of the pond or lake that the littoral zone will be planted in. Staff recommends that this be increased from 2% to 10%. He stated that 2% of a total lake on site is very small and staff feels that they will gain increased habitat by changing to 10%. The GMP did adopt a 30% area for the rural fringe and 2.5% for the urban standard. The EAC and DSAC approved the current proposal. Page 15 April9,2003 -Mr. Strain noted that staff added the words, "dry season water table" to section 3.5.7.3.2, and asked how this related to the control elevations. He referred staff to Page 66, under shelf elevation, where it discusses the LSPA related to "the tolerable and expected range of water level functions", which are directly related to the control elevations. Mr. Lorenz replied that the analysis will have to look at both elevations. -Mr. Strain asked if staff might want to look at adding water quality as applicable criteria to the plant selections and specifications page. Mr. Lorenz stated that they would look at this. -Mr. Wolfey asked what brought in the language on exemptions for aquaculture. Mr. Lorenz stated that this was a comment from a DSAC member, who indicated that the way it was previously worded, it would apply to all excavations and if one was excavating for an aqua-cultural operation, then the planting of literal zones would not be compatible. Mr. Strain asked if staff was going to offer an exemption for a drainage canal as well. Mr. Lorenz replied that this won't apply to a canal, that the language is specific to lakes. Public Speakers 1) Dwight Nadeau, Planning for RWA, stated that they were against the increase of littoral shelving to 10% of the ponds area. He explained that the increase could result in more trucks on the road-ways in order to remove larger amounts of dirt and therefore cause greater impact to roads and increase the cost of housing. 2) Michael Fernandez, stated that he felt they were losing either 9% of land or losing the fill by increasing the littoral shelving to 10% of the ponds area. He explained that it cost more money to truck the land, and this causes more impacts and costs. He was against the change from 2.5% to 10%. He felt that they were being asked "to actually create wetlands without having projects that impacted wetlands". He added that they will be trying to propose an amendment to the GMP that addresses the 30% requirement. -Mr. Strain asked, since it was in essence creating wetlands, if it could be used for mitigation against wetland areas on site that may need to be disturbed. Mr. Lorenz stated that it gets complicated, since some of the agencies may not accept this as mitigation from the developer. Mr. Lorenz stated that they could look at this. Page 16 April 9, 2003 F) Vehicles on the Beach - Page 73 of the CCPC Packet -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services, stated that this amendment was an attempt to consolidate some redundant sections in thc code. Staff also added language that would accommodate the county's beach raking equipment on the beach on an "as needed" basis. They also added the language that the mechanical raking done by the county that penetrates the beach surface, shall have a setback of 15ft from dune vegetation. This is 5ft higher than the state requires. This equipment is only run by the county. Mr. Lorenz also defined what other private entities arc doing as "beach grooming',, that does not penetrate the beach surface. The DSAC approved with the recommendation that the amendment follow thc state standard of 10ft from dune vegetation. Staffheld the county to the 15ft requirement, but allowed 1 Oft for thc private entities doing "beach grooming". The EAC approved this, unanimously, with the original proposal of 15ft setbacks. -On Page 75, where it reads: "Permits shall only be issued for ATVs when staff has determined that...", Mr. Strain suggested that it "that" should be changed to "PSD" or "designee". On the following paragraph, where it reads: "...additional corridors may be approved when appropriate and necessary...", Mr. Strain suggested that staff add "in thc opinion of ESD". He suggested that the same phrase be added to the last sentence of this section: "If no alternative is available .... ". Mr. Strain also agreed with thc Conservancy's opinion regarding leaving in certain language for clarification that had been eliminated because staff felt it was redundant. Mr. Lorenz stated that staff could do this. -There were no public speakers on this topic. G) Solid Waste Disposal - Page 22 of the CCPC Packet - Section 2.6.15.6 -John Yonkosky, Public Utilities Division, stated that this amendment is partly "housekeeping" for language and a process that allows staff to review and identify the needs for multi-family dumpster service. -Mr. Strain asked why they use deed restricted areas as a qualifier on page 25. Mr. Yonkosky replied that it is not as much an issue in thc non-deed restricted areas. Mr. Strain asked if the dumpsters are allowed within thc 10ft separation from buildings or if Page 17 April 9, 2003 they would further intrude. Mr. Yonkosky stated that it would be required to be placed at the rear of the building. Public Speakers 1) Michael Fernandez, stated that he was unaware of the separation from structures. He thought that dumpsters were exempt from this and believed that they should be. Hc also believed that thc dumpster should bc able to be placed in the front of thc building when necessary. He asked for a diagram to show clarification for the access areas. His clients also believe that it is desirable to put dumpsters farther away and therefore are in support of the 500ft distance versus the 250ft distance. He asked that if they decided to pass this provision, that staff enact a provision that allows one to go to the service provider and present a diagram of the proposed layout. He felt that if this diagram were reasonable, then it should be approved. -John Yonkosky replied to the last statement and informed Mr. Fernandez that this is what staff is doing. He did not favor putting dumpsters in the front of the building due to complaints. The distance of 250ft -500ft was to accommodate children and older people. He explained that the front of a building will be further defined. -Mr. Schiffer asked why they encouraged having the dumpster attached to the building. Mr. Yonkosky replied that it was so the people on the ground floor cannot see it. Mr. Schiffer stated that not only should a device to hold it open be required, but also a device to hold it closed. Mr. Yonkosky agreed. -Mr. Strain asked if the 250ft - 500ft portion could have the wording "subject to review" added, so that plans could be submitted to his department for review, rather than everyone having to strictly adhere. Mr. Yonkosky stated that staff could do this. H) Section 3.3.9 - Amendments and Insubstantial Changes - Page 59 -Mr. Mueller stated that he would entertain any questions. -Mr. Strain asked about "major impact" to water management; his concern was that major was not consistent in the changes. Mr. Mueller stated that they will delete it for Page 18 April9,2003 consistency. Mr. Strain also noted that they should add the language that leaves it up to the "engineering director" to 1,3, 7 & 9. -There were no public speakers present. I) Section 2.4.3.6 - Landscaping and Buffering - Page 15 -Michele Krouly, Code Enforcement, stated that this amendment changed the language to delete the reference to a particular standard practice that refers to the year 1993; it now refers to the "current" standards. -Mr. Schiffer asked if the reference to the ANSI code could remain in and only delete the reference to the year. Michele Krouly stated that they could do this. Public Speakers 1) Michael Fernandez, stated that the county should not make a commitment to whatever the current code is, since the county may not want to adopt future changes blindly. He suggested that they review code changes as they come in and then update the LDC. J) Section 2.2.33- Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay District - Page 7 -Aaron Blair, Urban Design Planner for Community Planning, offered to answer any questions and added that it was an expansion of a current overlay. -Mr. Strain asked if the district was South of 41. Mr. Blair stated that it was. Mr. Strain asked if they discouraged mobile homes in high hurricane hazard areas. Mr. Blair stated that it was already zoned for mobile homes and they were allowing them to be replaced. Mr. Strain asked if they could take the word "encourage" out. Mr. Blair stated that they could. Mr. Strain recommended that on section 2.2.33.21, staff use the word "allowed" rather than "required. Mr. Blair said okay. -Mr. Schiffer asked if they could reference the community character plan in order to establish what "traditional neighborhood design" is. Mr. Blair stated that they could do this. K) Page 3 Page 19 April9,2003 -Kay Deselem stated that she was available for questions and answers. -Mr. Strain asked if model homes could exist in the Estates. Kay Deselem stated that most of them exist as a temporary use and once this use expires, they are required to get a conditional use. L) Section 2.3.16- Off Street Parking and Stacking- Page 13 -Kay Deselem stated that the amendment added a few words to clarify where the stacking would be. This applies to buildings that become non-conforming. M) Section 2.7.16 - Cancellation of a Re-zoning - Page 38 -Kay Deselem stated that this amendment clarifies a time limit. N) Section 2.7.3.4.1.A - Page 39 -Susan Murray explained that this corrects an omission. O) Section 2.7.4.11 - Grandfathering - Page 41 & 42 -Susan Murray explained that on Pages 40, 41, & 43 an applicability provision has been added for when a petition could be deemed closed. -Mr. Strain asked about the possibility of"grandfathering" and if there was anyone to prevent this by changing the language. Kay Deselem stated that it is a possibility, but did not feel that they could prevent every one of these types of situations. -Mr. Schiffer asked if they could put notification into the LDC of a "dead" application. Mr. Schmitt stated that it is not a good area to get into, where the county is notifying the applicant of"dead applications". He felt it was a large, legal responsibility that should be borne by the applicant. Mr. White stated that "applicants are presumed to know the law". P) Section 2.5.6 & Section 2.5.7.30 - Open Signs -Page 16 -Michele Krouly, Code Enforcement, stated that the LDC prohibits all illuminated signs, neon or otherwise installed inside a business or visible from the outside. The proposed amendment was drafted upon the BCC directive to allow an open sign to be lit inside of a business, but not to include neon illumination sources, as neon is commonly defined. Page 20 April9,2003 This was presented to the BCC yesterday in executive summary form. The BCC indicated that this was good. -Mr. Abernathy felt that they should allow neon open signs or at least grandfather the current ones. He believed that this made the county look "silly". Mr. White replied that it is still permissible for signage as long as it is not exposed, it has to be covered with a translucent material. -Mr. Abernathy stated that they should at least grandfather the current signs. Michele Krouly stated that they were protected by amortization for three years; in 2000 until February 1, 2003. She added that many have put the signs in since 2000. -Mr. Abemathy asked about Barber Poles. Mr. Schmitt stated that they are fully authorized as long as it is attached to the building. Michele Krouly added that it cannot rotate, because all signs in the county are prohibited from movement. -Mr. White added that there were slight differences from the provision the BCC reviewed the day before, but the one that the CCPC was viewing was the likely one to move forward. He also noted that the word "retail" in the second line, will most likely be removed by the second meeting. Q) Section 1.8.2 - Nonconforming lots of record - Page 1 -Tom Kuck, stated that this amendment was requested by the tax appraiser's office. This was primarily to assist with bookkeeping and combine two numbers into one folio number. The taxes will be the same. -Mr. White stated clarified that this amendment makes clear that the splitting or recombining of parcels is only about the folio numbers, not the lots, and it does not effect the sale of either lot. He explained that he had made some changes to this amendment, but did not see them, so the CCPC may see a slightly different draft at the next meeting. Susan Murray stated that she would look into which draft was being used. -Mr. White added that staff is looking at the distinction between lots of records, non- conforming lots, and trying to "fix" some of it in this provision. R) Section 2.6.4 - Exceptions to required yards - Page 18 Page 21 April9,2003 -Ross Gockaneuer, Planning Services, stated that he was available for questions and that he tried to outline what he was doing in the "change in reason". S) Section 2.6.4.2 - Page 19 -Susan Murray stated that she noticed a few typos in this amendment and that Development Services Director should be referenced as Planning Services Director. -Mr. Gockaneuer was present and answered some clarifying questions for the CCPC. This amendment only applies to single family mobile homes. T) Section2.6.33.3 - Temporary Construction Permits - Page 36 -Mr. Gockaneuer stated that this amendment legitimizes something they have been doing over the years, but it gives them the language and ability to control it legally. -Mr. Strain asked why they were giving 2 years to build a 2500sq ft house. He felt that this was too long a time to provide for building a small house. He suggested a minimum and maximum time for particular sized homes. U) Section 3.3.3 - Applicability - Page 55 -Mr. Gockaneuer stated that this amendment was at the request of Parks and Recreation and they have attempted to expedite the process for minor projects that do not require any info-structures, parking structures, etc... -Mr. Strain asked if it would be the same for private or public neighborhood parks. Mr. Gockaneuer replied that he would consider this. Mr. Schmitt added that another reason, is that the county does not pay for or install the irrigation systems in neighborhood parks. -Mr. Strain asked that someone check into this matter. It was noted. V) Section 3.3.6 - Conceptual site development plan review and approval - Page 57 -Mr. Gockaneuer stated that this page was deleted, because they added this language to #7 on Page 56. X) Section 2.2.8 - Residential tourist district (RT) specifically 2.2.8.4.5 - Page 5 Page 22 April 9, 2003 -Susan Murray stated that this amendment clarified the intent of the method to calculate residential density in the RT zoning district. -Mr. Strain asked how you know where the streets and allies are; at what stage are they taken into consideration. Mr. White replied that this section was intended to be informative, but they will remove the phrase "exclusive of'. Y) Section 2.3.19 - Page 14 -Susan Murray stated that this is an addition to clarify loading space. She explained that a lot of people try to count parking spaces in front of bay doors that are intended for loading. -Mr. Strain noted that not all bay doors are used for loading and asked how this fits in. Susan Murray informed him that she would look into this. Mr. Schmitt added that they could add the language "with designated loading areas". Z) Section 3.2.8.2 & 3.3.7.1.2 - Subdivision Plans & Site Development Plans - Pages 49 & 58 -Mr. Strain asked why it stated that they cannot provide the data to the public. Mr. White stated the intention was that they sometimes receive data that is not consistent and when there is a public request, there is no means to publish it. -Due to other questions on these amendments, Susan Murray stated that she would ask Jennifer to come to the next meeting. AA) Section 6.3 - Definitions - Page 86 - 91 -Susan Murray informed the CCPC that all of these pages covered definitions. -Mr. Strain asked if the definition on Page 86 meant that a Citgo with a gas service station out front is considered an automobile service station. Susan Murray replied yes. Mr. Strain noted that this contradicts SIC. Susan Murray informed him that this definition is intended to ensure that the development provisions for automobile stations are applied in these cases. This is how the county has historically been applying this in all the cases where someone was selling gasoline. Mr. Strain felt that there may be a better way to define what they are trying to get to without changing this definition. He Page 23 April9,2003 was concerned it would have negative effects. Susan Murray agreed and stated that she would look at this. -Mr. Strain noted that on Page 88, it goes back to the topic of the area immediately in front of the loading dock. Susan Murray stated that she will look at this as well. IV. Notice of Meetings -After discussions between the staff and the CCPC on the following public hearings for the 1st LDC amendment cycle, first in regards to the meeting of April 17, 2003 and second in regards to thc meeting of April 30, 2003), Mr. White announced: "The meeting that you are going to have is going to start at 8:30. And it sounds like what you will have is a land use petition to consider first and immediately thereafter will be the second hearing in these chambers for those matters that are non-controversial with respect to those heard today. And those that are not heard on that day, the second hearing will be on April 30 in these chambers at 5:05 PM." -Mr. Abernathy stated that after which, they will have the first meeting on Section 2.2.27. It was added that this meeting would adjourn at 9:00 and resume the following morning. Mr. Schmitt stated that the continuation to the following day was legally sufficient if necessary. The assistant county attorney agreed. V. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN KENNETH ABERNATHY Page 24