Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/17/2003 RApfil17,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 17, 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 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abemathy Mark Strain David Wolfley Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney (8:35 AM) Brad Schiffer Russell Budd (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Michelle Crowley, Code Enforcement Susan Murray, Planning Services Jennifer Moser, Planning Services Kay Deselem, Planning Services Summer Brown, Code Enforcement AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2003, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY CLERK PUDZ-2002-AR-3095, Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, representing Mariam Gerace and Wallace Lewis, Jr., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village PUD for a maximum of 590 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the Livingston Road north of Wyndemere Country Club in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of approximately 149 acres. CCPC WORKSHOP A. A presentation and overview of the below listed plans and procedures and how each impacts the land development process and the decision making process. A tutorial on Planning Commission responsibilities under state statute. 1. CCPC functions, duties and responsibilities. 2. What are the limits of the CCPC decision making abilities. 3. Provisions for the CCPC to be a "strong" rather than "weak" commission. 4. What would it take to increase the responsibilities of the Planning Commission? 5. Planning Commissioner certification 5. Continuation of LDC amendments from April 9, 2003 3. Apfill7,2003 1. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll call was taken - a quorum was established. e Approval of Minutes - March 20, 2003 - Mr. Richardson moved to approve the minutes of March 20, 2003. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 7-0. 4. Additions or corrections to the Agenda - Mr. Wolfley moved to change Agenda Item #5 to #4. Seconded Mr. Richardson. Carried unanimously 7-0. PUDZ-AR-3095 - Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, representing Mariam Gerace and Wallace Lewis JR. requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village PUD for a maximum of 590 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the Livingston Road north of Wyndemere County Club, consisting of approx. 149 acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain had discussions with Mr. Yovanovich over numerous issues and Mr. Fernandez prior to the meeting and previously. (Mr. Midney arrived 8:35 AM) PETITIONER Rich Yovanovich - he focused on the items in disagreement with staffs recommendations and clarifications of the PUD Documents. The location is immediately south of the Balmoral PUD and the Whippoorwill Woods PUD on Livingston Road with Wyndemere on the South. He showed the Master Plan on the visualizer. They are requesting 20 feet for their signage and reserving 75 feet on Green Blvd. They felt they needed to raise their signage up for the traveling public. The changes they wanted to make are the following: - Page 2- 7 - 2.12A5 - allowed to put guardhouses, gatehouses or an access controlled structure in the right of way. If Green Blvd. is constructed as a public fight of way and if any gate or guardhouses were put there, they would be moved at their expense. - They are deleting Par. 2.17.2, Page 2-8 - This is for creating plotted lots and that is not their intent, so deleting. Discussion followed on stockpile height, parking space clarification, and rear yard setback. Mr. Yovanovich explained the setback issue. Being able to maintain the home properly and fire department getting into a home - 10 feet is needed. They went to a minimum of as 6 foot setback for single family homes. The "zero" lot line will have a wall separating the two homes with 10 feet between the structures. If an accessory structure is put in 2 April 17, 2003 such as a pool, it would have to have a minimum of 4 foot setback. This was discussed and shown on the overhead along with the roofs overhanging. Mr. Strain quoted #10 from Table 3-1 "Common architectural features such archways, arbor, and courtyard entry features shall be exempt from the minimum yard requirements listed above." Language can be added for access easement for service. Can be left up to the deed restrictions and the way the communities are designed, that every home would have an access. They agreed to the 10 foot setback instead of the 12 foot. Page 2-10, Mr. Yovanovich would like to delete the paragraph on the temporary signs and do whatever the LDC states. Ray Bellows stated they would agree to 75% of build out. The size of the sign isn't the problem - it is the height - they agreed to 15 feet. Mr. Wolfley noted many staff recommendations were put into the documents - one thing he couldn't find was providing the sidewalks and the width issues. He was wondering if the sidewalks were eliminated. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - there were language changes provided to staff. The latest language did not end up in the document. The language that was approved is the language from Wilson-Miller at that time in an earlier draft. The most recent language has not been provided. Mr. Yovanovich would need some time to meet with staff to look at that language and address it. Staffs documents have been provided to the Commissioners, but did not have all the changes in them. Ray Bellows mentioned the petitioner was assigned to a planner with less than a year of experience and not aware of some of the Counties policies causing some confusion. The Petitioner agreed to make most changes. The access points, curb cuts, traffic lights, U-Tums and the Balmoral project was discussed. Mr. Abernathy asked about the properties possibly sharing in the development of Whippoorwill Lane and tying into Livingston Village. Staffwas looking at Green Blvd; if it is not needed, many concerns will be resolved. Whippoorwill Lane is not intended to connect to Green Blvd due to environmental concems. Mr. Strain asked about page 2-2 - Roadways Item "F" - he wants to make sure there are standards to be installed for the asphalt and lime rock and pavers and that the proper thickness and material is used. Greg Garcia responded they will have to submit what they are proposing to do as part of the Site Development Plan and go before Transportation operations engineers review. Page 2-3 - Item 2.5 - Item ER - Lake Setback & Excavation - need to insert language - not within 300 feet of off site structures. The petitioner agreed. 3 Aprill7,2003 Deadline date for Transportation - taking right-of ways - scheduled January 15, 2005 - he asked if that will fit into the Transportations schedule. Ray Bellows referred to 2.5 "E" - the 350 is agreed to. Mr. Yovanovich referred to footnote 6 - to add "or measure the set back if curb exists." Mr. Schiffer referred to Page 2-2 - the fire department reviews the site plan. He also addressed the 20 foot landscape buffer off 175. A provision for a 20 foot buffer is there. If they do the berm opposed to a wall, it will get pushed back. They are required to put minimum requirements along the perimeter and will be reviewed at the SDP. Discussion followed on the berm and buffers. The petitioner will discuss this with Transportation and come back with a minimum solution. Page 3-3 - # 3 was discussed in what is termed as "cabana homes". The Petitioner and Transportation will address some of the concerns and changes and present them after the break. Break - 9:30 AM Reconvened - 9:55 AM PETITIONER Mr. Yovanovich stated there are some inconsistencies between the documents that transportation handed out and the documents they reviewed. Since it is late, he suggests the Planning Commission take their vote with the condition they work out the Transportation related issues between now and the Board of County Commissioners meeting. If any conflicts, they will deal with it then. He would like to sit down and look at all the inconsistencies of what is in the documents and what was handed out to him in the previous documents. Mr. Strain wants to make sure they use the language consistent with the LDC. They will propose they are required to build a combination of wall; berm or landscaping that is a minimum of 25 feet in height. Discussion followed between Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Schiffer concerning the Whippoorwill Lane, right-of-ways, Green Blvd, Balmoral and shared roads. Ray Bellows stated the revised language did not get to the applicant and suggests the petition be continued and allow them to work it out, or work it out prior to the BCC meeting. He would like the applicant to work out these inconsistencies with Transportation. Points of concern were brought up and answers were not given. Some of the Commissioners felt the inconsistencies and lateness of information is not enough for them to move forward with the petition. Apfil17,2003 Mr. Fernandez talked about the alignment study of Green Blvd., FP&L Easement and Whippoorwill Lane. Discussion among the Commissioners on whether to continue the petition or not followed and decided to hear the speaker before they continue in their decision. SPEAKERS Bob Johnson - Long Term Planning Committee - Wyndemere Homeowners - has a vested interest in the property as adjacent to Wyndemere. He was impressed by the presentation and has their approval, acceptable and well done. Mr. Yovanovich stated they have no problem with what the LDC says. If the State law states they need to do something, they will. They just don't want staff changing the rules through the PUD process instead of the LDC process. If there are LDC issues, they will deal with them through the LDC. The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. A straw poll was held in which Mr. Abernathy asked those that would favor continuing the petition to a later date. Mr. Strain moved to approve Petition PUDZ-02-AR-3095 with the following stipulations: - The applicant forms an access easement through the lots for maintenance purposes to the rear lots for side yard setbacks that have been reduced. - The sign for the entrance will be limited to 15 feet in height. - The Transportation issues discussed and proposed by staff be accepted subject to further review by the applicant and staff and consistent with the Land Development Code as amended in the State Statutes. - Blasting will be limited to not within 350 feet of any off site structures. - Delete paragraph 3 on page 4-2. - Item 6 of the Development Standard Table would read "from the back from curb from the beginning of their setbacks". Seconded by Mrs. Young. Mr. Strain amended his motion to include "page 3-3 - potential future extension of Green Blvd. - add "and Whippoorwill Lane." Mrs. Young agreed & seconded the amendment. Carried 5 yes - 3 no. CONTINUATION OF LDC AMENDMENTS FROM APRIL 9~ 2003 Marjorie Student read into the record the affidavit for publication of which was reviewed by the County Attorneys office and found legally sufficient. Aprill7,2003 Susan Murray - Planning - this is the second meeting of the package of LDC Amendments. The Commission will discuss any of the Amendments with any questions, but not make any formal determinations about the provisions with respect to their consistency or not. Rather do so at the public hearing scheduled in the BCC Chambers at 5:05 PM on April 30, 2003 when they will then consider the entire package, except for ..... tl~ he the RLSA provisions of Section 2227. The first heanng wall be held on April 30 and t second hearing will be May 14th, at 5:05 PM in the BCC Chambers. Section 2.6.4.1.4 will be pulled from discussion due to some confusion with the Amendments and discuss on April 30th. (Page 16) Sections: - 1.8.2 - can be done by Title Search - 2.2.3.3 - no comments - 2.2 - Vehicular ROW - removed - 2.2.2.33 - no comments 2.3.16 - off street parking and loading - no comments 2.3.1 9 - off street parking, clarifying loading space - Commission did express concerns about reducing parking in front of doors and the actual use of the doors. Susan opted not to make any changes. They are not going to count the area in front of bay doors within the parking calculation themselves when looking at SDP. (Mrs. Young left at 10:35 AM) Susan mentioned the building functions and layout changes and no way of monitoring it. When a door is used for loading at one time and not another, it's hard to know what is legitimate. The doors are used for loading and unloading. In certain instances people are parking in front of functional overhead doors. This prohibits the function of the building from time to time when they use the spaces in front of overhead doors for parking spaces. That space will not be counted as parking spaces in the calculations. If later converted and designated for parking spaces it can then be "additional" parking space. Susan stated it could be allowed if the SDP is amended. If the function of the building changes, and indicated in the SDP stating the door is no longer used for loading and unloading, and used for parking, that is okay. Discussion followed. Susan will add language to clarify the issue for the next meeting. - 2.4.3.6 - Landscape and Buffering - Summer Brown - Code Enforcement - the current National Arborist standards are used. Mr. Richardson is concerned about the lack of proper tree trimming and what standards can be used. Summer responded the Contractor has to handle that with possibly a test for certification. Marjorie Student mentioned if there is a violation, the property owner would take responsibility for improper pruning. - 2.5.6, page 14 - Signs - Michelle Crowley - Code Enforcement - no changes to the code - but deletes the reference to a retail establishment. 6 Apfil17,2003 Question was asked about the term "open" inserted. Michelle said it was so it was more understandable to everyone. Marjorie Student stated this was drafted at the BCC level and has to pass legal sufficiency. They will come back with proper verbiage. Neon signs are not being considered at this time. Mr. Abernathy asked about "open" signs going through the permit process. He stated he would not vote in favor unless it is grandfathered or there is an amortization process. Summer Brown stated the businesses have been given a 3 year amortization already for existing businesses. Mr. Schmitt stated the Board has asked for these changes and the Planning Commission could amend or make comments to the BCC. Many of the Commissioners feel the same way that the "open & closed" signs could be neon and acceptable. They want the Board of County Commissioners to know their views and recommendations. -2.6.33.3 - no comments - page 18 B Ross Gochenaur would like to propose a change that says "where a developer - owner builder- or licensed building contractor, performing the work has obtained a building permit. The intent is for one trailer. - 2.7.2.16 - no comment. SPEAKER Thomas Nunn - he was going to make some comments, but has been advised he can speak with Mr. Schmitt privately about some of his concerns. - 2.7.3.4.1 - no comments - Page 5 - Summary Sheet - next 3 items - similar - no comments. - 3.2.8.2 - Jennifer Moser - Planning - says "all plans shall tie to a survey grid that they supply. Don't want them to tie into the counties grid - they aren't survey accurate. They can't tell surveyors to tie their plans to something that is not accurate. This needed some language changes so they are not liable for anything. Standards need to be put back on them. The wording will be changed. - Page 6 - 3.3.3 - Neighborhood Parks - 6.3 - only applicable to public neighborhood parks and staffs position is to apply only to public neighborhood parks. - 3.3.7.1 -no comment - 3.3.3.9 - no comment - Page 8 -no comment Next LDC Meeting - Proposed Amendments heard on April 30, 2003 5:05 PM in the BBC Chambers. Mr. Adelstein will not be in attendance at the April 30th meeting. Mr. Wolfley will not be in attendance at the May 1 st meeting. April 17, 2003 CCPC WORKSHOP A. A presentation and overview of plans and procedures and how each impacts the Land Development process and the decision making process. A tutorial on Planning Commission responsibilities under State Statute was given by Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney. (Handout attached) She gave a history of Collier County and Florida Constitutional Law. 250.34 - Functions, Powers and Duties. - Basic information and materials - provided by staff - Review Comp Plan - Prepare principles and policies - Prepare and recommend ordinances - Keep Public informed - Public Heatings 125.01 Florida Statutes - Home Rule Powers Power to carry on County Government Authorize to review and recommend LDC 163.3174 - Florida Statutes - Growth Management Act was covered 163.358 - Florida Statutes - Community Redevelopment Act 290.0057 -Florida Statutes -Florida Enterprise Zone Act CRA's were discussed - Immokalee and Bayshore Triangle Marjorie covered "A Strong vs. Weak Commission". She discussed whether the BCC would have the authority to delegate more duties on final authority on items they do not have now. She covered the various duties this would include. Mr. Abernathy would be in favor of more duties and responsibilities making it more meaningful and challenging. Mr. Richardson felt the same way and felt the BCC was somewhat in favor of expanding the Planning Commissions duties with increase support on behalf of the public. He would like to make a formal request through staff to the Commissioners of their wishes. Marjorie would work with staff to see how other local governments are structured. Joe Schmitt stated they were looking at things the Planning Commission could do that didn't have to go to the BCC. He would like to do a Workshop with the Board of County Commissioners to give them more power. The Planning Commissioners all agreed. April 17, 2003 1. CCPC functions, duties and responsibilities: Division 5 of the Land Development Code (presentation attached) Ray Bellows - covered: Qualifications, Appointed by BCC, Membership, Terms, Quorum, Compensation being none. 2. What are the limits of the CCPC decision making abilities? Covered 2.7.2.5 - LDC & 2.7.3.2.5 - (Mr. Strain left at 11:45 AM) Mr. Bellows covered different questions that were asked. A lengthy discussion followed on Water Management Clean Water Act and the South Water Management District. Drainage issues were discussed with Ray Bellows stating that issues should probably be addressed by the appropriate jurisdiction. Questions and concerns were discussed about different revisions and stating them more clearly. Mr. Bellows will also look at different wording concerning docks and boathouses. Planning Commission Certification - Chris Brown Only state doing a certification is Kentucky. Three Models - University of Florida, Lincoln Institute (Online), National APA (training Modules). He discussed the different classes, materials, presentations, lessons online and fees. He covered the different subjects that would be covered in the various institutes. There is no requirement in the State of Florida for Planning Commissioners currently to be certified. It has been brought up in the past from the State but Collier County can create their own requirements. Mr. Schmitt is looking for input from the Commissioners. It was noted that it takes awhile to become familiar with the position of a Planning Commissioner A routine orientation should be done for new Commissioners. The consensus was to have some type of training and certification to become more familiar with staff, issues covered etc. Chris will bring back costs and more details for the Commissioners. New Business: - Annual Reports - staffperson responsible for monitoring the PUD's. - First & Second reading of LDC's - timesaving if double strike and underlining. - Send copy of Transportation on the PUD discussed earlier. 9 Apfil17,2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN KENNETH ABERNATHY 10 PUBLIC NOTICE ~.:~, ~ PUBLIC. .C PUBLi. The Collier County to the Collier County Land the unincorporated ama of cCOllie.r Cou.nty~ Florida, and as ~,ated in said ordina~ce~".~T~, e .unincorporated area of Collier oumy is snown on the map in.this advertisement. '=:~:~'.~ ~'~.-~.!~. ..... :, :.,*: - · . A public hearing on the proposed amendments will ben,ThUrsday, April 17, 2003, at 8:30' A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Meetini~:~'~l,' Building "F", Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamlami Trail, Naple~.~i~da.' -~'-"~- ~i.~ .~-~ .' ~;--'. ..... - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANGENUMBEFI:g!:102~i'~S~AMENDF. D, THE CO PRE.ENS VE REaU ONS OR'.mE I CORPO mD COUNTY, BY PROVIDING~.OR::.~EC'rlON ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO,-rFINDINGS OF' FAC'ri ~'SE~TION'~[THREE,~'~ADO · - ; PTION OF 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES:~ CONDITIONAL'USES, INCLUDING :~.- ZONING ~DiSTRICTS LISTL!._OF..'~.PERMITTED i~AND ~ CONDITIONAL' USES, i i REI-~TED TO SIDEWAU~,~ INCLUDING REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO ~THE" '~: BAYSHORE MIXED USE' OVEREAY. DI~'rRlCT,~!INCLUDING'CREATION OF A '~;":;f~:: : STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY:'DISTRICT AdD.DESiGNA~.TION P~OCEDURES FOR STEWARDSHIP SENDING AND' RECEMNG~,ji~IEA~;::DMSI~J~:2;3;' OFF; STREET . PARKING AND DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS, :TO ZONING ADMINISTRATION SUBDNISIONS; -EXCAVATION; DIVISIONi.,; PRESERVATION; DIVISION 3.14, ARTICLE 6, DIVISION SEVERABlUTY; DEVELOPMENT ( All interested am available for Services and 5:00 P.M. If a persbn Commission with respect to a record oLthe proceedings, record of the proceedings is which the appeal is to be baasd; Sent by: Kon±ca Fax 9825 2392634864; 04/16/03 3: 17PM; #683; Page 2/2 NAPLES DAILY P~b~sh~l Dady Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication State o£ Florida County of Collier Before thc tmdcrsi~ncd r. hcy serve as tl~ authority, persol~ally appeared lB, Lamb, wl~ on oar. h says r. hst they sc~-vc as the Aaisla~ Ce~porate Secretary of thc Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Cmmry, Florida; distributud in Colli~ and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising, b~ug a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in sam I time(s) ia Ibc issue on April 9, 2003 Af-flant firah~- ¢ays r.hat tll~ said Naples Daily N~ pubh~ at Napl~ in ~d ~lli~ Co~, Flod~, ~d ne~ ~ h~tof~, ~a c~fin~ly pu~iish~ in ~ Co]li~ Co.W, ~o~; d~bu~ in ~11i~ ~d ~ coun~ ~ ~y ~d ~ ~ enid ~ ~d ~I~S ~ ~ ~ ~ post office ia Napl~, ~ mid Collicr ~un~, ~odd~ got a p~ of l yc~ a~t p~cding ~e fi~ publi~on of~6 advc~sg~c ~d ~t fu~h~ ~ys ~ h~ ~ nci~ paid nor co~ or mfu~ for ~ p~ of s~g ~is Sworn to and subscribed before ma this 16~ day of April, 2003