CCPC Minutes 04/30/2003 SApril 30, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION/LAND DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, April 30, 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 SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abemathy
Mark Strain
Dwight Richardson
Lora Jean Young
Lindy Adelstein
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Russell Budd
David Wolfley-Absent (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
April 30, 2003
LDC Amendment Meeting
Mr. Abernathy addressed the topic of the meeting: To hold the 1st reading on certain
amendments to the land development code and a second reading on others.
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Roll call was taken - Mr. Wolfley was not in attendance.
Mr. Abernathy: Mentioned that oaths would not be administered because the meeting is
legislative. Stated the plan of attack for the evening is to wrap up the LDC amendments
and then go into the Rural Lands package.
Mr. White: Addressed the council. Stated that the handouts included a one page item
pertaining to Division 1.18. It was previously stated that this would only need one public
hearing so this should be addressed at the meeting on May 14th.
Also, Section 2.2.27 pertaining to the Rural Lands and Stewardship area. The second of
the two hearings will be scheduled for May 14 at 5:05. Matter has been advertised and
should be published shortly.
Mr. Abernathy: Scheduling of the May 14 and 15 meetings was discussed. Lora Jean
Young will be unavailable on the 15th- no other quorum problems.
Susan Murray: Housekeeping items: Amendment handouts. It was determined which
items needed to be addressed.
Page 51: Tom Tommerlin, Planner in the Transportation division spoke:
Section 2.2.32.3.9 was withdrawn and as discussed at the last meeting this was the
section dealing with interconnection reference.
Sidewalk Amendment: 3.2.8.3.17 (requiring pathways along both sides of all travel
ways). This section amends the land development code to clarify multi-family language
to increase the width of sidewalks, eliminate certain exceptions and alternative design for
sidewalk.
Mr. Strain: Asked the difference between a bike path and a bike lane. It was determined
that bike path should be deleted in all language and replaced by bike lane only.
-Questioned where and when this applies (i.e., small roadways that currently do
not have this requirement.)
- Tremendous amount of subdivisions where the roads could not meet the criteria.
- What is the intention of this ordinance?
Needs to understand the definition of what the increase in width is.
Diane Flagg: Department of Transportation
Page 2
April 30, 2003
Met with CBIA and the pathways advisory committee (a sub committee of the
Metropolitan Planning organization which interacts with the community) regarding these
amendments and as a result these recommendations have come forth. The area
specifically referred to in the amendment is a type of street where there would be multi-
family homes with a driveway connected to the street. If it is a street it should have a
sidewalk, irrespective of the size of the street
Mr. Strain: Required further examples of what the intent was. Clarification needs to be
made for street widths and what types of sidewalks are required. Requested more
graphics. As is- it is too encompassing. He requested to vote on this at a later date.
Mr. Abernathy: Mentioned that the DSAC denied this item and recommended not to go
further.
Patrick White: This was the result of no requirement for sidewalks in multi-family
districts. However, in curing the problem, it creates problems. Language needs to be
clarified.
Public Speakers:
Rich Housh, Member of the Pathway Advisory Committee.
Receiving negative feedback from the community re: lack of connectivity, lack of
sidewalks and poor pedestrian infrastructure. Gridlock situations are being created from
lack of sidewalks. Parents do not want to leave their children on the side of the road
without a sidewalk. Citizens want it, but the country does not want to pay. Commission
needs to address this subject. Citizens are working on a petition.
Bob Mulhere, RWA Inc.
Section 3.2.8.3.17. Language needs to be clarified in the amendment. How do you
interpret the term "other motor vehicle travel areas and vehicular use areas." For
example, small driveway probably does not need a sidewalk. Length or number of units
may clarify the language. Consider other alternatives. If citizens are demanding this,
then builders will want to build sidewalks so citizens will buy in those areas. Let's revisit
this issue.
As of right now if the road is less than 60 feet, it will return to the commission as a
waiver. Mr. Strain asked for width suggestions from Diane. Diane agreed to have this
prepared for the May 14th meeting.
Diane Flagg: Addressed the issue of sidewalk thickness. 4" versus 6" thick with
limerock base.
Voted in favor 8-0
meeting on the following amendments
Page 3
April 30, 2003
Section 2.3.19 - Off Street Parking
Clarify loading space. There were concerns about reducing parking in front of doors and
actual use of doors
Language clarified by the board suggested the amendment should now read: "The airs
immediately fronting any overhead door which would allow vehicle access."
Regulation as proposed is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
- Amendment voted in favor 7-1 (Mr. Abernathy voted to approve, seconded by
Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Richardson disapproved)
Section 2.5.6- Signs
As a result of a workshop with the BCC, update illuminated signs for allowing status of
business (open versus closed). Allow neon open signs in the windows of businesses.
Patrick White reminded the board that the regulation as proposed must be consistent
with the comprehensive plan. The board found it to be consistent.
- Amendment voted in favor 6-2 (Mr. Abernathy voted to approve, seconded by
Ms. Young, Mr. Richardson, disapproved)
Section 2.6.33.3: Language clarified regarding owner/builder and ability to obtain
permit.
Section 3.3.3: Site Development Plans. To exempt neighborhood parks from the
provisions of 3.3.
Margaret Worsley, Planning Director
Looking for flexibility to review each park as it comes forward regarding landscaping
requirements (i.e. irrigation systems, chain link fences, etc.).
Mr. Richardson: Asked if cost was a factor regarding fees to process the application. - Margaret did not feel that was an issue
Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services
Fees for petition would be reduced and a review that would take a lot less time.
All of the following section amendments have been approved in favor by the Board
8-0:
Sec. 1.8.2: Nonconforming lots of record: Clarification for combining lots for tax
pusposes and later dividing back to the original nonconforming lots
Sec. 2.2.3, Sec. 2.2.3.3; Sec. 2.2.4.3; Sec. 2.2.5.3; Sec. 2.2.6.3; Sec. 2.2.7.3; 2.2.8.3;
2.2.9.3; and 2.2.10.3: Zoning Districts: Add model homes and model sales centers as
allowable uses within Ag, Estates and all residential districts
2.2.8.4.5: Residential Tourist District Density calculation clarification: Clarify the intent
of the method to calculate residential density in the RT zoning district.
Page 4
April 30, 2003
2.2.33: Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay District: update uses and standards for the already
existing overlay district
2.3.16: Off street parking and loading: revise the required location of stacking spaces for
drive through restaurants
2.4.36: Landscaping and Buffering: Amend pruning code to bring that up to the National
Arborist Standards.
2.6.33.3: Supplemental District Regulations- temporary use permits: To allow
construction trailer within a single family development or on an individual single family
lot.
2.7.2.16: Applicability provision- rezone: Establish applicability time frame for
previously approved amendment relative to cancellation time frame.
2.7.3.4.1: Sunset provisions, PUD: Correct error restating PUD sunsetting provisions
2.7.3.9: Applicability provision - rezone: Add an applicability provision for the
cancellation of a rezoning for PUD.
2.7.4.11: Conditional use application processing time: Add provision for cancellation of
conditional use petition.
2.7.5.15: Variance application processing time: Add provision for cancellation of
variance petition.
3.2.8.2: Subdivision Plans- Digital submittal: Ensure plans are submitted digitally in the
same geographic coordinate system used by the county.
3.3.3: Site development plans: To exempt neighborhood parks from the provisions of
3.3.3.
3.3.7.1.2: Site Development Plan: Requires submittal of SDPs with data is delivered with
North Amer Datus 1983 (NAD83/90) State Plane coordinate system, FL East Projection,
with US Survey Feet units.
3.3.9: Site Development Plans: Add criteria for an insubstantial change to approved site
development plan.
6.3: Definitions: Density: Clarify the intent of the method to calculate residential density
6.3: Definitions: Neighborhood Park: Added to identify the function and site conditions
inherent in a neighborhood park so that they may be regulated in a manner that is
consistent with their impacts on the community.
Page 5
April 30, 2003
The following amendments below had speakers and were provided two week
extensions for decisions at the May 14th meeting.
Susan Murray continued to moderate:
Sec. 2.6.22
Manatee Protection Plan
Bill Lorenz introduced the topic:
Preferred rating: Must have 4 foot water depth from dock to destination point.
Dredge 4 foot water depth from boat dock to destination point if necessary. If
there is not 4 foot depth, you cannot have preferred rating.
Without a preferred rating we would drop to moderate rating which is 10 slips per
100 feet of shoreline and preferred which is 18 per 100 feet.
Speakers:
Clay Booker: Law firm working with county. Still unresolved issues. Adequate water
depth remains a primary objective. The goal is to take what is in the Manatee Protection
Plan and incorporate into the land development code. Nowhere in the protection plan
does it state that the adequate water depth must be matched up to the maps. It appears to
be a modification of the manatee protection plan. He referred to pages 35 and 39 where
the maps were. Claims the maps were amended. These are also not the maps that are in
the Manatee Protection Plan. According to the plan, you must have 4 foot water depth or
more. Then for access, this depth requirement may also apply to the area between the
proposed facility and any other navigable area. This language is permissive. If you have
boat dock you must show access to navigable area of 4 feet. An agreement needs to be
made to create accurate maps matching the manatee plan to maintain preferred rating.
Clarification between the new and old ordinance needs to be determined. Maps need to
be more extensive.
Bill Lorenz defended his position and has been working to reconcile the map problem
with regard to the permissive language.
Butch Morgan: Marine Industry of Collier
He shares sentiment with Mr. Booker regarding the maps. The original maps show
adequate water depth. Therefore, if you are within those areas on those maps, you have
preferred rating. If you were outside of those areas, you had to get to a channel.
Unfortunately not all channels are 4 feet at low tide, but they are marked navigable
channels on the original maps. You should be able to mitigate areas that are historically
navigable.
We must also have preferred status to have new dry storage facilities. If we have
moderate rating, we could only modify existing dry storage areas.
Page 6
April 30, 2003
Some places it is simply impossible to abide by this 4 foot rule as written. You cannot
dredge 5 miles, but if there is a channel even at low tide which may drop below 4 foot
level, it may be considered.
Mark Strain: Can you still have preferred status without 4 foot access?
Butch Morgan: Maybe able to put up signs, slow speed zones, other areas of mitigation
such as law enforcement.
Todd Turrell: Originally on the committee who drafted the Manatee Protection Plan.
Intent was never to have 4 foot water depth. Simply a design parameter at the site.
Concern about effect on waterfront property owners. None of those people under the
current interpretation could get a preferred ranking. Original intent was to as long as
yuou couldget to some kind of channel with a reasonable circumstance. He suggests new
language: Its access waters less than 4 feet at mean low water will also be considered
adequate if they are marked as historically utilized channels and that the average draft of
the proposed vessels are no larger than the vessels that currently use the channel.
Dwight Richardson: Should we be regulating the size of the boat? Does this language
need to be included? How does the regulatory agency determine to limit yourself to a
particular size boat?
Todd Turrell: Responds to Dwight and says that no boats in excess of... Perhaps
additional language needs to be added.
Page 70: Section 3.9.5.5.6: Native Vegetation
Barbara Burgeson- Environmental Services
Incorporate native vegetation preservation requirements, that currently exist in the LDC
and GMP's or have been policy and procedures for the past five years or greater, into one
easily accessible section regarding Preserves. Also language changes reflect clarification.
Provided graphic presentation of setbacks versus buffers/meet with interested parties
Speaker:
Bob Mulhere: Concurs with the changes and requests additional changes.
Issue that deals with the comprehensive plan: Not all areas will be able to comply with
25% native vegetation in land development areas, particularly in urban areas.
Sent letter regarding policy 6.1- paragraph 7 (exceptions to what). It appears to be clear
the it is an exception to this policy to retain 25% vegetation an call it a preserve.
Language needs clarification. The way the amendment is written you are not granted an
exception. You are required to replant native vegetation in again, the amount that would
equal 25% and then it requires you to call it a preserve. Then you have to follow rules as
if it were a preserve which not accurate. Mitigation is already being required.
Page 7
April 30, 2003
Clarify the policy.
Dwight Richardson: Questions the mitigation: Replanting up to the 25% and
maintaining it- what is the difference in maintaining that as opposed to maintaining a
preserve.
Bob Mulhere: Says plan is not consistent. If you replant it is not a preserve.
Barbara Burgeson: Brought up the point that you cannot recreate a native plant strata. It
needs to be identified as a preserve. All native vegetation areas should be called
preserves.
Need a wider buffer for native vegetation to thrive - 50 feet is minimum buffer though
some areas are 30 feet so as to penalize the smaller properties. 50 feet is optimal.
Section 3.5.7- Page 61
Excavation/Littoral Zones
Increases littoral plantings and revises the definition of the littoral zone. Add chloride as
a factor in plant selection/provide incentive above 2.5 percent.
Speaker: Michael Fernandez, PDI
Met with Bill Lorenz. Reviewed plans for current project where a littoral area is being
provided around the perimeter of a lake. That was 4.7% of the surface area. If you go to
10% you will need a larger area. The water management says that if you require larger
distances, you will conflict with the 20 foot maintenance requirement around the lake.
Therefore, you do not want to do this.
In addition, there is much extra cost. It used to be that the code requirement was ! 0% of
the perimeter of the lake. This yields a percentage of .4.- 1.4%. The country changes
standard to 4%. Country growth management plan amendment was made last year.
Bill Lorenz suggests to go from 2.5% to 10% which is a 400% increase. Fernandez
disagrees. Causes conflict with water management district and would increase cost per
unit approx. $3,000. Fernandez suggests that this is not justified.
Brad Schiffer: Questioned where the original 10% number came from.
Lorenz explained that the Environmental Advisory Council proposed the 10% rule.
Abernathy: Suggests that the difference be split and the board agrees on 7%.
Susan Murray: Additional amendments which need approval which are for the 2nd
hearing. Board approved all sections below in favor 7-0 (Adelstein left early) with the
exception of the ones noted:
Page 8
April 30, 2003
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
2.6.1.1.4: Exception to required yards.
2.6.4.2: Minor after the fact yard encroachment
1.6.15: Solid Waste Collection and disposal
2.7.6: Building permit and CO compliance
3.14: Vehicle on the Beach regulations
5.4: References to various boards - 1st heating: 2nd will be for May 14th.
6.3: Definitions: Auto Serv station
Mark Strain asked about intent of the revision. Apply 2.6.28. Concerned that
facilities such as Cosco and Sam's might not be considered. Conflict between definition
and requirement. Strain requested language be cleaned up and presented at May 14th
meeting.
Sec. 6.3: Definitions: Loading Space- WITHDRAW for DEFINTION
Sec. 6.3: Definitions: Pathway/bike lane
Sec. 6.3: Definitions: Sidewalk
The following section Sec. 2.2.27: Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay
was addressed by:
Nancy Linnan, Counsel for County's outside growth management council
Marti Chumbler
Bob Mulhere
Bill Lorenz
This is the first official discussion on the Eastern Lands redevelopment and the 2nd
reading and the final discussion will take place on May 14th.
Administrative law judge made a ruling on the fringe amendment approved all in the
county's favor. Amendments were found to be in compliant.
Reviewed draft of 2.2.27 revisions: Most recent revision is April 28th. Some members of
the board have only reviewed the April 17th draft. There will still be one more revision
before the meeting on May 14th.
Bob Mulhere: Make clear that the zoning on the RLSA is being created and will be in
place. From that point forward there is process of designating RLSA. Number of
definitions need to be added to the Section. Reviewed document as follows
Page 6 of the document- determine RLSA.
Page 7-Preserve and conversation clarification- process should be easy and not
burdensome
Page 24- Different restrictions that apply- clarify language
Page 26-31- Transfer of Stewardship credits, forms of receiving areas, requirements.
Again, language needs to be clarified
Page 9
April 30, 2003
Abernathy: What designation is for Ava Maria?
Mulhere: Town
Mulhere: Rest of document is mainly revisions to procedural information, etc. and
environmental standards still need to be developed as well as the design criteria for the
town.
Brad Schiffer asked for Phase One and the Environmental standards for the Fringe.
Nancy confirmed these would be completed by September. Project is being done in 3
stages due to time. Also- start the application process earlier.
Board had no questions from the draft on April 17th'
Mark Strain: Maximum impacts in this area based on this program in acres?
Mulhere said there is no maximum density established and will depend on how the bonus
provision on the plan is used.
Approx. 18,000 credits that would be produced if the FSAs, HSAs and WRA's were
converted at certain levels over to the process into stewardship credits + bonuses for
restoration and bonuses for proceeding with restoration and entry bonus. Added up +
approx. 14,000 stewardship credits for total of 32,000 stewardship credits. Ave Maria
does not take any stewardship credits. Public service facilities and roadways do not take
stewardship. Land that is consumed is not natural habitat. Also 35-60 feet open space
(i.e.- golf courses, ball parks) Strain estimates 306,000 people in the stewardship lands is
possible. This exceeds the population in Collier County. This issue will be addressed
again on May 14th.
Mark Strain: Several questions regarding the April 28th draft.
1. Page 8: Item #27- Stewardship Overlay Delineation: Restoration should be in the
definition to be consistent with page 24. This is in the process of being
determined by Counsel's office
2. Page 5: Sec. 2.2.27: It says the county "shall," can we change to may? Mulhere
says no. Abernathy brought up county money? Counsel assured money was
coming from federal. Abernathy wishes this to be clarified in the document or
amend the growth management plan if we are to underwrite this project.
3. Page 8: Directional Drilling: Still in the process of being resolved according to
counsel and Mulhere.
4. Page 9: New item: appropriate value- still to be determined
5. Define "Best Management" practices or set criteria
6. Do we have to accept everything deemed appropriate by the federal government?
Mulhere is researching.
7. Page 10: Oil drilling issue: to be determined
Page 10
April 30, 2003
8. Page 10: Which standard shall be adopted within 12 months of the effective date
of the RHLA Regulations- references the golf course design. Conservancy has
requested input into these requirements.
9. Comparable habitat function: Define what this is.
10. Page 12, Para. D: "In the event that restoration...documentation. Can we define
what type of documentation can be used? Be more specific.
11. Page 13, #4: Suggest adding the words "as approved by Collier County."
12. Page 13- items A-E- Criteria for restoration. This section needs to be moved
further back in the document. Clarification will be made.
13. Document to determine "if' there had not been land alteration: Clarify wording.
14. Page 19- Item D, Clarify the definition and who determines. Needs criteria.
15. Page 23- #6: Designation review period: Shouldn't the county be involved in that?
According to counsel, that is not necessary. Designed to cut down on time
involved.
16. Page 24, Section 2.2.7.10: Decide effective date or date of resolution. Should be
consistent within the document. Other areas cite effective and other cite date of
resolution.
17. Page 24, A1A: Define environmentally acceptable manner.
18. Page 30, Item C: This same paragraph appears on Page 16. Please use the same
language.
Mark Strain suggested that his remaining questions be addressed in tomorrow's
meeting.
Abernathy: Motion to amend the agenda for May 1 meeting.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:30 pm. Hearing will be continued till tomorrow, May 1
meeting, at 8:30 am in these chambers.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Kenneth Abemathy, Chairman
Page 11