CCPC Minutes 10/22/2003 SOctober 22, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION/LAND DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, October 22, 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 REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Russell A. Budd
Mark Strain
Dwight Richardson
Lindy Adelstein
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
George Evans
Ken Abernathy
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Joe Schmitt
Susan Murray
Marjorie Student
Russ Mueller
Pat White
Page 1
October 22, 2003
1 st Meeting of Cycle 3, 2003
Roll Call
Call to Order
Pat White, assistant county attorney confirmed that original affidavit of publication from
the Naples Daily News was legally sufficient for this to public meeting to proceed.
Joe Schmitt recapped agenda meetings for LDC meetings. Compiled by subject matter.
Agenda items rescheduled. It was suggested that the Vanderbilt Beach amendment be
heard first, CCSL variance second and boat house third. The concurrency review was
moved to Nov. 12th as was discussion on building heights.
Motion by Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Midney- Carried 9-0.
Susan Murray reviewed the next meetings for Cycle 3:
Nov. 12, 5:05p.m.: Eastern Lands amendments
Nov. 13, 9:00 a.m: Remaining amendments to hear from today's hearing
Nov. 20, 8:30 a.m.: Continue Eastern Lands amendments.
Motion to end meeting of 10/22 at 8:00 p.m or appropriate breaking point
thereafter.
Strain moved, Murray seconded
Carried 7-2
Mr. Budd questioned Mr. White regarding one reading discussion on amendments if they
were uncomplicated and uncontroversial. Mr. White indicated that this was legally
sufficient.
Moved by Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Evans. If anyone dissents a second hearing
will be heard at any meeting. Motion carries 9-0.
Items not addressed this evening will be continued to Nov. 12, 13 and 20.
Item #1: Vanderbilt Beach Overlay: Section 2.2.38
Don Schneider, Planning Services: Discussion of RT (residential/tourist) zoning
district.
Categories of concern
Topics of study
Population
Page 2
October 22, 2003
Height limits
59 properties surveyed
Height methodology used was Merrit Hypsometer or Biltmore Stick.
- Review of Building photos: 0-39 feet: 10
40-59 feet: 3
60-79 feet: 12
80-up: 15
68% of the buildings are 60 feet or higher
This study included only habitable buildings, no parking facilities or tennis courts.
Mr. Schneider discussed the meeting held on April 25, 2002: Community Visionary
Meeting. Question posed was "What are your particular concerns about development
and its impact?
Responses included eight categories of concern:
1. Zoning
2. Height/setbacks
3. Land development codes
4. Moratorium
5. Traffic and roads
6. Beach clubs
7. Beach access
8. Concurrency
The results of the meeting:
Top 3 concerns that garnished the most votes were:
1. Preserve public vistas: Limit redevelopment
2. Protect the rights of current business owners by maintaining current zoning.
3. Moratorium for additional one year to include all properties
Staff studied existing conditions along Gulfshore Drive. Topics of study included:
Density, setbacks, view pl-anes and air movement, traffic (70 foot right away), hopeful
construction set back line, hurricane evacuation issues, building height, density and
light, population (2.33 individuals per unit).
Other items discussed:
Building height was measured from ground to top that was within visual range.
- East Side of Gulfshore Drive: Mean is 50.85 feet, median 47.5 feet.
- West Side of Gulfshore Drive: Mean is 70.81 feet and median is 82 feet.
(determined using field measurements)
- Average number of stories was 6.
- Overall view plane obstruction was 71% on both sides of Gulfshore.
Actual versus zoned height: FEMA evaluations, elevator shafts, etc.
Average building height in RT zone is approximately 60 feet.
Mr. Schnedier promised to get exact number pertaining to height in RT zone.
Page 3
October 22, 2003
- Extension of moratorium to January 31, 2004. Draft amendment originally
submitted in August of 2002.
- In October 2002 staff reviewed the overlay document.
- If storm destroys building, it may be built back to "footprint."
- If another disaster such as fire happens, building would be built under current
LDC.
- Goal is to have final decision on overlay by January 31, 2004.
- Mr. Schneider reviewed the past meetings held on this topic over the past two
years.
Review of overlay criteria
Planning staff is recommending changes to sideyard setbacks, elimination of
variance option and elimination of conditional uses to 125 feet of existing overlay
criteria.
Study did not find a trigger to reduce height or to facilitate reduction of height for
health, safety or welfare issues.
Wedding cake setbacks have been eliminated.
Setbacks: ½ building height with front setback of 30 feet, side, 15 feet, rear, 30
feet.
- Accessory parking structure is integrated with current structure.
- Building height held to 100 feet- no variances permitted.
- Dropped conditional use provision to allow building to go to 125.
- Lot area maintained at 1 acre.
- Density: Hotel/Motel- 26 units per acre, time share- 16 units per acre.
Mr. Abemathy asked about square footage for hotel rooms- indicated that these
numbers have provided trouble in the past.
Mr. Richardson asked attorney about land development code removing the possibility
of a variance.
Mr. White indicated that it was appropriate to limit variance. Ms. Student confirmed
this. Student indicated that variances will typically stem from land hardship.
Mr. Schneider continued with presentation and provided a graphic presentation to
illustrate existing and proposed building heights and setbacks. Many visuals included
maximized building with minimal setbacks.
- Discussion of wedding cake setback
- Parking ability
- Setbacks on a smaller lot will have significant effect on height, if larger lot, not as
much as an effect.
- Discussion of differences in depths and heights.
Currently, at eye level, practically zero plane view.
Mr. Richardson asked about distribution of lot sizes in the RT zone. How would it
actually look on the ground?
Page 4
October 22, 2003
Mr. Schneider indicated that lots on the east side tend to be 100 feet wide and on the
west side a bit longer than 100 feet.
Mr. Strain asked about fiscal impact analysis: He indicated that it said Collier County
did not have a fiscal impact analysis on this. What was model based on? He also
brought to the attention that the public found model fiscally irresponsible. If there
was no model- how determined. Mr. Schneider indicated that this was meant to
caution commission on the Burt Harris Act. There was no actual fiscal analysis.
Mr. Strain indicated that the mere existence of a building limitation does not trigger
the revisions of the Burt Harris Act.
Mr. Schiffer discussed the height being reduced and that it does not contribute to
reduction in land value. Discussion about viable loss of value. Height and value is
not correct. Beach is value and the number of people.
Mr. Budd suggested that these efforts to change Mr. Schneider's mind regarding the
Burt Harris Act be held till a later point and questions be made more specific.
Discussion over lots being separated by public right aways, phases with tracts and
parcels, etc. For example, if there is a single family home, the lot line, boundary line
are the same.
Mr. Midney asked about spending associated with growth. Referenced page 92 of the
LDC handout, or page 3 of the fiscal impact analysis. Asked about which study was
cited.
Mr. Adelstein asked if wedding cake setback was still a viable option. Mr. Schneider
indicated that staff proposed to eliminate it.
Ten Minute Break
David Weigel ,County Attorney, requested to address the Board on decision, motives,
etc. on the Vanderbilt District Overlay.
- Comments have not been coordinated or discussed with'staff.
- Take into consideration staff's expertise, changing standards, public input and
expert opinion.
- Discussion over Burt Harris Claims- 85% of claims are related to height
limitation. Report was factual.
- Pointed out historically that this district has provided for 10 stories or 100 feet as
"a matter of right" since 1971.
Charge to the BCC and staff was to determine what can be done to reduce the
"canyonization effect" in this district as well as concerns over light and a desire to
retain the view corridors that remain there.
Setbacks- risky lawsuit related to "setbacks" and "wedding cake."
Page 5
October 22, 2003
- Staff had provided a clear setback standard for front, side and rear yards.
- Parking- what is it past of?. Inner part of the building, or tier? Desire to keep
parking within the building envelope and not occupying green space. What is
parking measured from? Weigel indicates that staff has comprised a conservative
report and that suggestions can be made.
- Regular height standard to apply without conditional use. Suggests considering
building height limitation of 75 feet. This is based on historical data for other
districts. Also indicated that there have been no Burt Harris claims to date.
Highlighted the fact that the area is primarily residential and not the run of the
mill zoning district. It is not all commercial. There is a residential component
for a reason.
- Discussion over value questions. Height may not be a factor at all. Case law is
not there.
Public Speakers
Diane Ketcham, President Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Assoc.
Lives in building which is 52 feet high.
Pointed out errors in staff report.
Disturbed by staff's proposal and hired a planner.
Represent more than 3100 households.
Zoning in the area has change various times with no input from the residents.
Height is not clearly defined and has changed back and forth on numerous
occasions. Citizen outrage led to building moratorium.
Concerns over evacuation- storm category 1 area. Area is already saturated.
Reduce of building height to 54 feet. 43 structures on 46 parcels. Average is 5
story averaging 48-50 feet. Discrepancy with staff report.
Ban the wedding cake- increase green space, see the Gulf of Mexico
Public safety, reduce density in coastal high advisory areas.
- Estuary systems in danger, more pollution.
- Asking for future public input on all future projects including redevelopment.
- Requests that the area remain in compliance with state and federal mandates.
- Requests that the staff proposal be rejected and the proposal from the community
be adopted.
David Depew, planner representing the Vanderbilt Beach Assoc.
- Residents took a great deal of care with their neighborhood.
- Increasing demand on infrastructure. Limited roads, sewage etc.
- Reduce "canyonization"
- Fear by the residents is justified.
- Renditions in the staff report did not indicate actual structure image.
- RT areas impact adjoining areas.
Certain buildings and lots were excluded in the staff report.
Physical elements are important. Heights will drive design. Spread out parking
garages, etc. will happen.
Page 6
October 22, 2003
Burt Harris claim process was thorough but does not necessarily apply. Recently
helped to defend the City of Northport. Issues are value. Did regulation
significantly reduce value? Height restriction should not restrict value. Staff
reports that density limitation will reduce tax base..
Discussion over Vanderbilt Inn. "Do the Right Thing." Take the proposed draft
from the residents and adopt it. Does not have negative impact that staffbelieve it
will have. Value should go up based on their proposal. Value is driven by the
market. Basic concept of supply and demand.
Tony Pires, Attorney for the Vanderbilt Beach Assoc.
- Impact of Burt Harris Act. Staff report was speculative and capitulating.
- Concurs with Weigel that there is no ascertainable data to support fear. Claim
cannot be filed unless an ordinance is applied.
- Fiscal impact analysis is inconsistent with staff's own finding in 2003 memo in
regard to zoning and what drives market value.
- Recommends the residents' proposal be approved and moved forwarded.
Rich Yovanovich, Attorney for owner of Vanderbilt Inn.
~ Surprised to learn that the density proposed is now 3 units per acre as opposed
to 16.
- Client will follow through with a Burt Harris Claim if residents' proposal is
followed through.
- There will be a value decrease based on reduction in density from 16 to 3.
- Height is also a factor in value.
~ SDP will be filed if necessary to continue with Vanderbilt Tower project.
- Discussion about what creates canyons and fairness issues.
- Residents' proposal is fiscally irresponsible.
- Agrees with many changes staff has made and is willing to work with them on
other issues.
- Demonstrating their right to redevelop an existing parcel to a higher use.
Mr. Abemathy commented on jog in road where tall buildings begin. Asked about
number of pieces of property between RMF 16 and the Vanderbilt property.
Mr. Yovanovich was not quite sure. Indicated that the Vanderbilt property abutted
RMF 16. (16 units per acre allowed).
Mr. Abernathy asked if needs could be addressed in 75 feet. Value discussed again.
Mr. Strain had concerns over evacuation. Indicated that roads were service level F.
Mr. Abernathy brought up the possibility of removing the Vanderbilt property from
the RT overlay.
Bruce Burkhard, Vanderbilt Beach resident
Page 7
October 22, 2003
Discussed fiscal forecast method from the U.S. Dept of Transportation for impact
methodologies: Fiscal accounting, cost, and simulation models. Not one of those
models was followed in the county proposal.
No $$$ figures listed anywhere. How much would citizens improve the LDC or
benefit the county?
Requesting a thought out long-range plan to preserve neighborhood and to learn
who is fiscally responsible.
Joe Schmitt clarified that there is no requirement by the state or county for a fiscal
model. It is, however, currently 98% complete and that will provide what Mr.
Burkhard is requesting but it will not apply to this situation. First time it will be
revealed will be for the Ave Maria project.
Carol Wright, Vanderbilt Beach resident
Addressed dispute with "rezone finding" section of staff report VBRT0.
Area will be out of compliance. Staff proposes no change. Is the existing land use
pattern compatible with the GMP especially the coastal elements. She explains that it
is not and that the GMP asks for 4 units in coastal high hazard areas and less when
there is a traffic issue. High rise condos should not be encouraged in this type of
area.
- Existing land use pattern addresses Pelican Bay which is completely irrelevant to
Vanderbilt Beach area.
- Drainage issues.
Joe Connolly, Vanderbilt Beach resident
- Addressed the "wedding cake" setback. Should not be used as an excuse to
violate code.
- Previous problems at the Bellagio allowed an ambitious builder to build a
building that was too big for the small lot that it was on. That was due to a
loophole. Residents want to do away with the loophole. BCC agreed with them.
Cited a Naples Daily News article from May 13, 2002. Changing land
development code due to responses from the community- no more wedding cake.
- Proposal from staffdoes not ban this.
- Requests that initial ban from BCC be adopted.
BJ Savard-Boyer, President of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Assoc.
- Three finger streets to exit onto Gulfshore Drive.
- Balancing property owner rights with community interest and maintain character
of the neighborhood.
- Create atmosphere that is appealing to all and not just a few.
- Other communities have controlled their growth. Discussion about "good
neighbor policy."
Chris Carpenter, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Canyons and hurricane evacuation.
- The more highrises the more the canyon effect.
- Preserve what is left.
Page 8
October 22, 2003
- Hurricane safety. High danger involved. High traffic areas and limited road space.
How will all the people be evacuated? Referred to Section 9J5 of the Fla. Admin.
Code to maintain or reduce hurricane or evacuation times and to direct population
concentration away from known coastal high hazard zones.
- Projected that by 2003 over 13,000 people would need to be evacuated. IN
October- up to 15,000. It will take two hours to evacuate in mild storm with
smooth flowing traffic.
Doug Fee, President of North Bay Civic
- Supports the residents of Vanderbilt Beach
- Handed out the Wiggins Pass Management Plan- history of the hurricane and
tropical storms. Increased wave activity and surges.
- In the interest of public safety, density should be limited in addition to the height
limit set.
Mr. Schmitt requested some guidance from staff regarding direction their thoughts were
going in regards to this matter. Mr. Strain agreed to work with the community and to
support the residents if no further review was going to be done by staff.
Mr. Schiffer asked for analysis of height versus square footage. Mr. Schneider indicated
that about 20% could not be fit into the square footage.
Mr. Adelstein would like to see 75 foot suggestion be researched and addressed.
Mr. White tried to clarify who else should be reviewing these issues at this point- i.e,
DSAC, etc. Discussion of private amendment and how to proceed.
Joe Schmitt- suggested county re-look at their proposal and amend while in process. Does
not need to return to DSAC.
The committee does not support staff's position as stated.
Mr. White asked if the committee can conclude that the report is consistent with the
comprehensive growth plan. If it is not, it must be articulated how so.
Mr. Richardson indicated that the proposal put forth by the residents was consistent with
the growth management plan. Ms. Murray asked for actual citations.
Mr. White suggested that the time frame might be exceeding the decision time. Possible
recommendation to extend the moratorium.
Mr. Budd indicated that this item would be reheard on Thursday, November 13th at 9:00
a.m. On November 12th at 5:05 p.m. -- Eastern Lands.
Meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
Page 9
October 22, 2003
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISION
Chairman Russell Budd
Page 10