CCPC Minutes 11/20/2003 SNovember 20, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION/LDC AMENDMENTS
Naples, Florida, November 20, 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 SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
Russell Budd
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Paul Midney
Dwight Richardson
Kenneth Abemathy
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
George Evans
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Joe Schmitt, Comm. Dev. & Environmental Services
Stan Litsinger, Planning Services
Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney
Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services
Page 1
November 20, 2003
The meeting was called to order by Russell Budd at 8:30 AM.
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Roll call was taken - a quorum established.
Chairman Budd explained this is a continuation of their November 12th meeting on the
Land Development Codes - Eastern Lands/Rural Fringe. Time certain 1:30 PM will be
their regularly scheduled CCPC meeting.
EASTERN LANDS
TAB E - 2.2.31 North Belle Meade Overlay District- Marti Chumbler, Carlton
Fields, (An errata sheet was provided)
(One hearing will be heard on all tabs)
· Map was provided of area in discussion.
Page 3 - In Comp Plan language
· Page 5 - 2A - Staffwill make sure Transportation Dept. is keeping average
historic levels of traffic.
· C - The Dover Kohl report is a public document and obtained from the County
and has been accepted by the BCC. (Intended to be a guide and not specific
criteria)
· Item 4 - Marti stated density on page 5 is "outside of rural villages", page 6
"inside of rural village".
SPEAKERS
Bruce Anderson - Attorney - concerning the A-PAK earth mining operation - he noted
they were offered and accepted to BCC that historic numbers were based on size and
years of excavation. There was a stipulation on amount of traffic on the earth mining
operation.
The errata sheet had an error - "or one dwelling unit per legal conforming lot or parcel" -
should read "non-conforming" lot or parcel.
Section 2.2.31.4 Par. A - Page 4 - addition to language - asked that the sentence "and
provision be made for their completion" be deleted and addressed at time of PUD
approval.
After discussion Robert Mulhere stated there is no connection between a proposed
residential development and the requirements of par. 1 -4. Alternative may be "and to the
degree such improvements are necessary for the development" - he felt the intent was
very clear. Mr. Anderson felt that was an improvement.
Page 2
November 20, 2003
Mr. Strain moved to recommend transmittal of Tab E as modified and found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried
unanimously 9-0
TAB F - 2.6.9 - Essential Services
· Revision of an existing LDR - intent is to clarify and specify the services in the
particular areas in the rural fringe.
· Will add "natural" gas to #2.
· #4 - change language to - "limited to "necessary" for providing etc."
· 2.6.9.2. Conditional Uses - A. 1. - Electric or gas generating plants - will check on
how provision has been applied.
· Page 5 -B.2. & C.3. - will define safety services.
· Mr. Richardson asked about the permitted uses in the parks area. Ms. Chumbler
will make sure they did not miss a change.
Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - interjected and noted the
Planning Commissioners took action to hear all the Amendments twice - or the
CCPC took action he was not aware of. The minutes will be checked for assurance.
Mr. Budd recollected hearing them once, twice if necessary but will wait for
clarification from the minutes. They will move forward at this time.
Mr. Schiffer moved to recommend transmittal of Tab F as modified and found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
TAB G - 2.6.35 - Communication Towers
· Page 3- Habitat lose - why limited to 951 areas? Mr. Palmer - Assistant County
Attorney - it was a staff generated item. The language will be amended.
· Page 3 - 2.6.35.5.9 (B) - take out "desires".
· Page 4 - 2.6.35.8 - Wireless Telephone Service - 911 calls. Mr. Palmer said it is
vague and should be limited to real 911 but is a State Statute. Patrick White
suggested adding "system" to follow the Statute.
· Page 4 - (B) add "New" Towers ....
· Page 4 - to state - only "white unless otherwise required by the FAA"
· Page 5 - 2.6.35.8.4- add "necessary".
SPEAKERS
Richard Woodruff- Wilson Miller - wanted everyone to know the Telecommunication
Industry does take broadest possible interpretations of the language just discussed. Time
line applies to 911 towers and to other cell towers as well.
Page 3
November 20, 2003
Patrick White stated the provisions are limited to what the Statute calls E911.
Mr. Adelstein moved to recommend transmittal of Tab G as modified and found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, removing the geographic ref. to 951
in 2.6.35.5.9 -C and change "service" to "system" in 2.6.35.8 and the EAC's
recommendation for only white strobe lights. Also under "default approval" add
"necessary" E911 service. Second by Mr. Strain.
Mr. Palmer stated they cannot pass an Ordinance that deletes the wording of applicable
things that the State Statute applies to and try to narrow its application to Collier County.
His position is that it is ambiguous - but the intent of the legislature is talking about a
special service, not something that can be fixed immediately and still goes through the
normal processing.
A lengthy discussion took place. Another issue discussed was the white strobe light with
a light barrier or up shielding, and Nancy Peyton concerned about the protection of
wildlife and quality of life for birds as well as the people regarding the lights.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
TAB H - 3.5.11 - Littoral Shelf Planting Area
This is a revision of existing language. Ms. Chumbler corrected an error of the
cross referencing on the numbering.
The excavation lakes are exempt from littoral plantings, subject to meeting State
Permits listed. They did add language - when converted to a different use, the
littoral standards would apply.
Mr. Strain moved to transmit Tab H with recommendation of approval and
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
9:47 A.M. Break
10:00 A.M. Reconvened
TAB I - 2.6.39 - TDR'S (Transfer of Development Rights)
· Page 2 - C - Mr. Richardson addressed the submerged lands being excluded.
Mr. Mulhere stated the TDR provisions were written in 1974 and amended in
1993. They did not revise the language and will have to do in a subsequent
amendment cycle if needed. This does not apply to any submerged land or
wetlands that are in the Eastern Lands.
· Page 3 - Mr. Richardson asked if there was language somewhere that states
whether they round up or down on the number of units. Ms. Chumbler responded
it is consistent with the way density is calculated of rounding up or down in the
County presently.
Page 4
November 20, 2003
Page 6 - l-f- Incomplete sentences and will correct language for better
understanding.
· 2.6.39.5 - invalid numbers and letters.
· 1-c - will be clarified.
· Ms. Chumbler stated they are establishing a TDR credit value of $25,000 which
was directed by the Board of County Commissioners. Dr. James Nicholas did an
updated market analysis, and based the $25,000 on his study of property sales in
that area.
· Mr. Richardson asked why the market place doesn't take care of the price.
· Mr. Murray wondered if there is a holding corporation and could corporations
transfer between corporations.
· After one year the program is implemented and the LDR's become affected, the
BCC are required to revisit the program again to see how it is working.
· Transaction fee will be charged - but no fee has been established at this time. It
has been suggested to be a nominal fee.
SPEAKERS
Chuck Mohlke - appeared on own behalf- also a member Rural Fringe Committee
- He addressed Page 7 - 2-B
- Uncertainties not addressed appropriately
Transaction fee - wanted to know when it will be established and what
constitutes a modest fee.
Stan Litsinger responded it will be an Administration fee with a recording fee
in recording the rights and property transferred. Not sure if they will create
the TDR's and then record them or wait for a Buyer or Seller to initiate a
process. The fee would be nominal based on the $25,000 could be approx.
$100.00.
The recording fee has not been decided on who will pay it.
· Mr. Richardson suggested putting an upper range on it perhaps with a "not to
exceed" percentage.
Mr. Schmitt discussed the services given from his Department. It will not be
profit generated. Until they know the procedures and staff and time involved,
they will not know what the fees will be.
Ms. Crumbier responded the language could be "a TDR Transaction is
sufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the County for administering the
program."
Mr. Mohlke said they need to make a decision on whether they want it to be a free
and open transaction between interested parties, where they determine the economic
Page 5
November 20, 2003
interest of both in open negotiations and not be burdened with a transaction fee which
could be a concern whether the commodity transaction can take place or not.
When determined a fee could be done in a Resolution where it could change easily.
Richard Woodruff-
TDR's - when a governmental begins to establish a value - they should have
some relationship to the ownership.
- If establishing a $25,000 value on a TDR, it begins to impact the basis of the
market system.
- Price should be determined by the market place itself. Do not support the
government getting into the fair market to establish land prices.
- Fractional TDR's are created within the Rural Fringe. Examples were given.
There will be hundreds of fractional units created.
- Do not apply first built TDR's to the Rural Fringe area; let it be what actually
gets built.
Ms. Crumbier stated the reasoning of setting a price is to ensure there would be
a floor value returned to the sending land property owners. They might not get a
returned value for their development tights.
More discussion was held on the transaction fee, rounding up or down and
fractional TDR's. This is a one year trial program. They would not revisit the
validity of the TDR, just the implementation of the program.
Mr. Mulhere stated the Urban TDR language had a provision that said the first
units used on a project are deemed to be the first ones used. There are restrictions
on number of units transferred from urban to urban with limited conditions. The
Rural Fringe process is what they want to promote the transfer of development
rights.
A BCC workshop had been held in which they established the floor of a TDR
price after the study was done by Dr. Nicholas. Commissioner Coletta is
concerned about the "little guy."
David Ellis - Collier Building Industry Assn. - served on Rural Fringe Committee -
Did study on TDR programs - successful & not successful ones.
Some did not set price. Clearing house. If government manipulates program, it
created problems. May create inflexibility.
Citizens affected - lost rights - value to property - need a system that works.
Restore values - supply & demand.
Page 6
November 20, 2003
- Concerned about fees. How and when charged and when reported. Need
simple system.
- Nothing done in program on affordability issues in Rural Fringe area.
Bruce Anderson
- Stated that they really need to make this work.
- Need to have Dr. Nicholas at the BCC hearing - someone to formulate and
implement a TDR program that has hands on experience.
- Mr. Mulhere alluded to the requirement of first unit on urban in fill be a TDR.
That guts the urban infill provisions in the Comp Plan.
- Not enough TDR's to satisfy demand in Rural Fringe.
- Urban to Urban TDR program has been a failure.
Internal transfers - should be exempt other than recording the transfer. Not
subject to a minimum price requirement.
The County should become a TDR bank.
Follow Dr. Nicolas' recommendation - he did not recommend the County
set the values, did recommend establishing the County or a non-profit entity
as a bank.
More concerned about a central depository being established than the price.
More discussion followed on Mr. Anderson's remarks.
Stan Litsinger responded on the TDR bank stating the BCC did not give direction on
establishing a banking mechanism, other than the County would act as broker for buyer
and seller.
Mr. Anderson felt the BCC/TDR Workshop was not well noticed - especially for those
making the decisions on the Amendments.
The Public Hearing is being heard now.
Mr. Budd did not feel comfortable taking final action and would like to rehear it in a
second public hearing.
Mr. Schiffer - Page 7 - B. 1. d. put a period after severed, and eliminate the establishing
value of any such remuneration of at least $25,000 per TDR Credit.
Mr. Strain felt they should give it the one year trial and establish issues where policy
hasn't been set as of yet.
Mr. Schiffer moved, concerning section 3.6.39.6 - B. 1. d., to eliminate everything
from the word sever - "and establishing the value of any such remuneration is at
least $25,000 per TDR Credit."
Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried 7-2. Budd& Strain voting "no".
Page 7
November 20, 2003
Other Directions given were:
Encourage the transfer fee being established ASAP.
· Urban area not first use.
· Central Depository good idea.
· Exemption of Internal transfers good idea. (Ms. Chumbler will change and
include not only the same owner but affiliated owners)
· Timing ofTDR's - show right of ability to purchase prior to final action of the
PUD - once the PUD is approved - change 60 days to 90-120 days.
Patrick White - Consider 2nd hearing - December 1, 2003 - 2:00 PM. Chambers. · Can continue all the first hearing items to that date without any need for
advertising.
· If there are items from today to continue on the 24th for a second hearing - is
okay.
· The items being heard today were noticed and advertised for second hearings.
· If the members want to hear the items for the second time - they need to hold a
second hearing on December 1 st at 2:00 PM.
Mr. Murray moved to hear staffs recommendations and clarifications on specific
items asked for and continue Tab I - TDR's - Eastern Lands with 1 public hearing.
There will then be a vote to approve and pass onto the Board of County
Commissioners all the Rural Land assessment LDR's. Second by Mr. Richardson.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
TAB J- 2.6.40 - Density Blendine
· Language is verbatim from Policy.
· Page 2 - A. 6. - Highest quality - varies on the nature of the site.
Mr. Murray moved to forward TAB J. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried
unanimously 9-0.
Will continue first hearing on Tab's A-L-M & 1N and the Oil & Gas issues. · Oil&Gas-TabA-B&C
· Parking - Tab A & C
· Definitions-Civic & Institutional uses & Pathway
· Street Cross Sections & Sizing of alleys
· Dark Skies
· Listed Species - Tab A-B & C - and L
· Special Event Signage
Page 8
November 20, 2003
To check calendars and decide after lunch.
Monday, Nov. 24th - 5:05 PM Chambers (or) start earlier in the day
- Possibly 2:00 PM
Monday, Dec. 1st- 2:00 PM Chambers
Tabs K, L, M & N will be taken on Nov. 24th. All speakers can return on that date.
Mr. Adelstein moved they continue their meeting to 1:15 PM to set a "time certain"
for Nov. 24th, 2003. Second by Mr. Murray. Carried unanimously 9-0.
12:00 NOON - BREAK FOR LUNCH
1:15 PM - RECONVENED
Mr. Adelstein moved to hear the Eastern Lands on Monday, November 24th, 2003
2:00 to 5:00 PM - break for 1 hour - continue from 6:00 - 9:00 PM. Second by
Mr. Murray.
Mr. Adelstein moved to amend the motion that the Eastern Lands are a
continuation on the items pertaining to the first public hearing and for the Eastern
Lands of items not heard today for the second Public Hearing. Mr. Murray
amended his second.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
There being no further business on the LDC Amendments, the meeting will be continued
to November 24th, 2003 at 2:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Russell Budd
Page 9