CCPC Minutes 11/24/2003 S November 24, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION/LDC AMENDMENTS
Naples, Florida, November 24, 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 2:00 PM in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Russell Budd (Excused)
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein (Excused)
Paul Midney
Dwight Richardson
Kenneth Abernathy
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
George Evans
ALSO PRESENT:
Joe Schmitt, Comm. Dev. & Environmental Services
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Marti Chumbler, Attorney-Carleton, Fields
Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director
Page 1
November 24, 2003
The meeting of the LDC Amendments was called to order by Vice Chairman Mark
Strain at 2:00 PM.
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Roll call was taken - a quorum established. (Mr. Budd & Mr. Adelstein are excused)
(Mr. Richardson & Mr. Abemathy are absent)
This meeting is a continuation of the LDC/Amendment hearing from November 20,
2003.
Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - his recollection from November
! 3th meeting voted to hear the CCSL Provisions one time - then find the provisions as
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and then recommend approval to the BCC.
For those that would like to discuss the matter further, it would be appropriate under
Public Comment." If the interested parties would like to discuss any item prior to public
comment, it would be at the discretion of the Commission.
The regular Cycle III issues will be discussed later in the day- 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM.
There will be a break between 5 PM - 6 PM.
TAB K- 3.8 - Environmental Impact Statements
Page- 9 - 3.8.5.5 Wetlands (letters b & c - items are on errata sheet)
· Page 10- 3.8.5.6 - Letter B - strike entire sentence.
· Page 10- 3.8.5.7 - amend language to be more consistent with Comp Plan to read:
Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar
to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site.
· Page 10 & 11 - recommend striking last sentence referring to the 5 mile travel
distance of the Manatee Protection Pan.
Bill Lorenz - Environmental Services Director - stated they are working with
the Stakeholders Group looking at possible changes to the Plan. If the language is left
and changes are made later - another change would ihave to be made and it would be
redundant.
SPEAKERS
Nancy Peyton - Florida Wildlife Federation -
- 3.8.5.7 - Listed Species - letter (A) - suggested: to provide a plant and animal
species survey to include a minimum and strike "species of special status" and put
in "listed species". More consistent.
Commissioners Agreed.
Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon Society -
~ Page 10 - Harper Methodology - supported striking it.
- Page 11 - 3.4.5.8 (D) Soil Sampling - instead of "may" use "shall" be required.
Page 2
Bruce Anderson - Attorney
- 3.8.5.7 - (B) had already been addressed.
November 24, 2003
Mr. Midney moved recommendation of Tab K with the revisions discussed and find
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Second by Mr. Schiffer.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
TAB L - 3.0 - VEGETATION REMOVAL~ ETC
· Page 6 - E. - Middle of sentence, "this exemption should not apply to mangrove
alternatives" etc. - strike rest of the sentence - meaningless.
· Page 9 - B-2 - Exceptions - who determines? There are criteria in the Code.
Language will reference the correct section.
· Page 10 - C. 1. - Who keeps record? County Staff does.
· Page 11 - 3.9.4.5 - "Vegetation Preserve - (on site) .....added in two places.
· Page 11 - D - 3 - demonstrated - what are the qualifications? Answer was
"what's in the best interest of the general public."
· Page 11 - 3.9.5.2 - C. - Immokalee Urban Designated Area - sensitivity of the
land? Mr. Strain is not comfortable with "demonstrated" again - it is not defined.
(Mr. Abernathy arrived at 2:25 PM)
Bob Mulhere - RWA - has no examples, but isn't new language. Discussion followed
and he will work on language for Page 11 Par. 3.
· Page
· Page
· Page
same
12 - 3.9.5.3 (A.2) Par. 2 - delete.
13 - B.l.a. - (b) delete - it is redundant
13 - 2.a- different language - consistent with earlier change. (Add "of the
type")
· Page 15 - 3.9.7.1 A. - discussions with Barbara Burgeson on the SDP & PUD's
being no other review process.
· Page 16 - D. Protective Covenants - Mr. Strain wondered why they need access
- answer was for maintenance activities for the Preserve areas. Need access for
Homeowners Assn. for maintenance etc. and is identified in the Preserve
Management Plan. E. Created Preserves - can reference the section. Discussion
followed on mitigation and being flexible.
· Page 17 - 2nd line - reference to 5 gallon shrubs - should change to 7 gallon.
· Page 26 - 3.9.9.3. - Do have proposed language to clarify -
· Page 27 - b. last sentence - how is knowledgeable determined? Like expertise as
those listed.
· Ms. Chumbler referred back to the errata sheet (sub-par. 6- 3.9.10.1.6.) add one
more exotic species - L. Carrotwood (CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES).
· Page 26 - 3.9.9.3. - Single Family & Two Family lots - added new language.
Any addition that adds square footage will trigger it.
Page 11 - Par. 3 - Discretionary Exception etc. - Mr. Mulhere proposes - after
"zoned property" strike the balance of paragraph and add new languages: where
Page 3
November 24, 2003
both the required native preservation and the proposed essential service cannot be
reasonably located on the site. Such a reduction may be granted to the minimum
degree required to accommodate the essential service.
Page 21 - Par. 7 - on errata sheet - strikes "or obtain a Density Bonus."
Page 26 - 3.9.9.1. C. 1. - strike (the) and strike requirement in second sentence.
SPEAKERS
Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon Society
- Issue of exotic clearing for mitigation - Page 13 B. 1 .b. - discussed recommendation of
adding a sentence and did not think it was redundant, is confusing and did understand but
should be made more explicit. Mitigation was discussed further as being an obligation of
all development. Clarification will be added.
Mr. Murray moved to recommend approval of Tab L and being consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 6-0.
TAB M - 3.11 - LISTED SPECIES
Page 4 - 3.11.1 A. - All Developments shall be clustered - is it mandatory?
Ms. Chumbler suggested a language change as there may be some areas clustering may
not be allowed. She will make a change in the language. D. Who determines whether it
is appropriate or not (roadway crossings)? Letters frmn different agencies would make
that determination.
Page 5 - 3.11.3.3. - Clarifying language - Comprehensive Plan language, which is also
unclear - is a hot topic. This will probably be changed and amended in 2004. This
section can be stricken and Ms. Chumbler read the changes that will be presented.
SPEAKERS
Nancy Peyton - FL Wildlife Federation
- Is an informal working group working on listed species - FL Wildlife, Collier
Audubon, and Conservancy of SW FL & North Bay Civic Assn.
- Goal is that Collier County Government takes responsibility for protection of
individual listed species, and listed species populations in the County and not defer
to State or Federal Agencies. Concerns are:
Want County to request technical assistance from the State Wildlife Commission and
US Fish & Wildlife Service on all development applications.
County shall utilize recommendations and guidelines & letters of technical assistance.
Not all projects in County go for Fish &Wildlife or State Wildlife Commission review.
Triggered by Wetland Impacts.
Other questions concerning the Corp. not adopting the Fish & Wildlife
recommendations, the procedure for seeking reviews and conflicting recommendations
from State & Federal Agencies were among their concerns.
- One phase the committee discussed was to go back next year & amend the Growth
Management Plan to strengthen the Counties responsibility to manage individual listed
species and populations in the County.
- The County should develop & implement specific management plans for listed species.
Page 4
November 24, 2003
The real issue to address is the Growth Management Plan.
Discussion followed on the responsibilities of who will manage the species and the
requirements of the Growth Management Plan being unclear and interpretation of the
language. Needs to be clarified in the Comp Plan. Will work on it together with the
County in 2004.
(Mr. Richardson arrived at 3:20 PM)
Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon
- Would like to see technical assistance letters.
- Need the County to protect its own populations and individual listed species.
Need to have own management plans and regulations to provide promotion of recovery
of species in own County.
"Shall Consider and May Utilize" is a good choice for language change.
Discussion followed on the language of "Shall Consider and May Utilize" being
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Ms. Chumbler made several suggestions
for changes.
Nicole Ryan - Conservancy of Southwest Florida
- Concerned about how the GMP & listed species language is being interrupted.
- Is unclear & ambiguous - problem with agencies being more permissive & lenient than
county policies.
- Need to clarify language now. Wildlife will suffer and need something in the interim
until something is done permanently.
- Need to know how to protect wildlife in Collier County, deferring it to the agencies is
not going to work.
- 2004 LDC Cycle - Collier County needs to protect the counties wildlife species in
order for not becoming extinct.
Bob Diffenderfer- Signature Communities
He understands the action the County has taken & answers a question - not creating a
situation where there is a LDC which is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The action
staff has proposed accomplishes the consistency and he supports it.
Ambiguity - but support the current interpretation of the Comp Plan - have
jurisdictional agencies in which is their job to do so - in reviewing the species issues.
The State and Federal Agencies have jurisdiction and issue permits - and understand
compliance with the permits.
- He provided a letter, dated 11-22-03 for the record. (Attached)
- They look forward to the County reviewing the Comp Plan in the next cycle to figure
out what the language means. They believe the current interpretation is correct.
Rich Yovanovich
- He agrees with the change being proposed.
- Page 4 - inconsistency - need to delete the word "may".
Page 5
November 24, 2003
Working group mentioned earlier needs to include all stakeholders. In the past, those
with private property rights have not been invited. Needs to be a working group, not only
the environmental groups, but also private people also.
Will help work on proposed language.
Doug Fee - President North Bay Civic Assn.
He read different goals of the Growth Management Plan in the County protecting
Fisheries and Wildlife and intent.
Need to protect wildlife in County.
Language already been adopted in LDC and read 3.11.2.2.
- His thoughts of discrepancies in the GMP and the LDC were stated.
- Doesn't support the State and Federal Agencies being involved.
Linda Reed Caron
- She agrees the issue in discussion needs to go to the GMP and her concern is the time it
will take. She agrees the "may" should be left in the language.
Tim Durum - Wilson Miller
He talked about another County with a similar issue.
When doing things just on County basis opportunities may be missed that are available
on a regional basis.
Going through the Endangered Species Act through the Federal Government isn't an
easy task. He discussed the permitting process and regional mitigation.
Talked about different sections mentioning "habitat".
- Page 5 - Subsection 3. Would take the place of3.11.3.3. Suggested last 2 sentences are
stricken.
Mr. Midney moved to accept Tab M with the revisions and comments that staff
incorporated with being consistent with the GMP. Second by Mr. Abernathy.
Mr. Richardson wanted to make sure they have an option to have flexibility to
review on a case by case basis following the interpretations they see in other
portions of the Growth Management Plan within the confines of the law.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
Break - 4:02 PM
Reconvened - 4:12 PM
Russell Webb handed out revisions.
(Mr. Abernathy will not be in attendance at 6:00 PM and Mr. Strain will be late)
They will finish at 2:00 PM on December 1st if need be and will be discussed later in the
meeting.
TAB N - ABBREVIATIONS & DEFINITIONS
Page 6
November 24, 2003
Page 7 - Open Space - parking lots never been considered open spaces.
Discussed and will be looked at.
Page 10 - Carrotwood should be added to the listed - Tab L cross reference to
definition.
Mr. Murray moved to accept Tab N subject to changes and clarifications discussed
by staff and being consistent with the LDC Amendments. Second by Mr. Midney.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
Clean up language in different Tabs
Oil & Gas - different pages referenced in Tabs A, B & C.
· Provision - Page 10 - 11/18/03 draft - Section 2.2.2 ½.2 - RFMU - receiving
Lands outside of Rural Villages A, 3, 13, - they propose listing "as a permitted as
of right within receiving this language - Oil & Gas expiration subject to State
drilling permits and Collier County Site Development Plan review procedures.
· Another change - Oil & Gas field development and production, subject to State,
Field development permits and Collier County Site Development Plan procedures.
· Ms. Chumbler explained how the allowable uses are used of"right" and for
"conditional".
SPEAKERS
Brian McKenzie - Collier Resources Company - business entity for managing the
oil & gas minerals for the Collier family - over 1M acres in Collier County and
talked about the following:
· History of Oil & Gas from 1943
· Surface Impact devoted to oil & gas.
· State & Federal Agencies - regulate oil & gas activities.
· List of regulations to comply- Federal level
· Maintaining program
· Working with staff on language in LDC
· Concern is many provisions are in direct conflict with new proposed amendments
of the Cycle 3 LDC. Not existing ones.
· Affect on Permit process.
· Developed language - Permitted Use and Conditional Use. Staffhas agreed to
the proposed language. (attached)
A lengthy discussion followed on the proposed language.
Language inserted - TAB A - 2.2.2 ½ 2 - A. 3. a.
2.2.2 ½.2 -A. 3. c.
2.2.2 ½ 3 A 1 M
2.2.2 ½3A3E
2.2.2 ½4Al g
Page 7
2.2.2 ½.4 A 3 c
2.2.2 ½4B 1H&2B
November 24, 2003
TAB B
2.2.17.2 A 8 & C 1
TAB C
2.2.27.11 C 3 1st Par.
2.2.27.11 C 3 2nd Par.
Mr. Richardson moved to approve the Oil & Gas issues in regards to the sections
mentioned by Ms. Chumbler and being consistent with the GMP. Second by Mr.
Midney. Carried unanimously 6-0. (Mr. Abernathy was not present for the vote)
Recess from 5:00-6:00 P.M.
ReConvened
Tab I - TDRs
-3.6.39.6, Page 7, Paragraph B, "County maintains central TDR registry", add at
end of first sentence after "sales and transfers" phrase ", as well as a central listing of
TDR credits available for sale and purchasers seeking TDR credits".
-Paragraph B, Sub-paragraph Id, Page 7, after "from which TDR credits were
generated" add phrase ", unless the RFMU or non-RFMU receiving lands on which the
TDR credits will be utilized and the RFMU sending lands from which the TDR credits
were generated are owned by the same persons or entities or affiliated persons or
entities". There was a recommendation that minimum price should be deleted.
-Paragraph 2, Page 7, "shall be sufficient until the developer submitted" should be
changed to read "shall not be approved until developer has submitted to the following".
Regarding the transaction, fee the language should be added as follows: a TDR
transaction fee sufficient to defray the expenses of the County in administering its central
TRD registry", this would go forward with a recommendation from the CCPC that this
fee be established as soon as possible.
-Paragraph 3, Pages 7 and 8, deadline for getting information is changed from 60
days to 120 days.
-2.6.3.9.4, Page 6, Paragraph lc, language was changed to read "the property in
question has a site development plan in common with adjacent property".
Mr. Midney moved for finding the information in Tab I as revised consistent with
the Growth Management Plan and recommended sending to the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners. Second by Mr. Abernathy.
Carried unanimously 6-0.
Tab C
Page 8
November 24, 2003
-Page 14, Town Core, Paragraph N, "landscape islands and tree diamonds greater
than 1 $ square feet in size shall have a minimum of one tree" striking the word "canopy".
-SRA under Tab C and Rural Villages under Tab A, had allowable parking of 75
percent and allowed for reduction based on certain performance standards; should be
changed with the following language inserted: "The amount of required parking shall be
demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation
application. Parking shall be determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands
for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies. The analysis shall
demonstrate the number of parking spaces available to more than one use or function
recognizing the required parking will vary depending upon the multiple functions or uses
in close proximity which are unlikely to require the spaces at the same time".
-Mr. Schiffer expressed concern regarding whether parking might be deficient if
common parking were used and that the amendment offers no parking requirement other
than an analysis to show what the parking is. Mr. Mulhere explained that parking
required will have to be demonstrated based on a site-specific analysis of the SRA, the
standard is going to be the Code.
-Page 15, Paragraph q, ii, where it speaks about signs being located so as not to
conflict with architectural features has been revised to read, "signs shall be installed in a
location that minimizes conflicts with windows or other architectural features of
buildings". Language is needed to provide for temporary signs and provide language that
clearly states that the definitions found in this RLSA document takes precedence over the
general definitions in the LDCs.
-Regarding ally width, cross-section has been revised to go to 21 feet.
-Graphics have been revised to make them more readable.
-All sidewalks are intended to be on streets and not alleys.
Tab A
-Page 6, suggestion for new 2.2.2.1/2 lc, Ordinance No. 98-17 relating to Twin
Eagles Development requiring development to develop in accord with a specific cite
plan, that would mean that the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Provisions would not be
applicable to that provision. These regulations would supercede Ordinance No. 98-17
and that development would now be subject to the rural fringe amendments as would any
other development in that area, that should be added as Paragraph C in Tab A.
SPEAKERS
Bruce Anderson, stated that the ordinance was approved in 1998. Part of the property is
platted and that part that is platted is grand fathered. Owner of remainder of property
would like to subject its property to the new standards and take advantage of the new
provisions. Mr. Anderson suggested a smaller minimum required lot size for clustered
multi-family development in the rural fringe with no change in density.
Page 9
November 24, 2003
-Mr. Mulhere discussed Dark Sky provisions that deal with regulating outdoor
lighting, not using excessive energy to obtain desired results. Dark Sky provisions have
some esthetic, environmental, and risk management provisions associated with the
concept. Recommended creating a new section dealing with outdoor lighting and would
be placed in the supplemental section of the LDC. Recommendation was made to defer
this to the next cycle.
-Mr. Midney made a motion to recommend Tabs A through N as amended
and modified as being consistent with the Growth Management Plan for approval to
the Collier County Board of Commissioners with the provision that there be only
one hearing on the matter. Mr. Adelstein seconded the motion. Carried
unanimously 6-0.
Second Scheduled Hearing of Regular Cycle Amendments
-Russell Webb, Principal Planner, presented draft proposal of the
Vanderbilt Beach Residential/Tourist Overlay and requested a motion on whether or not
there should be a December 4 meeting regarding a possible extension of the moratorium
if the Board of County Commissioners cannot come to an agreement on what they would
like to do.
-Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney, need CCPC to make a finding of
consistency with respect to the extension for a six month period of time in the event that
the BCC does not adopt the overlay.
-Mr. Schiffer made a motion to hold a meeting on December 4, 2003, at 5:05
p.m., to hear 2.2.36 provisions. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Carried
unanimously 6-0.
Div. 3.15
-This is a continuation hearing on this matter. Comp Plan Amendments draft was
handed out. Changes were made as follows:
-Section 3.15.3.11.2, No. 6, words "if applicable" were added.
-On Page 8, 3.15.3.31, words "Map TR 7" were added.
-Page 8, 3.15.3.31, words "Proportionate share payments under this section are
determined subsequent to a finding of concurrency for a proposed project within a
TCMA and do not influence the concurrency determination process" were added.
-Page 11, 3.15.6.2., last paragraph the language should be changed to read "The
AUIR shall be the annual baseline of an ongoing, real-time concurrency determination
for roads."
-3.15.6.4.3.3, additions to language have been made as follows: (a) "that is
expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the
development"; (b) "that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work
trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership"; (c) "that is expected
to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development
and/or increase transit ridership"; (d) "that are expected to reduce peak hour automobile
Page 10
November 24, 2003
work trips generated by the development; (e) "that would be expected to reduce vehicle
miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development"; (f) "that would
reduce the vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the
development"; (g) "that would reduce auto trips generated by the development and
increase transit ridership"; (h) "or that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of
travel and automobile work trips generated by the development". (i) "that would reduce
vehicle miles of travel". Also added was the language, "An applicant seeking an
exception from concurrency requirements for transportation through the certification
mentioned above shall submit an application to the Transportation Division
Administrator on forms provided by the Division. Binding commitments to utilize any of
the above techniques relied upon to obtain certification shall be required as a condition of
development approval."
-Mr. Murray stated that he is an advocate for two year concurrency rather than
one year.
-Mr. Schiffer Had a concern that a developer could get three years worth of
development. Spreading out building of units was discussed.
-Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator, one-half of impact fees must
be paid at the time of final development and the rest within three years and then capacity
is tied up. Developer has paid impact fees for replacement capacity to be provided.
-Mr. Budd agrees with Mr. Murray regarding two years concurrency.
SPEAKERS
-David Ellis, Collier Building Association, supports three year funded plan.
Wants the County to be required to deliver on plan it put forth.
-Reed Jarvi, Collier Building Association, supports everything Mr. Ellis said
plus would like clarification regarding 3.15.3.21.2. Mr. Feder responded that
AUIR will be done once a year. Updates will be done based on quarterly counts.
Mr. Ellis expressed concerns regarding proportionate share.
-Mr. Feder stated that regarding the issue of proportionate share, that fee only
applies within TCMA areas and only after concurrency determination.
-Mr. Schiffer made a motion to recommend a modification to 3.15.311.2,
No. 4, of two year concurrency. Mr. Adeistein seconded the motion. Carried
unanimously 6-0.
PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON PREVIOUSLY HEARD LDC - 3.13
-Kyle Kinney, President and Chief Operating Officer of Pelican Bay
Foundation, addressed the coastal construction setback line variance. Has concern
regarding storm, fire or some other event resulting in the destruction of more than 50
Page 11
November 24, 2003
percent of the facility would make it nearly impossible to replace those buildings that
have already received the necessary variances or permits from both the County and DEP.
Mr. Strain expressed concern about special legislation for Pelican Bay.
-Mr. Anderson, gave a presentation regarding the Coastal Construction Setback
Line and indicated that with the language that is proposed to be taken out of the current
Code, the possibility of applying for a variance to rebuild any of the structures back to
their original location is limited to circumstances of either avoiding a taking or for safety
and it also negates prior coastal construction line variance approvals that people have
gone through and received. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to have the existing
variance language remain and also have the new language in Section 3.13.5.5 which
reads, "In the case of the destruction of any structure seaward of the CCSL for any reason
to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the
structure at the time of their destruction any reconstruction shall conform to the
provisions of the LDC in effect at the time of reconstruction including Division 3.17.
Said reconstruction may require a new CCSL variance" not added.
-Ed Staros, Managing Director of the Ritz Carlton, would like language
change reconsidered. It would be difficult to reconstruct beach facilities with the new
language. Beach is essential to well-being of the hotel and its employees. Ritz Carlton
would likely go out of business without the beach. It does not take a very large storm to
damage the beach and facilities.
Mr. Adelstein made a motion to reconsider the prior determination.
Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion. Carried unanimously 5-1.
-Mr. Adelstein made a motion to rehear the issue on December 4, 2003, and
then forward it to the BCC their decision. Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion.
Carried unanimously 6-0.
-Robin Meyer, Zoning and Land Development, gave presentation regarding
proposed changes to height definition and some additions.
-Mr. Schiffer suggested using the center line of the road elevation. Mr. Schiffer
suggested using a definition of the actual height would be from the average center line
elevation of the adjacent roadways to the highest structure or appurtenances without the
exclusions of 2 6 3 1.
SPEAKERS
None
-Mr. Adelstein made a motion to continue the issue until the meeting on
December 4, 2003. Mr. Midney seconded the motion. Carried unanimously 6-0.
Pole or Ground Signs
Page 12
November 24, 2003
-Discussion on guidance as to what creates unique circumstances.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 8:15 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Vice Chairman Mark Strain
Page 13