Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/04/2003 RDecember 4, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 4, 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: Russell Budd Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Dwight Richardson (Excused) Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray George Evans ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Comm. Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Fred Reischl, Planning Marj orie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Planning Barbara Burgeson, Planning Robin Meyer, Planning David Weeks, Planning AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 04, 2003, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CEN'I~R, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRI'ITEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITI~N MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY CLERK ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - The CCPC decided last night (11/24/03) to hear certain LDC amendments at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 4th. The amendments that will be heard are the CCSL Variance, building heights, and ground or pole signs. Advertising is not needed for this as it is a continuation meeting, but the agenda will need to be revised. Also, at 5:05 p.m. on that date, they will hear the issue of the potential extension of the VBRTO moratorium. This was advertised, so it is time certain and obviously will not be heard at the regular meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 2003, AND THE LDC MEETING MRqUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES BCC REPORT- RECAPS- NOVEMBER 3, 2003 WORKSHOP AND NOVEMBER 18, 2003 REG. MTG. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, Vincent A. Cautero, of Coastal Engineeri'ng consultants, Inc., representing Gates McVey- Knopke, LLC, requesting a rezone from the "A" Rural Agricultural zonin~ district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district to be known as the Lemuria PUD. 'l~his project will consist of 72 residential dwelling ufiits for a density of 2.97 dwelling units/acres. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road; north of Orange Blossom Drive; South of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and adjacent to and south of the Collier County Carica Road Water Storage and Pump Station, in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 24.21± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) B. PUDZ-2003-AR-3905, Terry Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., representing Stewart Marcus, requesting a rezone from "RSF-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Carlysle Regency PUD. Project will consist ora maximum of 35 residential dwelling units and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Yarberry Lane, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11.7± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Ce RZ-2003-AR-4080, Seremy Sterk, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Lannar Partners, Inc., requesting a rezone from "GC" Goff Course to "CF" Community Facility for a church with a maximum of 513 seats. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road and Doral Circle, in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.06± acres.(Coordinator: RObin Meyer) D. 2003 GMP Amendment Petitions CPSP-2003-4: Amending the Future I. and Use Element (FLUE)' to. add a new policy referencing the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 by the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners; referencing the Furore Land Use Map (FLU-M) Series depicting existing and future school sites and school support facilities; referencing a map of existing school and school support facilities in the I:iLUE support document; and, identifying zoning districts which allow and which do not allow school and school support facilities. Amending the FLUM Series to add new maps depicting sites upon which schools and school support facilities are located, and depicting undeveloped sites for future schools and school support facilities. Amending the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) to refer to the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to reference the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and to cross-reference the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM series. Amending the Immokalee Area Master Plan to reference the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and'to cross-reference the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM Series. [Coordinator: David Weeks] CPSP-2003-5, Petition requesting text amendments to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element in order to incorporate the Community Character/Smart Growth principles adopted by the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory. [Coordinator: David Weeks] CPSP-20034, Petition requesting the adoption of the County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) and the amendment of the goals, objectives and policies of the County's Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Future Land Use Element to establish the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP).[Coordinator: Darren Murphy] 2 CPSP-2003-7, Petition requesting the adoption of a new Economic Development Element including goals, objectives and policies to the Growth Management Plan.' [Coordinator: Dawd Weeks] CPSP-2003-8, Petition Requesting amendments to the Capital ImprOvement Element (CIE), Transportation Element, and Future Land Use Element to revise Transportation Concurrency Management policies to establish a real time checkbook concurrency management system; to establish two (2) Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA), and to adopt a Map of the proposed TCMAs within the Urban Designated Area on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); to' establish a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), and to adopt a Map of the proposed TCEA within the Urban Designated Area on the FLUM; and to add policies providing for fairshare developer contributions to the Multimodal Transportation Work Program of a TCMA when directly impacting a deficient road segment. [Coordinator: Stan Litsinger] CPSP-2003-9, Petition requesting change to Overlays and Special Features of the Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element, to certain noise contours as previously changed by Land Development Code amendment on June 14, 2000. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall] 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS: 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12/04/03 CCPC AGENDA/RB/Io 3 December 4, 2003 0 Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 PM, and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call - A quorum was established with Mr. Richardson being excused. Addenda to the Agenda - Certain LDC Amendments will be heard after the regular Agenda items on this date (12/5/03) and at 5:05 PM (time certain) the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay hearing will be held. Absences - none. Approval of Minutes - November 6, 2003, and the LDC Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2003. Make note Mr. Richardson was in attendance for the November 6, 2003 meeting. Page 16 - Mr. Adelstein's motion was "7.2 unit per acre" for the PUDZ-2002-AR-3158. -Page 8 -Mr. Schiffer asked about the "drive" into the entrance of Wiggins Pass. Mr. Abernathy moved to approve the minutes of November 6, 2003 as amended. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0. November 13th minutes- Page 4 - need to correct the confusion of differentiating between the Planning Commission from LDC Amendments. Several references were incorrect. Page 5 - Item 3 - the RT Overlay presented by staff would have permitted 100 foot buildings - this item needs to be clarified. Page 7 - Mr. Schiffer made a motion and wants it clarified to state "originally" proposed by staff. Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2003 as amended. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 8-0. BCC Report - Recaps - November 3, 2003 Workshop and November 18, 2003 Regular Meeting. - Coconilla PUD was continued by the Petitioner until January 27, 2004 to consider revisions. - Nicaea Academy PUD was reconsidered on December 2nd with denial 5-0. - Conditional Use for the Communication Tower was continued to January 13, 2004. Mr. Strain asked about the Coconilla PUD revisions and if the CCPC will be hearing them. If it is significant changes, such as density, land use issues, environmental etc. it would go back through the process again. Mr. Yovanovich responded they have already requested it be heard before the CCPC. 2 December 4, 2003 7. Chairman's Report - none. 7. Advertised Public Hearings: Ae PUDZ-2003-AR-3665 - Vincent Cautero, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Gates McVey Knopke, LLC, requesting a rezone from the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district to a "PUD" Planned [Init Development district to be known as the Lemuria P[ID. This project will consist of 72 residential dwelling units for a density of 2.97 dwelling units/acres. The property to be considered is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road north of Orange Blossom Drive, South of Vanderbilt Beach Road and adjacent to and south of the Collier County Carica Road Water Storage and Pump Station, Collier County, Florida consisting of 24.21+/- acres. Disclosures - Mr. Strain spoke with Mr. Cautero and the applicant concerning setbacks & other issues. Mr. Schiffer had a courtesy call with Mr. Gates. Mr. Budd spoke with the petitioner and his agent. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Vincent Cautero - Coastal Engineering Consultants Inc., representing Gates, McVey-Knopke - applicant and developer of site. An aerial photo was shown of the area and described to the Commissioners. Being the property is located in a traffic congestion zone, the project eliminates one unit per acre from the equation. Other projects that are not located in the traffic congestion zone would be eligible to apply for a maximum of 4, the maximum for this project is 3, and they are asking for 2.97 units per acre. The surrounding development densities are greater than that. There are 4 land use categories with one of them being infrastructure. He wanted to point out the minor revisions to the site plan that were requested by the Environmental Advisory Council. A type "C" buffer along the northern boundary was shown. An FPL easement was located in the northeast comer of the property, so the amount o £ land in conservation decreased two hundredths of an acre. He pointed out several items researched. Page 19 - setbacks to provide two back to back parking spaces without encroaching into the required sidewalks with the maximum length of 23 feet from the front of the garage. Multi-family setbacks were explained. Page 18 - setbacks for preserves. Minor change #8 - 5 feet rather than 0 feet. It is inappropriate for 0 feet. They have a maintenance easement and setback. In the Environmental standards they will deal with the Federal and State levels and will also accept regulations and guidelines of Collier County to comply with the Land Development Code Amendments. They will comply with any changes and stipulations from the Environmental Advisory Council. 3 December 4, 2003 Mr. Adelstein asked about the sidewalks and if the distance from the garage to the edge of the pavement can be 23 feet on both sides of the garage - the response was aff~rmative. Mr. Midney was concerned about the traffic and being a gated community and wondered about the interconnections. He favored not as many gated communities because of traffic congestion. Mr. Cautero stated they are landlocked by public utilities and private development so will be a gated community. The Goodlette Road widening will help tremendously. Mr. Schiffer referred to page 15 - intersections shall be provided with a minimum of 20 foot radius for all internal project streets and a 35 foot radius for intersections at project. entrances. He wondered if it should be 25 feet. Mr. Cautero responded it is the minimum requirement for the Land Development Code with no objections from staff. The side yard setbacks were discussed. Mr. Schiffer asked if the 23 feet was from the garage or garage door. It will be from the edge of the structure to the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Kant - Transportation Operations Director - the Level of Service on the road is "X", being the road is under construction, after construction it will be at or above Level of service "C" and possibly "A". Mr. Strain asked if they would add "except where a sidewalk exists that at such time measure at the back of sidewalk". Putting the model homes to the le12 would be more feasible. STAFF Fred Reischl - Zoning & Land Development Review - he sees no objection to the increase setback from 0 to 5 feet. The EAC recommended approval and staff is also recommending approval. Mr. Abernathy asked about the difference between a duplex and a two family dwelling. There is a distinction in the Land Development Code dealing with setbacks and residential standards. It's an ownership and platting issue. A duplex is a free standing conventional building on a single lot which contains two dwelling units. A two family is a free standing conventional building intended and designed and used and occupied as two dwelling units attached by common wall and roof, but each unit is located on separate lots. The petitioner wants to keep both options open. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, the Lemuria PUD with the following conditions: that all the recommendations of the EAC are met, Section 3.6.8.2 add sidewalks to the setback measurements where they occur, Section 2.6C that no wet models be constructed on temporary facilities in the well December 4, 2003 zone, Table 1 - the 5 foot between accessory structures as a correction to Item #8, and the site plan be used that was presented to the CCPC at this date December 4, 2003. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 8-0. PUDZ-2003-AR-3905 - Terry Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., representing Stewart Marcus, requesting a rezone from "RSF-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Carlisle Regency PUD. Project will consist of a maximum of 35 residential dwelling units and is located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Yarberry Lane, Collier County, Florida consisting of 11.7 +/- acres. Disclosures - none. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Terrance Kepple - representing petitioner - a revised sheet to the PUD document was handed out. The acreage was wrong - 11.7 acres rather than the 17.9 acres. He described the location of the property and is proposing a rezone to PUD for a maximum of 35 units for an age restricted single family development. Access to the site is planned off Yarberry Lane at the request of the Transportation Dept. They are providing for an interconnection from the Carlisle - east of the project, giving access to Airport-Pulling Road. The Carlisle will have services available to the residents. Project will provide all water, sewer and drainage facilities in accordance with County Code. Site plans have been done with loop interior road with lots facing on both sides. This is a privately owned facility with Mr. Marcus part owner. Mr. Strain discussed the sidewalks, front yard setbacks, and side entry garages. The Table will be changed to clarify the petitioner's intentions. Mr. Abernathy stated the sideyard setbacks should be a minimum setback in single family homes of 6 and 12 rather than 5 and 10. Mr. Adelstein asked about traffic on Orange Blossom Road. Mr. Kant responded there are approx. 8-10,000 cars and drops in the summer. In the next few months there will be a new route from Orange Blossom to Livingston. The trips will be low due to the type of development. Have not found peak hours and will be little strain on traffic. December 4, 2003 STAFF Fred Reischl - the Master Plan was corrected and shows the entrance on Yarberry. Storm Water Management plan still shows it on Orange Blossom and will be corrected before the BCC meeting. A public meeting was held with a few people in attendance. Is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with the neighborhood and recommend approval. Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Reischl discussed the from setbacks and sidewalk setbacks. SPEAKERS Willie Anthony - 559 14th St. N. - Owns property to the south of the project and has concerns of the entrance at Yarberry and a landscaping buffer being adequate or not. He was also concerned about the developer building 3 units to the acre and the buildings being two stories or not. Other concerns were subdividing lots for some and not for others. Orsie Anthony - 2373 Anthony Court - Lives to the south of the project. Attended the neighborhood meeting in which the entrance to the project was off Orange Blossom Drive. He has concerns about it being offYarberry now. There are no speed bumps, no sidewalks, children playing in the area and questioned the safety of the entrance being off Yarberry. He was concerned about the buildings being one or two stories. At the meeting it was discussed leasing the lake from the County and possibly a berm in that area and now understand it is no longer in the plans. Mr. Strain was concerned that the neighborhood meeting was held with the access off Orange Blossom and has since been changed to Yarberry and how the public now knows if they responded to what the advertisement said. He questioned whether they are doing something that is misleading to the public. Mr. Bellows responded that the plans given at the public meeting were given before submittal with the understanding that the plans could be changed and not sure it was a guarantee that the access would stay off Orange Blossom. The meetings are held so the public knows the plans are going through a review stage and make them aware of future advertising so they can follow the process. Mr. Adelstein mentioned the residents should be informed if the buildings are going to be two story or not instead of after approval. Mr. Kant answered the questions of the access road being offYarberry. Traffic signals are not warranted as there is not enough traffic for them. A plan for the intersection is at Yarberry because the spacing is much better and they need to maintain the capacity on Orange Blossom. Discussion followed on the access and being very little traffic. 6 December 4, 2003 Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Schiffer moved to approve PUDZ-2003-AR-3905 with the following changes: Section 3.4.2 where sidewalk exists, measure setback from the sidewalk. Table 1-the setback to garage is 20 feet. Table 1 - the side yard setback is 6 feet instead of zero and the buildings are limited to single story with the reference to Sunshine Village being deleted. Second by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 8-0. 9:45 AM BREAK 9:52 AM RECONVENED CJ RZ-2003-AR-4080 - Jeremy Stark, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Lannar Partners, Inc., requesting a rezone from "GC" Golf Course to "CF" Community Facility for a church with a maximum of 513 seats the subject site is located on the southeast corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Doral Circle in Collier County, Florida consisting of 4.06+/- acres. Disclosures - None. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Bill Hoover - Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. He described the location and acres involved. It is presently zoned "GC" Golf course and proposing to be rezoned to "CF" Community Facility for a church with a maximum capacity at build out of 513 seats. The existing Hibiscus Golf Course facilities are located across the canal south with an existing access to the east side and shared access on the south side of the church site. The golf course parking is located east of the church site and northeast a water management area. Rattlesnake-Hammock Road is currently at LOS "C" and with the project; it would not change the LOS. The land is for sale for a church site. At the informational meeting held it was suggested staff review the possibility of restricting the church of accessing their site only from the shared access from the Golf Course to reduce impact from the single family homes west of Doral Circle. Ed Kant stated the access from Doral Circle and Rattlesnake-Hanmaock Road will help the circulation around the use being asked for. They want to keep as many internal and interconnections as possible. This is only a recommendation because of the multiple accesses and usually recommends them when they feel necessary. Discussion followed on the traffic impacts from the golf course and a church with Sunday services and Sunday golfers. A traffic light does not meet the criteria. 7 December 4, 2003 Mr. Budd mentioned they will hear the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) after the present petition, and will ask that the Agenda be amended. STAFF Robin Meyers - Planning - 1 letter was received after the staff report went out and was handed out to the Commissioners. The public meeting was well attended with traffic being the main issue and concerns. The property has access to the golf course and the church is probably the least intensive use. SPEAKERS Allen Neil - 149 Doral Circle - the entrance is a main concern along with traffic. On weekends St. Peters has a large congregation and traffic is directed by the Florida Highway Patrol being there is a lot of traffic generated. It is very hard to get onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road and with the golf course and added traffic from a church will increase the traffic in the neighborhood. Then there are tournaments, they use the area for parking where the church is going to be. He wondered where everyone will park - will the golf course eliminate their parking, or share with the church on Sunday mornings. He has no problem with the property being developed, just the problem with traffic and the impact on Doral Circle. They would be more acceptable to the situation if there was no entrance onto Doral Circle and put up some screening or buffering. Bill Hoover answered a question concerning the parking and the Code today. He stated there is sufficient parking for the golf course and then the church meets all the requirements. The church facilities would be used from 8:00 AM to Noon and the golf course wouldn't be able to use at the same time. Would make sense to have some type of shared parking. It does meet the Code for shared parking. Jim Glass - 103 Doral Circle - He agreed with the intbrmation presented so far. He gave a history of the entrances from the past and old entryway. He stated they are still directing vendors to the correct address because the address has not changed since the new entrance has been put in and has become a traffic hazard. If the church is built, it will exacerbate the situation more by allowing the church traffic. They would like to propose shutting off the old entrance with some type of buffering, which would alleviate much of the traffic. Many accidents would also be alleviated. Mr. Strain asked about a buffer along Doral Circle. Mr. Hoover stated they are proposing a Buffer Type "D". Type "D" is more intense and along an arterial roadway. Mr. Adelstein asked about the size of the building. Mr. Hoover answered it would take up approx, less than one-half acre or approx. 20,000 square feet facility. It was mentioned they would be saving many of the oak trees on the property. There will be 214 spaces available for parking. The church would not have a child care facility. December 4, 2003 Ordinance 1- Item 1 was questioned about permitted uses on the property. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - responded that it should say "other permitted use on the subject property is limited to a church." The other items are not permitted uses. Customary accessory uses for a church - was added. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved recommending approval to Petition RZ-2003-AR-408Owith the following stipulations: 1) Do not use Doral Circle as an access point. 2) A Type "D" Buffer will be completed along Doral Circle 3) Permitted use will be for a church with the exception that no accessory uses will be granted in relationship to a Day Care Facility. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Midney moved to amend the Agenda to hear the Coastal Construction Setback Line Variance as the next item. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 8-0. LDC SECTION: Division 3.13 Coastal Construction Setback Line Variance Barbara Burgeson - Staff amended the language and she handed out the information to the Commissioners. The proposed - 3.13.5.5 is "Reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of Division 3.17. of the Land Development Code, in effect at the time of reconstruction. Said reconstruction may require a new CCSL variance. The added language by staff to consider is: and shall be allowed to rebuild within the exact footprint of the building that was destroyed regardless of whether it was a natural or otherwise caused disaster. 3.13.5.6 - New construction may be built seaward of the CCSL as long as it is within the exact footprint of the previously approved building, after the approval of a new CCSL variance. Language is due to concerns of a property owner choosing to remove the building - the previous amendment stated if it was by their choice to remove the building they would need to comply and rebuild behind the CCSL line. This change exempts them from doing that. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - in reviewing Division 3.17 - specific language refers to the fact that if they are damaged to a certain extent (50%) of the replacement value, they would have to meet certain standards. One is the Collier County and State of Florida DEP Coastal Construction Control Line regulation. Setback line is December 4, 2003 the Counties line, and the States line is the Control Line. Is an ambiguity and language amended is to clean it up. She talked about getting the variances and money from the insurance companies. Marjorie discussed sections 3.13.5 and 3.13.5.1 talking about prohibitions on variances and building back to the original footprint. She has concerns of taking out 3.13.5.1 - a variance could be gotten if there was no reasonable economic use, and the criterion would be gone. That can be discussed with staff. The new language that staff has says they can construct new buildings as long as they are within the footprint of the previously approved building. Barbara explained back at a joint CCPC and BCC workshop, the Vanderbilt area was discussed that there wasn't a consistent line of construction. No science being used to determine how far out the building could be constructed. It was being determined by what the neighbor had built previously. Staff was directed to consider that they need to use a consistent line - reviewed the rest of the County - and the rest of the County uses the consistent line which is the CCSL. The added language was due to the concerns of the last CCPC meeting - that property owners feeling they were being penalized if they chose to remove the building as opposed to it being destroyed or damaged. This is a response to the publics concerns. Marjorie spoke of Section 3.13.5.6. - Difference in this one and the non-conforming Section. She has not had a chance to compare against Division 18 - the non-conforming Section talking about the 50% replacement - new rules and new construction against the old rules .... when tinkering with the Land Development Code, there can be some unintended consequences. Barbara mentioned 3.13.5.6 was added without County Attorney review and may not be appropriate to approve now. A lengthy discussion pursued concerning new construction, building within the footprint and going through the process of getting variances. Commissioners questioned specific wording to understand what staff is trying to say. Barbara explained if they have a CCSL variance, without an expiration date, that variance would apply for rebuilding and they wouldn't need a new one. If a new variance was needed, and there was an expiration date, or structure was built with building permits and no variances, a variance would be needed first. Then it may require a CCSL variance which "shall" be presented for approval to the BCC. (That's the way it should be written.) Marjorie discussed the build back policy for disasters saying there are additional rules in reference to the Collier County and the State erosion line. Mr. Abernathy was concerned about the CCPC presenting this to the BCC knowing the County Attorneys office may render more information between their meeting and the 10 December 4, 2003 BCC meeting making it difficult giving advice to the BCC. He stated if there is no urgency, he would like to see it in the next Land Development Code cycle. When it is addressed by the County Attorney and cleared up the public can intelligently address the issues and concerns. Staff was asked to do the CCSL in accordance to the Vanderbilt moratorium overlay. There may be some issues with the moratorium date that may conflict with it not being approved during the cycle. Marjorie suggested discussing the concept and bringing back language as soon as they can. It was decided to hear from the public and come to a conclusion afterwards. SPEAKERS Steven · · · · Sposato, AICP - Maps were shown and these were his concerns and comments. Economical impact on property owners along the beach. Good policy to notify residents of possible change. Impossible to reconstruct whether a storm or man made event. Proposal lacks detail regarding number of seawalls existing and structures impacted. Public policy with too many "what ifs" that can't be answered by staff. Kyle Kinney - President of Pelican Bay Foundation - comments were as follows: · Concerns on rebuilding aspects. · Current language is significant · Maybe creating more "what ifs" than what is currently there and approved by the State and the County. Rich Yovanovich - Signature Communities - comments were as follows: · Stated there was no tie to the Vanderbilt Overlay for the changes to the CCSL. · There is a science to the setback procedure - the State Statutes addresses design and permitting of structures. · No standard or measurable criteria. · Need to focus on where they are now, why are they trying to fix a process that is not broken. Leave the way it is - is appropriate. Bruce Anderson - on behalf of the LaPlaya Hotel - comments were as follows: · Quoted the Florida Law - Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes consisting of three parts. · Part 3 - reference in staff report for reason for LDC amendment. · Part 3 - Directed to construction standards for property extending 1,500 feet inland from Coastal Construction Control Line, established under Part 1. · Part 1 - regulates the citing of structures seaward of CCCL. · Nothing in the Coastal Zone Management Act -- provides the authority to prohibit construction seaward of the CCCL in which it is being proposed. · Current LDC contains the same language staff proposes to delete. 11 December 4, 2003 · Current law is site specific and performance based. · Current LDC language should be left as is. · He addressed the seawall prohibition. The staff's language would prohibit the construction or replacement of seawalls or other similar shore hardening elements. He quoted the Florida Statutes that addresses or replacement of seawalls. · Can delay - or debate - but felt they should end it today, bad idea and no need to adopt the Amendment. Ed Staros - Managing Director for the Ritz-Carlton Resort - comments were as follows: · Many unknown consequences. · Confused since adequate protection is in place. · 100% of the beach concessions are across the line. · Hired appraisers under the assumption of not rebuilding. · Value of property would be reduced by tens of millions of dollars. Mr. A. D. (Bud) Martin - 9790 Gulfshore Dr. - comments were as follows: · Concerned about protecting homes. · Footprints okay - but build back to current building codes and not sure when the CCSL is going to change. · Would like to see - build back what you have. Ron Albeit- General Manager of the Registry Resort- comments were as follows: · Agrees with all the speakers - no need for a change. · Registry is partners with the County and working well. · Went through a build back with the County for improvements. · Code allowed them to do many of the improvements with restrictions and guidelines. · With new language, would restrict them - no changes on the beach front. · County interested in expanding beach access - so questions the purpose of having this code approved when there would be no facilities in having the beach access - no restaurants or restrooms. · Not a simple process to reapply for a CCSL variance and costly. · Consider dropping from Agenda. Diane Ketchum - President of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Assoc. - comments were as follows: · Did not know or think the moratorium had anything to do with working on the CCSL. · Knew the CCSL was in the Code and defined, but did not know there were going to be changes. · All of Vanderbilt Beach Community is in agreement that what the County is proposing would be disastrous for the Community. Could totally wipe out the community if they could not build back. 12 December 4, 2003 · Need to study more thoroughly and leave it the way it is. Mick Moore - 9225 Gulfshore Dr. N. - Family owns Vanderbilt Beach Resort - comments were as follows: · Echo all the concerns from other property owners and oppose any change to the CCSL process. · Went through process recently and knows it is adequate. · County looks at it on a case by case process. · It would tie the hands of the Board of County Commissioners. · End discussions now, don't need change. · They have a seawall on property and are opposed to properties that have seawalls and be required to remove them. Donna Caron- 790 Wiggins Bay Dr. - comments are as follows: · BCC asked staff to come up with language to enforce CCSL. · She was opposed and stated there has not been enough discussion on the issue. Doug Fee - President of North Bay Civic Assn. - comments were as follows. · North Bay - 6 miles of beaches - resource they rely on and need to talk about the future of the Beach and Natural resources. · He read "Rule 10". · Rules are changing. · BCC wants to decrease variances Opening up whole County with everyone having the equal right to seek variances. · He asked if they are to move structures upon rebuilding, or increase the variance proceedings to move all the buildings that are conforming where their neighbor is. · Supports original proposal from the BCC three weeks ago to move the structures back to the CCSL. Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon Society - comments were as follows: · He stated it is a good idea to require building to the CCSL. · Outlined in the Growth Management Plan and the State policy. · BCC and staff have good intentions. · Supports and endorse the direction in which staff is going. · Protection for the beaches and restoration. · Start to move the buildings back as they occur. · Does not support voluntarily taking down a building and then rebuilding within the same footprint. Barbara Burgeson answered some of the comments made by the speakers. - This was in the package of the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay and was then pulled. - Agreed with Bruce Anderson allowing the continual line of construction where appropriate such as Pelican Bay. - Only reason seawall language was added was a result of the Vanderbilt Beach Motel variance that went in front of the BCC. The Board questioned why staff did 13 December 4, 2003 not require removal of the seawall. Mr. Budd asked if they have the authority to end this issue now or are they advisory only to approve or deny it. Marjorie Student answered that they are a recommended body to the County Commissioners and they make recommendations and state the reasons for them. Mr. Strain moved to recommend denial of any changes to Division 3.3 of the CCSL that was proposed which includes the whole document. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Midney commented on the seawalls b~ing less of a problem if they didn't have them. He didn't want to throw out the whole idea of putting more restrictions on the construction of CCSL. Mr. Strain stated the reason he made the motion above is because he believes the way the Division is currently written meets the needs of the community, safety and public welfare and should remain as is, and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan Mr. Abernathy was under the impression they were going to hear this issue again in February and let the citizens put their positions on the record today. Seems to him the message he wants to send is that it wasn't ready for them with the incomplete information given (to no ones fault) but just not ready to say "yes" or "no". Mr. Budd agreed with Mr. Abernathy and don't even know why they are addressing the issue but supports Mr. Strains motion. Mr. Murray said they are struggling with the "sins of the past" and stated he can't support to change things. Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - stated they need a recommendation of consistency or inconsistency. Mr. Strain answered it is inconsistent because it isn't consistent with the language that is already there. Motion passed 6-2. Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Evans voting "no". The GMP Amendments will be heard after a one hour lunch break. The Land Development Codes on height will be heard at the end of the meeting after the GMP Amendments are heard. LUNCH BREAK- 11:45 PM RECONVENED - 12:45 PM 14 December 4, 2003 The meeting reconvened at 12:45 PM. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - reminded the Commissioners they need 5 votes of the Planning Commission to adopt Transmittals. D. 2003 GMP Amendment Petitions Petition CPSP 2003-4 - Amending the Future Land use Element (FLUE) to add a new policy referencing the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 by the Collier county school Board and the Board of County Commissioners; referencing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series depicting existing and future school sites and school support facilities; referencing a map of existing school and school support facilities in the FLUE support document; and, identifying zoning districts which allow and which do not allow school and school support facilities. -Amending the FLUM Series to add new maps depicting sites upon which schools and school support facilities are located, and depicting undeveloped sites for future schools and school support facilities. -Amending the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) to refer to the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. -Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to reference the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and to cross-reference the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM series. -Amending the Immokalee Area Master Plan to reference the two lnterlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and to cross-reference the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM Series. David Weeks, Chief Planner, Planning Services -Cycle 3, sufficiency -This is the adoption cycle, Collier County Planning Commission will make its final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners -These are amendments to the Growth Management Plan. -This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial. -There is a Notice of Intent sign-up sheet available in hallway. -Hearing was' properly advertised via full- page ad. -The Board of County Commissioners will hear these items on December 16. -All six petitions have some changes since the transmittal hearing of July 18. 15 December 4, 2003 -Petition 5 which deals with community character Smart Growth Advisory Committee recommended changes dealing with mixed use development and Petition 8 which is the transportation concurrency management have very significant changes since transmittal. -Gave overview of contents of notebook. STAFF REPORT -For each petition, recommendation of each Board member and the Board's recommendation at Planning Commission hearing and the Board's hearing during transmittal is provided. Environmental Council does not review these types of petitions so there is no recommendation from them. There are no areas of historical or archaeological probability for any of these petitions. For all six petitions, Staff is recommending some revisions. Mr. Abernathy asked that "adjacent" be defined. Response was "adjacent" was defined as being absolutely next door, property line touching property line. Mr. Strain suggested that everyone impacted should be notified. Mr. Abernathy pointed out that not just people next door may be impacted, but everyone on a street. SPEAKERS Amy Taylor, Collier County Public Schools -"Impacted" referring to adjacent property owners is fine. -Adjacent property owners around entire piece would be notified. -Required to provide notification 30 days prior to School Board meetings in newspaper of intended acquisition of property. -Currently developing a revised notification policy and will bring to Board in January. -Property across street from school should be considered adjacent. -It was suggested that standards of distance could be used. There are different types of impacts with different types of land uses. Marjorie Student -Land Code indicates that within urban area it is 500 feet and areas outside of urban designated areas it is 1,000 linear feet. Looking at these issues when word like contiguous or adjacent are used it does cause problems when dealing with intervening rights of way or water bodies so it is better to use numeric amount of distance. Mr. Strain suggested wording "adjoining, lying near but at a distance no greater than 1,000 feet". 16 December 4, 2003 Majorie Student -Issue with adjacent or adjoining but no greater than raises the question of either or. Ms. Taylor would like to bring a fully developed policy back for the Commission's input, 500 feet may be fine, and she would like an opportunity for the School Board to discuss the issue further Marjorie Student stated that she has a concern about how it would be applied in the meantime. Wondered if there would be a problem with picking a number in the meantime until the School Board brings us their language. Mr. Strain asked if Golden Gate Estates was protected from a high school locating there. Mr. Weeks indicated no. Marjorie Student In the Land Code the Estates are considered zoned agricultural, agriculture district, rural zoning or similar phraseology, it is in 2.1.14 Definitions of Groupings of Various Districts, the Estates are not considered residential under these groupings in the Code. Mr. Strain made a motion that CPSP 2003-4 be forwarded to the Collier County Board of Commissioners recommending approval with the following two clarifications. Policy 5.14 (d) in the notification provision of adjacent property owners, the word "adjacent" be replaced with "notification of property owners within 500 feet in the urban area and 1,000 feet outside the urban area. In Item E (2), where it reads "for a high school facility to be located in any residential zoning district or residential components of a PUD," the words "or estates" should be inserted before the word "zoning and after the word "residential", the motion was seconded by Mr. Adelstein; motion passed 8-0. Petition CPSP 2003-5 STAFF REPORT David Weeks, Chief Planner, Planning Services -Planning Commission recommended 4-1 that this petition not be transmitted because petition was jumbled and unclear. -There have been significant changes since the transmittal hearing which are reflected in the Staff Report. -Goal 2 and Goal 3 under Subsequent Objectives and Policy are not recommended for transmittal due to lack of clarity. -Overall purpose of this amendment is to promote mixed use development, residential development with a commercial component or commercial development with a residential component. -Contains rationale for changes. 17 December 4, 2003 -Greater incentive is needed to get mixed use development. -Higher density will provide incentive. -5.1 changes promote mixed use. -Gave Overview of Community Character/Smart Growth Committee petition changes and comments. Majorie Student -Under Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Item No. 1, PUD needs to come back to be amended to allow this and it cannot be automatic. Mr. Weeks -Staff's recommendation is for the CCPC to recommend adoption of this petition with the changes outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Strain asked should it be tied to density rather than acreage. Mr. Weeks responded this will require rezoning. Mr. Strain asked if they would be entitled to rezone and Mr. Weeks responded no. Mr. Strain asked regarding buildings five stories in height inclusive of under building parking, would the five stories be defined pursuant to the true height of footage rather than stories or does five stories dominate. Mr. Weeks responded that this is a matter of interpretation. It was further discussed and was decided that this needs clarification. Height should be the factor. Staff will come back with numeric analysis of stories. -Reward in residential is that you get to add commercial; the reward in the commercial is you get to add residential. -There is no minimum lot size. Mr. Strain made a motion that Petition CPSP 2003-5 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with clarifications as follows: Item 71, Staff will provide a definition of height referencing a numeric value; Section 3.1, rephrase the excluded areas, reference to C1 through C3 uses, so that it is not a self-amending plan, we should have an effective date of adoption, seconded by Mr. Schiffer; motion passed 8-0. Motion was made to continue Growth Management Plan hearing until after hearing the sign portion of the LDC hearing, motion was seconded; passed 8-0. This is a continuation of a prior CCPC hearing on the sign matter. Russell Webb, Principal Planner, Community Development and Environmental Services Division -Gave overview of Staff Report 18 December 4, 2003 -Administrative variance process for signs with frontage of less than 150 feet was prepared. SPEAKERS Jason Dickerson, comments were as follows: -Variance is cumbersome for small business with no guarantee of success. -Would like nicer sign than 4 by 8 piece of plywood, 50 square feet would be more desirable. DISCUSSION -Administrative variance is necessary because criteria needs to evaluated, site visit is needed, research is necessary. -One of criteria states that other signs cannot be blocked. -Current fee is $1,000.00. -Pole sign is the same as a ground sign -Signs need to provide visibility for structures not visible to the road. Mr. Schiffer made a motion that this should be a permissible use, should be available to any site whether the business is visible or not, so "C "should be eliminated, finding of consistency with Comprehensive Plan was established, there shall be only one public hearing on the matter, motion was seconded by Mr. Murray, motion passed 8-0. 2:20 P.M BREAK 2:30 P.M. RECONVENED Mr. Schiffer made a motion to amend the previous motion by removing Item G, motion was seconded; motion carried 7-0, with Mr. Abernathy not present. D. 2003 GMP Amendment Petitions (Continued) Petition CPSP-2003-6 -Darren Murphy, Planner, Planning Services -Only one change on Page 16 reference policy ! 0.1.5 since the last meeting. SPEAKER Donna Caron -Is analyzing Manatee Protection Plan and opposed changes to language until they are done their process. -Does not want to see any lessening of protection for manatees. 19 December 4, 2003 Patrick White -The whole of the Manatee Protection Act has been brought into the Comprehensive Plan rather than just a piece of the Manatee Protection Plan. Mr. Strain made a motion that the CCPC recommend approval of CPSP-2003-6 and find it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and and that this is our last hearing on the matter, motion was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, motion carried 8-0. Petition CPSP-2003-7 - Economic Element David Weeks, Chief Planner, Planning Services -Transmittal hearing recommendation was to delete reference to specific entities. -One change is in Policy 1.2.4 to delete reference to "the Tourist Development Council and other" and with that Staff recommenderd approval. Majorie Student -Regarding Policy 1.1.6, oil drilling, it has latitude and longitude, it is not complete reference. -Wording of 1.2.1 regarding expansion of tourism industry was discussed. SPEAKERS -None Mr. Strain made a motion to recommend denial of CPSP 2003-7 and that this be the last hearing on the issue, Mr. Abernathy seconded the motion; motion fail 6-2. Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners adoption of CPSP 2003-7 with this being the last hearing on the issue, motion seconded by Mr. Adelstein, carried 6-2. Petition CPSP 2003-8 Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager -Implementing regulation was passed on November 20. -Submitted 36 page staff report and technical response to DCA objection to the transportation concurrency management system. -DCA ORC Report has eight page list of objections to this amendment. 20 December 4, 2003 Mr. Adelstein objected to the untimely submission of the report, had insufficient time to review report. Mr. Adelstein made a motion to continue the matter until December 15, at 5:05 p.m., motion seconded by Mr. Midney. Patrick White -In the comprehensive planning adoption process we are required within 60 days or thereabouts of the ORC Report to have the Board either adopt the amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment. If not adopted or denied timely, it would have to be retransmitted. Majorie Student Solution possibly would be to have a special meeting and continue it to a date prior to the 16th. Motion was voted on to continue the matter until December 15, at 5:05 p.m., motion failed 2-6. Mr. Strain asked if page 1 references one year. Mr. Litsinger responded we transmitted one year relative to the inclusion of capacity of projects within the scheduled capital improvements as only being the year following the eight annual AUIR and in the annual budget. Mr. Strain asked if the situation would be improved if two years were recommended. Mr. Litsinger responded one year is sustainable. Thomas Scott, Transportation Planning stated, yes, they would be more comfortable with two years. Mr. Strain, asked regarding Policy 5.6, if a business comes in that qualifies under some of those criteria and, typical to all businesses, the business may have to file Chapter 11 and go away, a new business comes in, and the building was already established because of these criteria, will the new business be bound by the same criteria, how would that be regulated. Marjorie Student stated that the requirements that are listed are 9J5 requirements. If the first business failed, then the new business would have to go through new permitting and get a new certificate so they would still have to meet concurrency. (Mr. Schiffer left the meeting at 3:15 p.m.) 21 December 4, 2003 Mr. Litsinger stated that he is not sure that through this mechanism and application of this system that we can control this. (Mr. Schiffer returned to the meeting at 3:16 p.m.) -TCMA does not expand. -Link by link application is more strict. -Proportionate share service is funded by developers paying impact fees -Analysis is based on committed traffic. Majorie Student The concurrency statute is predicated on either meeting the level of service, if you don't you have to defer development and get funds to fix road, or lower level of service, get money to fix roads. Moratorium, lower level of service and getting funds to fix roads work in tandem depending on what local government wants to do to deal with the problem. -South of US 41, within the urban coastal fringe in revised Staff Report within the TCMAs and TCEAs approvals or density bonuses are excluded in those areas from the traffic congestion penalty. -Four units per acre can be exceeded in the coastal fringe through the transfer of development fights program. -Part of concept in TCMA and TCEA is that part of their operational process in addition to transportation is that you want to attract infill and redevelopment to those areas and so they are exempted from the penalty that would apply if they were not a TCMA or TCEA. -Golden Gage Parkway will go to lower than established level of service next year, it has been policy constrained by the Board at four lanes. Left turn lane may be added at 951. -Even after being increased to six lanes, roads will fail by 2008. -Roads must be built to keep up with growth. Glen Heath, Comprehensive Planning, large report is expanded version of smaller report. Report is a point-by-point response to DCA's objections. In density rating system, nothing is a given. Staff makes recommendation of entitlement and Board decides whether or not to accept the recommendation. Means of monitoring compliance with provisions is needed. Gave overview of major differences in two reports. SPEAKERS David Ellis, Collier Building Association, believes the TCMAs, TCAs are sound. Reliance of funded plan, would like recommendation of three years, but to be consistent with land development regulations already adopted, recommendation of two years would be acceptable. Would like language that ties the Commission to once there is a failed link. It may not be possible to put in parallel roadways through existing developments. 22 December 4, 2003 Mr. Murray made a motion to approve with a recommendation that it incorporates the two year time frame, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Litsinger, Exhibit A to Petition 8, Policy 1.53, Page 1, recommended language read "the necessary facilities and services are in the first year of the schedule of capital improvements", add "or second". Mr. Murray indicated that Mr. Litsinger's recommendation was acceptable to him, Mr. Schiffer likewise found the recommendation acceptable. Motion carried, 8-0. Petition CPSP 2003-9 Marcia Kendall, Comprehensive Planning, only proposed change is to include Contour Map. Staff recommends petition for approval. Mr. Schiffer made a motion to recommend approval of CPSP 2003-9, motion was seconded by Mr. Murray, motion carried 8-0. 9. OLD BUSINESS LDC Amendment - Cycle 3, 2003 A. Height Robin Meyer, current definition of height is modified to be "now zoned building height". Definition of grade is still in there. 6:10.2, Supplement 18, is more direct than before. Contains two heights requested by BCC. Exclusion from height limits includes as not being counted the building infrastructures, overall area is changed to be one-third. 3.70.1, STP requirements and added language require that all site development plans include this information. Mr. Schiffer made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners as being in compliance with the Growth Management Plan with this being the first and only meeting on the issue, motion was seconded by Mr. Murray, motion carried 8-0. 10. NEW BUSINESS None 11. PUBLIC COMMENT None 23 December 4, 2003 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell A. Budd 24