August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7

Minutes of the Planning Commission August 1, 2013 6:30 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL

Chairman Froehling called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Present: Robert Froehling, Chairman; Robert Mercer, Vice Chairman; Doug Smith, Charles Kish, William “Dude” Phelan, Dee Atkins

Absent: Phillip Jannarone, George Dluhy, Jim Bard

Staff: Jackie Gorman, Planning Director; Michael Brannigan, City Attorney; Carol Harrington, City Clerk.

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

Chairman Froehling requested a Moment of Silence.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chairman Froehling led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion to approve the Agenda was made by Commissioner Kish; seconded by Commissioner Smith. Motion carried 6/0.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JUNE 20, 2013

Motion to approve the Minutes of June 20, 2013 was made by Commissioner Kish; seconded by Vice Chair Smith. Motion carried 6/0.

6. PUBLIC HEARING

Ms. Gorman stated there was no Public Hearing for this meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS

A. Crystal River Commons – Sub-Area Text – Clark Stillwell (Discussion)

Ms. Gorman showed on a map the area that was annexed on Venable St. and U.S. 19. It came to us with a mobile home zoning. When this property came into the City, the County had already approved developed along the front part of this property. While this was going through the process, the County added some language to their Comp

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8 Plan as we also had to. There is now an area that is identified as Sub Area Text in the City’s Comp Plan. She explained that when we were trying to get approval from DCA, it was a bad time. The economy was bad and the developers were not happy. That takes away flexibility from development. They have since reduced their staff and have more consistency among staff.

The holding company that owns this piece of property is out of the Carolinas and are sensible, good developers. They have been trying to find the best use for this property. There have been several proposals. When this property was brought in, it was Highway Commercial. Since then, we have added Mixed Use. This might even be a place for a Light Assembly, Industrial or an Enterprise Zone. We need tools and the ability to offer more to the developers. We will probably need to do a Large Scale Text Amendment to remove some language that hinders us in working with these developers.

She and Attorney Stillwell wanted to come together to this Commission to discuss the removal of the Sub-Area Text. A letter was submitted by Attorney Clark Stillwell in lieu of personal appearance. Ms. Gorman read the letter into record and to the Commission:

Summary of Attorney Clark Stillwell’s letter. Status of CRC: . Annexation has occurred and CRC sub area plan (text/maps) are in City FLUE. . Client obtained final ERP for commercial component of project. A copy is on file with the City. The ERP does provide for off site mitigation but also protects wetlands in LDR area. This is new. The ERP stormwater standard is inconsistent with CRC standards. It does comply with SWFWMD and City standards – this was as directed by the region. . Florida’s Growth Management Laws have been materially rewritten in the year 2011, with the passage of Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida. That law made a great deal of sub area and DA text archaic and inconsistent with existing State and City codes. . The market remains weak-thus phasing schedule is incorrect.

To address the above factors, the owner/developer in near future will be undertaking the following: . Annex Penn Street into the City (it is now a County street). This road will be rerouted. . Vacate Penn Street subject to utility easements and future replatting. . Repeal CRC sub area text and maps. . Coinciding with Florida’s Growth Management Laws, revise the CRC Development Agreement (DA) therein incorporate the terms of sub area text into DA text. Note, the current DA references Citrus County LDC standards.

His letter also stated that it will be easier to address project issues within the framework of the City’s LDC criteria as incorporated into the DA text and the Master Site Plan to City LDC standards.

The client expects to add a component for public/semi-public use for a water storage tank facility to accommodate Ozello Water’s need to increase water/fire flow. This area is just south of Duke Energy property on Venable. This is new to the Site Plan and CRC.

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 Nothing is changing in the LDR acreage portion as discussed in CRC and DA – nothing is changing – the Ozello Road extension and the new Penn are continued in the revised documents.

The client is awaiting the revised Master Site Plan conforming to ERP, amended growth management laws and public/semi-pubic area. On receipt we will proceed with: . Repeal CRC sub area text and maps. . Coinciding with Florida’s Growth Management Laws, revise the CRC Development Agreement (DA) therein incorporate the terms of sub area text into DA text. Note, the current DA references Citrus County LDC standards. The ultimate goal is to bring project into the current framework of the City’s LDC and permitting standards. Close of Attorney Stillwell’s letter.

Ms. Gorman explained that she wanted to break this all down so everyone understands it.

Commissioner Kish stated that he knew there was a problem behind Home Depot with water drainage.

Chairman Froehling asked about the 100 – 200 year Floodplain. Ms. Gorman stated she would have to have Mr. Burnell speak to that.

Commissioner Smith made some comments on this as well as Chairman Froehling noting that SWFWMD will be making some changes.

Ms. Gorman stated that more information will be brought forward on this at a later time.

Commissioner Atkins asked about the sub area text and if it had anything to do with protection of wet lands. Ms. Gorman stated that language is in there regarding this. This language will also be included in the Developer’s Agreement. We don’t want to take it away, we just want to change it so that it offers more choices for the developer.

She explained that notices will have to be published and several hearings will have to be completed. A large scale amendment to our LDC change is a long, complicated process. What Attorney Clark and Ms. Gorman are trying to do is to streamline the process.

Commissioner Phelan stated that he understands and appreciates that the presentation tonight is essentially for informational purposes. His question is: What is the overview of what action you expect this Board to take addressing these matters and approximately when you would expect those actions to take place?

Ms. Gorman stated that if we go forward with this, we would probably come forward in a couple months: . Bring to you as a large scale amendment. . Bring to you, at the same time, a Developer’s Agreement. . It will then go to Council. . If they approve, it will go to Tallahassee and we will answer any comments or questions they send back to us. . Brought back to Council for final approval. . Recorded and put into place.

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 Mr. Phelan stated that this Board’s responsibility in this process is to make a recommendation to Council regarding the Amendment and the Developer’s Agreement. After that it is really up to Council. This statement was confirmed by other Boardmembers.

She stated that if anyone wants to speak with her about this, she will be in her office for questions and comments.

County has wanted to clear cut a portion of this land. They have been given permission by the FAA that they can remove 12 trees and clear-cut one acre of underbrush. That is all they are allowed to do.

Commissioner Smith asked who has the most authority. Can the FAA override us locally? Ms. Gorman stated that the FAA has already threatened to shut down portions of the airport. Commissioner Smith added that there are obviously a lot of details to be presented yet.

Chairman Froehling commented on the memo that Ms. Gorman had attached along with the Sub Area Text noting that it was pretty extensive.

Chairman Froehling asked if there were any other questions regarding this item. Being none, he moved on to Old Business.

8. OLD BUSINESS

A. Proposed RV Park Regulations – Request for recommendation to approve Ordinance 13-O-11

Ms. Gorman stated that this Commission had directed her to go to Council to see what was important to them. She provided a list of their concerns along with an explanation as to how these concerns will be addressed:

. This will be a very high-end development. (Included in Section 1 of draft Ordinance.) . Would like more than minimum setbacks. (Typical setbacks are 25 ft. on front, 25 ft. on rear, 10 ft. on side and 15 ft. side adjacent to roadways. The setbacks being proposed are 25’ ft. from all property lines.) . Council requested very tight codes. . Time limit on length of stay. (Included in Section “E” of the draft Ordinance.) . Leave as many trees as possible. (4.05.01 of the City’s Land Development Code is clear in its intent of the City to provide those standards and regulations that will protect and preserve native tree species, protect and preserve the natural landscape, foster and encourage maintenance of natural vegetation, and minimize loss of trees to development.) . No open fires. (Section l9-34 of the City’s Code of Ordinances prohibits open fires.) . Council to revisit ERU’s. . Concerned with long-term maintenance. (Language included in Section 1 of draft Ordinance.) . Concerned with quality of Management. (Included in Section 1 of draft Ordinance.) . Would like developers along Ft. Island Trail to partner with the City by donating property towards the future walking trail.

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8 . Cabins and Park Models up for future discussion by Council. (Language removed from draft Ordinance)

Ms. Gorman noted that her intent was to put in a Purpose Section, but she failed to get that included. She will work on this document and include the proper language.

Chairman Froehling asked about Section E, Length of Stay. How do you keep someone from becoming a mobile home resident?

Ms. Gorman stated she had discussed this with the City Attorney. She had included the statement “The Rules and Regulations will include language that limits the length of stay to prevent customers from becoming full-time residents at the park and campground” in the draft Ordinance. Mr. Brannigan had asked her, “Whose rules?” She stated that the sentence should be revised to say, “Rules and Regulations of the RV Park.”

Mr. Brannigan added that the City needs to have veto/approval to the rules established. We shouldn’t have to write them, but we need the opportunity to tweak them.

Commissioner Atkins stated that Golden Isle RV Park has in its rules that they “follow the Florida Statutes which say that tenants must be in compliance with Chapter 513 and Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes in accordance with the duration of their tenancy.” She added that the State must have something in place.

Ms. Gorman and Chairman Froehling both stated that they had looked into this and the State does not prohibit the length of stay.

Ms. Gorman stated if this Board is comfortable going forward with this proposed Ordinance, she will rework Section 1 to explain that we want a high end, well maintained development.

Commissioner Phelan stated that he is sure the City Attorney would work on this, but he wanted to add that we want to be sure that the City has Code Enforcement ability vs. the Mobile Park enforcing length of stay. How will the City enforce a private contract between the proprietor of the Park and one of their customers? He would suggest that we have something in the City Code that states the length of stay is defined to be (whatever is decided upon), then Code Enforcement could enforce it if the Park Operator does not. Commissioner Phelan stated there are a lot of ways to get this accomplished. We just need to make sure it is addressed.

Commissioner Mercer stated that this would be like a HOA. He agrees that this is a key issue to have the City involved.

Commissioner Smith added that a periodic safety inspection by the City’s Code Enforcement would be a good idea as well.

Ms. Gorman replied that she will get with the City Attorneys on this.

Commissioner Smith asked how she came up with 12 acres. What if someone comes in with 8 acres? Commissioner Mercer stated she backed into it with 5 units per acre.

Commissioner Smith asked if tent campsites were eliminated or not? Ms. Gorman stated that it has been removed. She didn’t remember how she came up with the 12 acres, she believes that she started with less and then increased the amount.

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Mercer noted that there had to be room for roads, sheds, a drive-thru area for buses and room for an additional parked car. He believes that 2500 sq. ft. is plenty ample.

Chairman Froehling stated that 5 units per acre is low density.

Commissioner Phelan stated that we learn by mistakes. Ocala required landscaping and green space in their early days. What would happen is that some trees were planted but were not watered. In that recollection, he is looking at Sub-Paragraph H; Screening. Screening is not the same as natural vegetation, but he thought this was a good time to bring this subject up. If screening is important, we should say something along the lines of “trees and shrubs will be continuously maintained in all set-back areas including the front to adequately screen the park from adjoining properties.” All other members agreed.

Commissioner Smith asked about impervious surfaces. He was told that it is already in our Code.

Ms. Gorman stated that after our discussion tonight, we need to tie in landscaping with the developers agreement.

There was discussion regarding that it needs to be clear how many RV’s, truck campers, etc. can be on one lot. This should also include how many people can visit and number of vehicles parked at each lot.

Commissioner Phelan stated that we have to distinguish between the rules and regulations of the Park (private contract) and the City Code which is enforceable by City authority. Ms. Gorman again stated that she could not find Section 1. She will make sure she has it at the next meting.

Ms. Gorman stated that Council had said that they would like the Developers along Fort Island Trail to partner with the City by donating property for a future walking trail. Her experience with this, is if it is on a long term plan, e.g. our walking trail was extended down Fort Island. Presently, the only approved trail is a narrow shoulder to walk on. If we had our trail that we are building on Cutler, go all the way down to Fort Island Trail and on an approved map; then we could speak to developers about donations of property. You can ask and negotiate, but you can’t require or delay approval of their development until you get the property.

Ms. Gorman stated that she would come back with the revisions discussed tonight.

Commissioner Phelan asked for more information a littler earlier. That would be a great help to him and he believes it would help the rest of the Planning Commission as well. More lead time would be helpful.

9. CITIZEN INPUT

 Joe Chrietzberg, 304 NW Crystal Street, Crystal River Mr. Chrietzberg stated he keeps hearing “Developer’s Agreement.” He assumes this is a powerful agreement. He doesn’t know if it will supersede anything else or not. Things that come to mind as he listened tonight:

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8  Define what a RV Park is. Do the vehicles have to be self propelled, towed, have tags, don’t have tags.  Can they move their vehicles and start their time over?  We need to be thinking of ways to circumvent rules:  Who will write this agreement? He noted that it is self-serving to whoever writes it.

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS

11. STAFF COMMENTS

Ms. Gorman stated that City Manager Houston had spoke to her about a situation and asked her to bring it up to this Commission for discussion.

Lately we have been receiving requests for swimming pools. We have had to turn many down due to not having enough room in back yards with set-backs, etc. Boat docks are infringing on the 25-ft set-backs. Front 25 ft is for new roads. Sides and back are for separation. Our lots are small. She tries to help people accomplish their dreams. Sometimes there just isn’t a way to do that.

She explained that a lady had been trying to sell her home and finally had an offer. The potential buyers wanted a pool. There was not enough backyard without encroaching in the rear yard setback. She spoke to City Manager Houston regarding an accessory structure. She explained that an accessory structure is something that is incidental to a main use. You don’t really want a pool there without a house. If it was an above ground pool, you could put it in the setback. She noted that people are pointing out other neighbors’ pools and asking how they got theirs. Maybe it was interrupted that a pool is an accessory structure that would be allowed in the 25 ft setback.

Chairman Froehling stated that Woodland Estates was given different rules; you could actually be 5 ft from the canal legally. He noted that he personally doesn’t see why there would have to be a 25 ft setback for pools in backyards on canals. The worst thing he can think of is that pool water may be splashed into the canal. The pool water is clean. Ms. Gorman stated that she had never interpreted swimming pools as an accessory structure. She asked this Commission if it makes sense to allow swimming pools to go in as accessory structures.

Commissioner Kish stated that they had a painful discussion about a year and a half ago regarding decks and 25 ft setbacks. We never got anywhere on that. Ms. Gorman replied that they did. You agreed to let them have it if they held their drainage and they brought the rest of their property up to code. It has not made it to ordinance form yet.

Commissioner Smith suggested that, like the decks, nothing may be above 14 inches. That makes a big difference in appearance. If you need to make an exception, use the appearance to the neighbors, the height of it. A shed would block neighbor’s view. Discussion included that a pool has to be fenced or caged.

Ms. Gorman asked this Commission to think about this and be ready to discuss at the next meeting.

______August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Phelan stated that providing the code provisions to them that would apply, prior to next meeting would be helpful to him.

Commissioner Mercer noted that impervious surface would apply.

Chairman Froehling asked where the 25-ft. set-backs came from. Ms. Gorman replied that it came from a stipulated settlement agreement in 1989 as a result of EAR or our Comp Plan.

Ms. Gorman was asked if this could be changed and she stated that it could be.

Chairman Froehling stated that there are too many restrictions on waterfronts property.

Commissioner Mercer stated that SWFWMD is actually asking not to plant grass by canals. They would rather see rocks to protect water from fertilization. There was discussion regarding this and this Commission did not agree with SWFWMD.

Ms. Gorman stated that everything should be in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Code pertaining to the issues discussed tonight.