Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/11/1990 S Naples, Florida, December 11, 1990 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners tn ~.. for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning *p~eals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as haVe been created according to law and having conducted business 'herein, met on this date at 5:05 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building i'.~. of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the foX/owing members present: CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Anne Goodnight · .'~ ALSO PRESENT: Annette Guevln, Deputy Clerk; Nell Dorrill, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Tom Olllff, Assistant :.to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Frank Brutt, ~'C°~t~ln~t¥ Development Services Administrator; Ken Baginski, Planning ~S erv~ces Manager; Russell Shreeve, Housing & Urban Inprovement D~rector; Bill Hoover, Wayne Arnold and Phi/ Scheff, Planners; and !~eputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office. Page ! December 11, 1990 F'L'TITIOI Z0-90-18, THOMAS WOOD OF VEGA, BR0~q, STANL]~Y & MARTIN, P.A., Iq~q~E~TING SI~N OF THE VINE ~STAU~ANT ~QUESTINg AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 82-2 BY ADDINg SUBSECTION 8.12f, OFF-ST~EET VEHICULAR FACILITIES - PARXINg AND LOADINg, IN ORDER TO ADD PROVISIONS FO~ .~HARED PARKINg - FINAL PUBLIC HEARINg TO BE HELD 0N__;.%2/27/90 · Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on [.November 19, 1990, November 21, 1990 and December 5, 1990, as avl- by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition Z0-90-18 fil,~d by Thomas Wood ~0f. Vega,., Brown, Stanley & Martin, P.A., representing Sign of the vine iReetaurant, requesting an ordinance amending Ordinan=e 82-2 by ~uending Section 8, Supplementary District Regulations by adding sub- ~eection 8.12f, Off-Street Vehicular Facilities - Parking and Loading, '.in order to add provisions for shared parking. ' "' Bill Hoover, Planning Services, presented Petition Z0-90-18, a .request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a ~ for submitting a petition for off-site parking on property i~.' that is not under the same ownership as the structure or use the 'Parking is designed to serve. He concluded that the CCPC unanimously this petition be approved. i':" Commissioner Volpe asked if this is an amendment to the parking ordinance the Board will be considering in 19917 Planner Hoover clarified~, there are currently four different amendments regarding ~. He said one is for the Immokalee Central District parking, ~other ia in regards t~ al/ parking requirements o~ what the com- ,~putation will be for parking spaces, and a third am~.ndment will con- eider off-site parking under, the same ownership. He said this fourth 'a~end~ent is very similar to that except that it provides more flexi- lity where off-site parking will be allowed. :/" Commissioner Shanahan commented that Staff's recommendation is 'that a maximum of 25~ of the required parking space~ be shared, rather the S5~ which was originally recommended to Staff. Planner Hoover explained that the recommendation is to be somewhat ".,-- Page 2 December flor churches, with all other uses to be restricted to 25~ of . land use requiring the least amount of parking. [ Commissioner Volpe questioned what type of lease arrangement will i,$taff require between the property owner and the off-site location -.. w11! be used for parking? Mr. Hoover replied that will be looked _. oi1 a case-by-case basis and will require approval by the Board of y Commissioners. He explained that every applicant, including [churches, will need to set aside a land reservation on their own pro- ,~pe~l'ty for future parkinU or have an alternative plan to share parking another ad3acent property. ~ *Commtssioner Hasse inquired why not put in the required parking on ~!~theix' own property to begin with? Mr. Hoover stat~:d one of the advan- ?. *rages would be the cost savings on paving and land~caping of the area. said as an example, if a church ts constructed next to an office tng, a shared parking lot can be placed between the two buildings ~ because~, there would be almost no overlap of uses. He said this will l'esult tn environmental as well as economic saying,s. He further ~lained that if the office building turned into a shopping center ithat would use t-hat parking area on Sundays, the church would have had . initially demonstrate another plan for their required parking. Commiss~oner Volpe communicated his concerns that the County does 'not have a mechanism in place to monitor lease arr~mgements. He said :'there should also be a distinction made for allowing shared parking between existing vs. new structures. Mr. Hoover suggested that there be a minimum of a five year lease ).. arrangement for shared parking and at the time of expiration, the /..applicant could be required to come back to the CCPC or the Board to they have another lease. ~.?C°mmtsst°ner Volpe indicated that by allowing ¢,ff-stte parking, number of parking spaces is no longer the cont~'ol on the intensity ~'.Of. use on properties. /~[" Commissioner Shanahan stated if the parking spaces are there and jnot being utilized, it does not Increase density b%, allowing them to Page 3 ., December il, 1990 neeaed. He also mentioned that this arrangement ~; approved by the an Planning Association. He added that sincE~ each arrangement be reviewed by the Board, this will alleviate some of the parking ,rob/ems in the County while retaining control of the situation. ~' Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager, mE.ntIoned that !',without this, there ts no way through the County Zoning Ordinance for type of shared parking agreements. i~,John Lee with Hole, Montes & Associates, state8 his firm supports ~1e al~endment and would also like to see several cther revisions ,pertaining to Institutional uses adjacent to each ether. He said, for 'instance when there is a church and school side-by-s/de, some of the percentage requirements may be Increased. He gave an example of a Project he ts currently Involved In where a site In North Naples ts lng developed as a church directly adjacent to Naples Park School. He said that due to environmental issues, only ~tght acres of that 15-acre site can be utilized. He stated when a ~i~niftcant church Is developed on eight acres of land, and the !:approprfate amount of parking cannot be provided, the developer should ':at least be able to approach the School Board and request that they at the possibility of sharing parking with the school, especially When there are clearly no conflicting hours of use. Mr. Hoover mentioned that monitoring lease arrangements might be by putting the Initials "spa" on every property on the zoning ... that goes into a shared parking agreement. He said in that way, if one of two properties in such an arrangement comes in for expan- 'sion, the planner will see "spa" on the map and can go to a file and OUt the agreement to see how many spaces are being used for property. He stated If It is found that adequate parking ts [riot available for the expansion, the property owner would not be a/lowed to turn tn a Site Development Plan. Barbara Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., indicated support for Staff's recommendations. Page 4 ~ '~... : December Xl, 1990 Sh~ ~oved, seconded by Co~isaloner aoodnight un~i~ousl¥, to clox the public hearing. ;Zt;'Waa noted that the second public hearing for Petition Z0-90-18 ,held on December 27, 1990. Z0-90-15, ALAN lq~YNOLD~ R~PR~SENTZNG WILSON, HILLER, ~TON ~ SE~ION 20, D~ZNZTZONS, ~ D~LETING ~ DEFZNZTION~: O~IC~, ~SZ~S; O~ZCE, G~; O~ZCE, ~O~SSZON~: ~ CLINIC, ~DZCAL ~; ~ ~ ~DZNG ~ DEFINITIONS: O~ZC~ ~ ~DZC~ O~Z~ZN~C - FZN~ ~LIC ~ZNG TO B~ ~LD ON 1~90 Legal notice havln9 been ~ubltshed In the Napl,es Dally News on 19, 1990, November 21, 1990 and December 5, 1990, as evl- by Afffftdavtt of Publication flied with the Clerk, public opened to con~lder Petition Z0-90-15, flied by Alan representing ~tlaon, Miller, Barton ~ Peek, Inc., re.satin9 to Ordinance 82-2 by ~endlng Section 20, Defftntttons. .'~a~e Arnold, Planntn9 Services, stated the re~ested action would the current definitions of b~stness, general and ~rofesstonal ~d create the stn~lar deffinttton of offtc,e. He said the Id also delete the current definition of clinic, medical or tail' ~d create the stn~lar definition of mediCal office/clinic. informed that Staff supports this request becau:se it reduces redun- cy among several definitions tn the ordinance and will allow Staff flexibility to review requests for an office which may not meet current definitions of general or professional office, yet may be )fiats use. Co~mtaeloner Volpe commented that the County h.~s a citizens ad hoc £ se to review the Unified Land Development Regulations, and the raised by this request will be addressed as part of that ."Mr._Brutt advised that the applicant has a client who desires to business proposition and cannot under the ¢~rrent ordinance. they are willing to pay for this to be considered now, rather for the review of the entire ordinance. PAGE Page December Il, 1990 Barbara Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton &'Peek, Inc., stated ';:iS!representing Alan Reynolds. She said this request will result .gical correction to the ordinance. She indicated the dtstinc- :~on~-~ade between the types of uses under offices are very artifi- i'Ve., an attorney cannot locate next to a travel agency. She .~'~his amendment will allow those types of uses to be adjacent and ~n tsrprovement to the zoning code. .P,.a:~mt~ton~r Sh~ ~, ~ec~ded ~ Co~tm~t~r Goo~tght ~t~ly, to clo~e t~ ~bltc he~tng. [: :It ~as noted that the second public heartn~ fo~ Petition Z0-90-15 2held on December 2~, 1990. Z0-90-12, CO~UNITY DH~T~OPMENT SERVICES DIVISION REQUESTING ~;AN AM~NI]~NT TO ORDINANCE 82-2, AMENDING SECTION 14, SUBSECTION 14.13, IN OI~DE~t TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT OF TWO HUNDRI:D (200) FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE FOR REZONE PETITIONS THAT PROVIDE 100~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND AMENDING SECTION 20, DEFINITION!;, TO ADD A DEFINITION OF 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING" - FINAL PUBLIC }FEARING TO BE HELD notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on '19, 1990, November 21, 1990 and December ~, 1990, as evi- by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public was opened to consider Petition Z0-90-12, filed by Community pment Services D/vision, requesting an amendment to Ordinance amending Section 14, Subsection 14.13 and Section 20, Scheff, Planning Services, explained that at the Board of , Commissioners meeting on May 29, 1990, Staff was directed to i~repare a variance procedure for road frontage for rezone petitions provide 100~ affordable housing units. He advised that the CC?C forwarded Petition Z0-90-12 with a unanimous vote of approval He that subsequent to the CCPC hear/ng, the Collier County Housing Density Bonus Ordinance was adopted, therefore, is recommending two changes to this Ordinance. He reported the change is to reduce the ~00~ affordable housing requirement to more, and the second change amends the definition of affordable 07 Page 6 December 11, lggO ~tng to be consistent with the definition contained in the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Scheff responded that the approved the current ordinance with 100~ and ~fith the current .fin~tion, however, at that time the new Affordable Housing Density iB°nus Ordinance had not been approved. -.~;;' County Attorney Cuyler requested that Mr. $cheff read the new definition into the record. Mr. Scheff informed the Board that the !~deflnition is as follows: "Affordable Housing: a residential unit with a monthly rent or monthly mortga~ge payment ng property taxes and insurance not in exce~s of one twelfth 30~ of an amount which represents 50~ for very ]ow income, 80% for ~.~ ~ income, or 100~ for moderate income of the median adjusted gross income for the household, as published annually by the U S. of Housing and Urban Development within the Naples metro- statistical area." .Co~missioner Volpe questioned if the requirement for 200 feet of :a~e* has presented an obstacle for affordable housin~ on a County- las basis? Mr. 011iff replied that the Board is attempting, to provide wha- advantages for affordable housing that are possible and in this will enable a project in Immokalee to be bul]t with 46 affor- housinG un/ts. .Commissioner Volpe commented that if this is a case of a problem tn Immokalee, maybe the Immokalee Master Plan should be the vehicle lng'looked at. i?,i Mr' Scheff reiterated that Staff was directed ~¥ the Board in May ~repare this variance procedure. ,'Commissioner Shanahan inquired ti, by approving this amendment, ects will be a/lowed to build with absolutely no frontage? Mr explained that there will be set-back requirements, such as the of 20 to 24 feet for access, plus buffering, so that there be at least 30 feet as a minimum. He said the Board will also 000 08' Page 7 .[~'to~opportunlty to approve or not, any petition for a rezone. ' .;Com~tgo4onor Shanahan Boved, eecondod ~ Co~os~o~r to clo~ tb ~bl~c ~ng. ~u no,ed that the second public hearing for Petition Z0-90-12 held on December 27, 1990. · O-90-1, C~ITY D~LOI~g~T DIVISION P,~QU~STING AN ~ TO TH~ SI~ O~IN~, O~N~CE 89-60, IN 0~ TO ~ ~ TO ~ ~~D SECTION8 PLUS NINOR C~G~ ~OU~O~ ~IS ~~ SO ~T ~LICATIO~, P~Z~ZNG ~ ~O~C~ C~ BK Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on 19, 1990, November 21, 1990 and December 5, 1990, as evt- by Affidavit of ~bltcat~on f~led with the Clerk, public was opened to consfder Petition S0-90-~, f~led by the Development Dlv~sion, re.eating an amendment to Ordfnance ,60'~?o ~e ch~ges to the enumerated sections plus minor changes Hoover presented the Board with a revised definition for center" which will be consistent with what t8 being proposed Zoning Ordinance. He said this petition ha:s been before the 'CCPC on three occasions, and on November 1st, was forwarded to the Board with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Davis, Vice President and General Manager of St~ncraft, indt- his agreement with the amendments being proposed by Staff with exception of a list of changes which he provided to the Board. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Davis replied that the CCPC _~reviewed some aspects of his proposal, however, has not seen it in entirety. iDavts reviewed with the Board and Staff hie proposed changes SeCtion 3.02, Definitions; 4.01-F-2 4.01-F-3, 4.01-Q-21 5.01-C; ~';O1-A-(3); 6.01-A-(a)-(a); 6.01-A-(5) & (5)-(a); and $.O1-A-(5)-(b). After discussion of Mr. Davis' proposal, the Board of County and Staff ware agreeable to certain changes being and Commissioner Saunders auggested that Mr. Davta meet Page 8 December 11, 1990 .staff to incorporate those agreed upon Items lx~to this petition /or to the next public hearing. 'i-;C~llllll~m~i~ ~ move, secomted by Comtas~toner goodntght ~1~ ~~ly, to clo~ the public :<' It was noted that the second public hearing for Petition SO-90-1 Will ~ held on December 27, 1990. ~' Cowry Attorney Guyler clarified that the Items heard at this :~ were advertised to be heard on November 27t~ and were con- to this meeting. He said this meettn~ is In fact, the adver- tlaed ~eetlng for the second set of public hearings. He re~ested that the Board formally continue these items to December 27, 1990 at 5:05 P.M. ~ly, t~t ~ ~tttt~ ~d this nl~t ~ c~ttn~ :to ~ 2~, 1990 It 5:05 P.M. Co~tssto~e~ Volpe commeRted tAat t~e amendment, to Collier County mces that were proposed during this meettno are being initiated a particular petitioner. He said he ts concerned with the analysis itn~ done tn terms of County-wide applications, especially tn ltoht the ~rrent rmview of the Unified r.and Development Re~lattons. Mr. Brutt advised that unless the Board directs Staff on what to or not, an applicant has the rtoht to make a public petition a chloe In an ordinance as lono as he ts wtlltn~ to pay the fee. said tn the case of the affordable houstn~ tn Imm~kalee, the peti- tioner c~e before the Board and explained her problem. He said caa~ of Mr. R~olds, he discussed his problem with Staff, who that there were inconsistencies tn the definition of office He statmd that Staff could not make a decision contrary to the .Zontn{ Ordinance, therefore, Mr. Reynolds petitioned the Board. He added that when the revisions to the Unified Land Development arm completed, the need for changes ~tll continue as tech- County Attorney Cuyler suggested that Staff can advise the Board 10 Page g December 11, 1990 "O:~'four months prior to those regulations coming before the lard, so that no additional petitions will be heard during that time. ISlOl~ RE~a~DING EV~N___ING ~O~TINGS FOR JA][UARY This item was discussed during the Regular Meeting this date. The ~°~lowing are additional comments: !Co~m~ssioner Shanahan mentioned that the Board did not take into ~ideration when setting meetings for January 1§th and January 2gth :00 P.M., the fact that both those days have moderate agendas. He that rather than wait until ?:00 P.M., it would be propi- -to have those meetings at 5:05 P.M. .O0~o~one~ Shanahan ~oved, ~econded by Co~issioner Goodn~ght ~i~ ~~ly, t~t t~ ti~a for the ~tinge of J~~ 15 J~ 29~ ~ c~ed to 5:05 P.M. 'There being no further bus~ness for the Good of the County, the was adjourned by Order of the Chair - T~me: 6:~0 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL )roved by the Board on ~ or as corrected