Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/01/1995 S (LDC Amendments)SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals 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 5:12 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie Hike HcNees, Acting Assistant County Hanager David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Robert J. Hulhere, Planning and Services Technical Manager Item #3A ORDINANCE 95-58 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, GENERAL PROVISIONS; ZONING; DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS; FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS; DEFINITIONS; RECITALS; FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND EFFECTIVE DATE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the second public hearing on our Land Development Codes, Wednesday, November 1st, 1995. Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Good evening. For the record, Bob Hulhere, your planning manager. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Mr. Hulhere. I'm rushing through this because we were all late. Mr. HcNees, would you __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not all late, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, two -- two of us were late. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, would you lead us in a pledge and invocation. MR. HcNEES: Yes, ma'am. Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this evening on this board, county staff members, and members of the community as we meet to conduct the business of this county. We thank you at this time of year for the change in seasons and the blue skies and most particularly the dry skies. And we ask for your wisdom this evening and ask these things in the name of your son, Jesus. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Now, Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Again, this is the second of our required two evening public hearings for this cycle of the LDC amendments. We had relatively few changes directed by the board at the first cycle. The first -- the first thing I need to let you know is that we have removed the area of critical state concern amendment per the direction of the board until the comprehensive plan amendment is -- is heard and approved by the board. And we will track that LDC amendment concurrent with the comprehensive plan amendment, so that's taken out of this entirely. The second concern that the board had dealt with the clearing and filling prior to building permit amendment, proposed amendment. And the specific concern was relative to when the county might be able to access a letter of credit or surety bond, and we've added some language. I'm going to pass that out to you right now. At the -- the bottom of paragraph labeled D on that sheet that I've turned that over to, the last sentence will now indicate that, In the event the developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under the conditions set forth herein -- because there will be conditions of approval for this -- or should the developer fail to meet the time limitations set forth in Sections 3.2.6.4.8 and 3.3.8 -- and those are the time limits set forth for subdivision and/or site development plan -- upon certification of such failure by the planning services director or his designated, county administrator may call upon the surety bond or irrevocable letter of credit. So we feel we now have sufficient reference in the code to timing should -- should a developer fail to meet his obligations in -- in the agreement for the early clearing and/or filling. The other change, as mentioned at the first hearing by Miss Student, dealt with the change in state statutes relative to public hearing requirements for zoning changes. And I'll let Miss Student speak to that issue. MS. STUDENT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. As you'll recall, I mentioned I'd report back because there was a conflict between two pieces of legislation regarding the night hearings for the -- where we are right now, the Land Development Code adoption and amendments to it. And I have checked with some other local governments as well as the Council for the Florida Association of Counties and confirmed with them that the later in time control. So what you see in the ordinance is as it is per state statute. Again, those are minimum requirements. And the other thing I wish to draw your attention to, if you recall, I mentioned a typo that "initiated by" had been left out on page 3. It was page 72 of the last agenda, and that has been corrected. So that -- MR. McNEES: Madam Chairman, you have one speaker on this item, Chris Straton. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You had a 50-50 shot of guessing which one of you that was. MS. STRATON: For the record, Chris Straton representing the League of Women Voters. I'm embarrassed in front of this large audience of the public. But, again, we would suggest that if possible to have the LDC amendment process still continue with two public hearings so that while the issues currently at this time were not such that the public felt necessary to show up the second time, but there may be changes in conditional use rules or things like that so -- and there's the public to support my position (indicated). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All those in favor -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how we decide. Mya (phonetic), what do you think we should do, honey? MS. STRATON: Two, say two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I ask -- John, would you take over? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll take over. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Straton. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I ask, do we have any intention of changing our current format from two evening public hearings to one? And if we don't, why don't we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was a good point. I was going to say, Mr. Weigel, if we change this, it still doesn't prohibit us from having two public hearings, doing them at night, doing whatever we want, if we so chose. MR. WEIGEL: I'll lean Marjie's way but, for instance -- MS. STUDENT: I brought these to you because these were new requirements to state law, and that's why it was brought again. They're minimum requirements. So if we wish to continue with two hearings or two night hearings, I don't see any problem with that. I think we will have to follow the new -- at least the new advertising requirements for the ten-day ad, which we've been doing for other things for the ordinance itself, and we could continue to do the display ads as is presently set forth in the code. Again, that's minimal, but I felt that we needed to bring it to you because it was a change in the state statute. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Two evening hearings are traditional. I think we should keep them. Change is bad. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the way it's always been done. MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Constantine, in regard to your question, if your question was one that we could create a new minimum one hearing but hold two when we wished to or when it seemed more appropriate, that could be done in one circumstance only, and that is you provide for one hearing formally. But if you have an issue, you will continue that hearing within your advertised time frame for an additional hearing. And that is how that could occur, but not just because you want to have a second hearing and -- and -- sometimes and not other times. It would, in essence, be a continuation of the one hearing that you have; then you can bring it back again, but that is how it would work. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Some of these issues we tend to have four or five public hearings on so, I guess, you know, it's really sort of -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four or five. -- flexible. Let's cut back to four or five. Some go on for a year or more. Yes, they do. I'd like to have the flex -- I'm sorry. I'd like to have the flexibility to say, like, this time nobody cares, and knowing we could always continue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody cares. I'm not sure I would go that far. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, on the record. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is if there -- if all matters at a public hearing are resolved in the first swing at it, we don't have to go to a second one. I -- I don't see a problem with that. I'm just a little concerned about the expectation. I want to make sure that people understand that it's -- it's not just one shot, that we have the option of having a second hearing and that we, in all likelihood, will do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other particularly, to tell you the truth, except I -- I certainly don't see any harm in having two public hearings in the evening like we've have on the issues like the Land Development Code. Some other matters might be a different story, but for issues that are -- that can be as far-reaching as the Land Development Code or -- or something to that effect, I -- I think probably we should continue with the practice of having two evenings. But, you know, who knows. Let's see, is this a public hearing that we need to close? MR. HULHERE: I -- I have one more. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You have one more? MR. HULHERE: Yeah. Commissioner Hancock, you requested that we find out a cost estimate for the requirement for double the interior landscaping for projects requiring more than 200 spaces for each space above and beyond what the Land Development Code requires. And I asked Joe Delate, who is the county landscape architect, to give me an estimate. And I -- I asked him to give me an estimate on a hundred -- a hundred spaces, and the cost estimate -- I won't break it down for you -- at 15 trees with 336 linear feet of curves, gutter irrigation, sod, mulch, soil, it comes out to $6,878. That's $6.88 per parking space. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're really going to hate to hear this, because that's not what I asked for. My concern was that when we do grass parking if the maintenance costs of the grass parking and the installation -- MR. MULHERE: Right. You know, that -- we looked into that as well. I know that you also asked on that whether or not it was cost effective, and I think that it is not less costly to install an alternative to asphalt parking up front, but over a period of time the maintenance costs are significantly less. But it's going to take a significant period of time, because it is more expensive to install -- what is it -- the Enviroweb (phonetic) or -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that -- MR. MULHERE: -- or some other type -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or even if you stabilize subgrading and sodding -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they have a choice this way. COMHISSIONER HANOCOCK: Well, I'm -- I was looking more instead of having a choice to be encouraging that in some way. And I -- if I read this correctly, it means when they come in, they're giving me the option of doing it. MR. MULHERE: They -- they are given the option. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Wal-Mart would -- would not take it. MR. MULHERE: No doubt they would pave it but, I mean, the issue is that they pave above what's required by code, then they -- they have to provide double the landscaping. But they also have an option of providing grass parking. But I think what we need to do -- and we discussed earlier -- from a staff level, is initiate some conversation with South Florida Water Management District to come up with some incentives, because right now the problem is that the South Florida Water Management District will count that as impervious. And, therefore, you've got to engineer your water management facilities to -- to include that grassed area even though there is some -- even if it's subcompacted, there is going to be some filtering so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is a step in the right direction. And I -- I don't want to make any changes to this at this point, but we may find at the next cycle that we can refine this to make it an encouraging step as opposed to an option. But let's see how it plays out. I appreciate the effort -- MR. MULHERE: Look for some sort of a carrot to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like those -- I was going to say I like the option plane there because you're right. There are certain circumstances where it's just not going to work, but there are certain times where I think the incentive when the option is there it's going to be less expensive to do the grass parking in most cases. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. Or they can mix and match too, can't they? MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, they can have some paved and Some '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every other row. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's required to be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our church has done it that way, as a matter of fact. We have -- the farther away you get from the building, you're building a -- MR. MULHERE: It's required to be in the exterior of the site, the grass parking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Those are all the changes as directed by the board. If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If there are no further question, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the changes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. We have four and one on the aye. Those opposed? There are none. And, therefore, if there is no further business, we will be adjourned. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK JOHN C. NORRIS, VICE-CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan