BCC Minutes 06/16/1993 S (NRPA and Habitat Protection Ordinance) Naples, Florida, June 16, 1993
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 5:05 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION In Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
C~AIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Michael J. Volpe
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: Sue Carney, Recording Secretary and Ellis Hoffman,
Deputy Clerk; Nell Dorrill, County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County
Attorney; Martha Howell and MarJorte Student, Assistant County
Attorneys; Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator;
Ken Bagtnski, Current Planning Manager; Barbara Cacchione, Long Range
Planning, Fran Stallings, Natural Resources Director, Kevin Duggan,
Natural Resources, and Kimberly Polen, Project Plan Review.
Page 1
June 16, 1993
Ite~3&
STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING THE NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
AR~A AND TO LOOK AT ~E HABITAT PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE WAYS
THAT MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE AND INTERPLAY WITH THE NRPA'S AND BRING
BACK BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE BOARD. SECOND HEARING FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMIINT CODE TO BE }{ELD JUNE 29, 1993, AT 5:05 P.M.
Commissioner Saunders requested that Staff combine their presen-
tation of the Habitat Protection Ordinance with the amendments to the
Collier County Land Development Code.
Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator, explained that
Staff has prepared a presentation regarding the Habitat Protection
Ordinance, will review the Growth Management Plan (GMP) requirements,
provide a comprehensive description of the ordinance and show how the
ordinance will be implemented.
Mr. Lorenz stated that the GMP Ob3ective 6.1 identifies, defines
and prepares development standards for all important native habitats.
Mr. Lorenz revealed that Policy 1.1.2 of the Conservation Coastal
Management Element states that the goals, objectives and policies of
the GMP are considered as interim standards until the standards that
have been developed are adopted.
Mr. Lorenz remarked that the framework for the GMP was to provide
for specific standards on a habitat by habitat basis, adding that
until the Natural Resource Protection Area's (NRPA's) are developed,
these standards will exist.
Mr. Lorenz noted that two sections of the GMP allowed for
landscaping to be used to supplement the native vegetation, the
HPO does propose that the landscaping not be used as a credit for pre-
servation of habitat.
Fran Stallings, Natural Resources Director, declared that the
basic purpose of the }{PO is to preserve a portion of the native
habitat present on a site that is to be developed. He observed that
where habitat is not present, there is no preservation requirement in
this ordinance.
Page 2
June ~6, 1993
Mr. Stallings advised that when dealing with Strand habitats, 50%
of the native habitat on-site is required to be preserved, on all
other native habitat sites, 25% is required.
Mr. Stallings explained that the habitat value is calculated by
using a point system, values are assigned to specific habitats based
on several factors, especially rarity and listed species. He said
that sites with recorded plats that have current approved final site
development plans or current approved PUD master plans are exempt, and
any modification to a PUD will make that plan subject to this ordi-
nance.
Commissioner Saunders responded to that statement by stating that
the current general policy is to encourage owners of old PUD's to
bring them up to current standards, but this policy would discourage
owners from doing that.
Commissioner Volpe asked what could be done in the case of a deve-
lopment where construction has already begun?
Mr. Stalling stated that he could not see how the standards could
be made retroactive to a development under way.
Mr. Stalling outlined how the document must be presented to the
county, and it would be necessary to provide a map and narrative
selection of the area proposed to be set aside, a map and habitat
description ts already required on most projects. He expects no dif-
ference in processing by county staff, however the applicant may have
the additional cost of recording a conservation easement. He gave a
description of typical fees.
Oommissioner Volpe inquired as to the tax implications to the
grantor.
Ms. Rowell responded that she had been informed by the tax
appraiser's office that the preserve area is given a nominal value and
accessed accordingly.
Commissioner Volpe pointed out that while rev~ewing costs to be
incurred, he is looking for the benefit to be derived by "gifting"
this property to the public.
Page 3
June 16, 1993
Mr. Stallings confirmed that removal of exottc's ts already
required, once that Is accomplished maintenance should be simple and
inexpensive.
Mr. Stallings maintained that this ordinance does not duplicate
existing regulations, as the ordinance is put into effect it ts likely
that no more land will be set aside, however, the preservation area
would be sub3ect to a conservation easement and the area will have
certain limitations and more habitat will be preserved.
Commissioner Saunders asked if there were a way to focus on a more
"systems" approach to preservation of natural habitat?
Mr. Stallings responded that issues of large areas must be
addressed, but maintained that the small, isolated pockets of habitat
are also Important.
Commissioner Volpe pointed out that until the development of
NRPA's are established, a way to preserve systems would be through
offstte mitigation. Mr. Volpe recognizes that the NRPA's are stalled
at this point, he suggested that tn the interim certain areas that are
in public ownership off-site mitigation could be established.
Kevin Dugan, Sr. Environmental Specialist, gave a slide presen-
tation to explain how this individual rating system works and how the
formula to establish preserved acreage is calculated.
Ktmberly Polen, Environmental Specialist, gave a slide presen-
tation of actual projects and how the HPO if adopted would apply to
actual cases.
Commissioner Matthews inquired that if a site had 25% wetlands on
it and also had viable upland habitat, nothing would be required of
that habitat. She concluded that if there were already wetlands pro-
tected, why are we going through this.
Ms. Polen replied that it was giving the selectivity of uplands.
Mr. Lorenz Indicated that the GMP does direct staff to develop
standards and criteria for a variety of habitats. He stated that
staff did not lncreas~ the 25% policy statement that the Board had
already adopted and the net effect of the ordinance ts to get greater
,oo, 05
Page 4
June 16, 1993
selectivity of the upland habitat.
In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Lorenz responded that pine
flatwoods were part of the diversity of the habitat of Collier County,
and that the different parts were all inter-related ecologically.
CommisstDner Volpe asked if there were any other exemptions besi-
des agriculture?
Mr. Stallings replied that besides agriculture, oil and gas opera-
tions were added because they were already regulated.
Mr. Lorenz explained that the next series of ordinances have their
origin in the Growth Management Plan, where a beach and coastal
barrier management program must be developed. He recalled that the
Coastal Zone Management plan was brought before the Board previously,
which identified a number of policies recommending that land develop-
ment regulations be pursued within our coastal zones.
Mr. Lorenz revealed that the GMP has Goal 14, which addresses the
duplication of effort with state and/or federal agencies.
Mr. Lorenz said that staff will present the description of the
proposed Land Development regulation, the identification of where the
regulation is more stringent than state requirements and an estimation
of fiscal impact.
Dr. Stallings addressed the issues of sea turtles and vehicles on
the beach. He confirmed that the State has issued a recommended list
of regulations to be put into effect and staff has adapted these
regulations to apply to Collier County.
Dr. Stallings outlined the changes regarding lighting regulations
to restrict the reflection of the lights on the beach according to
State recommendations; existing residences be retrofitted with tinted
glass, but since most homes already have tinted glass, staff does not
feel this requirement would be necessary. He said staff does recom-
mend that new buildings have window tinting that would meet the state
requirements.
Commissioner Matthews asked what penalties would be enforced if
eomeone did not follow the requirements7
08
Page 5
June 16, 1993
Ms. Howell responded that there are prescribed penalties under the
Land Development Code.
Dr. Stallings reported that the next item to be discussed would be
vegetation removal, protection and preservation, which primarily focu-
ses on mangrove trimming. He noted that a change in standards is pro-
posed.
Ms. Howell confirmed that all the CCPC recommendations are incor-
porated into Staff's side sheets, adding that the CCPC also recommends
these regulations mirror the state's standards rather than deviate
from them.
Dr. Stallings commented that in the case of mangrove trimming,
state regulations would be duplicated, but more restrictive. He
asserted that two reasons could be used to 3ustify duplication, the
ability of self-enforcement and the adoption of regulations that go
beyond in order to meet the requirement of the Growth Management Plan.
Tm~e ~2
Mr. Lorenz noted that the Board could choose to get involved in a
delegation program from the state for mangrove permitting.
Commissioner Saunders remarked that he has not heard an environ-
mental reason for amending the mitigation policy to 2 to 1, except in
aquatic preserves, but he said he would have no ob3ectton to adopting
the state.standard in aquatic preserves.
Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist, advised that the reasoning
for the 3 to i mitigation development ts because the Department of
Natural Resources required the county to adopt that ratio in order to
allow mangrove trimming.
Mr. Hatcher implied that what was intended in the GMP was to avoid
My 10ss tn mangrove productivity as a result of new development.
Commissioner Volpe inquired that if the Board chose to adopt a
policy other than staff's it would still be consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and would not have to go beyond state st'an-
dards. He questioned if a delegation program could be implemented at
the local level, would state funds still be available7
Page 6
June 16, 1993
Mr. Lorenz did not know of any funds available for delegation of
the program.
Commissioner Saunders asked if the state standards are sufficient
in reference to mitigation for mangrove trimming?
Mr. Hatcher replied that they are sufficient from a mitigation
standpoint, but more complicated than what is proposed here.
Lee Layne, representing the Collier County Planning Comm~ssion,
explained that the CCPC feels that the state has to comply with the
state comprehensive plan, and feel that the state regulations are suf-
ficient in meeting County requirements, and that the language "no
unacceptable net loss" should be interpreted by the Board to meet that
policy. She stated that the CCPC recommends no duplication and the
adoption of the state standards for mangrove trimming.
Dr. Stallings confirmed that the next section of the LDC amend-
ments were "Private boathouses and docks", revealing that the purpose
of this amendment is to protect the seagrass beds because of their
importance to the marine ecosystem. He mentioned that at the present
time all boat docks require a building permit, and the proposed amend-
ment calls for groundproofing the seagrass beds within 200 feet of a
dock facility. He said in many cases the applicant will be able to
provide the survey themselves by surveying the area at ]ow tide, and
in other cases, the services of a consultant may be required, adding
that the implementation of the seagrass atlas which is being de'eloped
will alleviate this cost in most cases.
Commissioner Constantine asked what the total cost of building a
dock would be excluding consultant fees?
Commissioner Matthews answered that there are docks available at
Long Shore for $1,200.O0-1,400.00 including labor.
Commissioner Constantine concluded that in order to build a dock
himself he would have to hire a consultant at $500.00.
In response to Commissioner Constantine, Dr. Stallings responded
that $15,000.00 has been spent on a state of the art geographic infor-
mation system. He said the Solid Waste Division is using the system
08
Page ?
June 16, 1993
now and it will be used by Natural Resdurces next for the development
of the Manatee Protection plan as the seagrass project will begin late
1993 or early 1994.
Dr. Stallings indicated that if a contiguous seagrass bed is found
as far out as 200 feet a boat dock can be built, but if there are any
areas where the seagrass is not as thick the dock should be placed in
that location.
Commissioner Saunders stated that although there is no way to pro-
hibit the building of a dock, it can be regulated.
Mr. Lorenz announced that certain standards would have to be met
to regulate the building of the dock in an attempt to minimize the
impact on seagrass beds.
Dr. Stallings discussed the next amendment; Coastal Zone
Management, which is designed to conserve the natural habitat species
on the shore lines and dune systems by including the standards and
regulations for all new and existing development and construction pur-
suant to the LDC's sections 3.2 and 3.3 and the Collier County
Building Code.
Dr. Stallings described the general purpose of this amendment is
focused on the protection of undeveloped coastal barrier islands and
provided a map depicting the areas this would apply to. He noted that
this amendment would follow a federal act by implementing the intent
of the federal legislation.
Commissioner Volpe questioned with all the federal regulations and
the current development standards, what is the regulation on building
seaward of the coastal construction control line?
Ms. Polen replied that a variance would have to be applied for
from both the county and the state.
Dr. Stallings continued with the next amendment which requires
that a permit for vehicles on the beach must expire each year on
April 30, so that they are renewable in line with the protection of
the sea turtles.
Commissioner Volpe asked what the regulatory scheme is now
09
Page 8
June 16, 1993
regarding cabanas, and if that is addressed in this amendment.
Maura Kraus, Senior Environmental Specialist, stated that any non-
permanent structure needs a permit and must be removed from the beach
during turtle nesting season.
aaa DepUty Clerk Hoff~an replaced Recording Secretary Carney
A discussion ensued with regards to Mr. Richard Henderlong's
Petition. Mr. Baginski advised that an application has been sub-
mitted, dealing exclusively with additional uses within the Industrial
District.
Mr. Bagtnski referred to Page 13 of the agenda packet, LDG Side
Sheet relating to Section 2.2.16.2.1, Item #8. He explained that the
request would add financial institutions, i.e. credit unions, commer-
cial banks and other forms of lending institutions into the
Industrial District. He indicated that by including this language,
the Board would be acknowledging and approving the concept that while
the Industrial District is and should be restricted to industrial uses
as required under the Comprehensive Plan, that currently as provided
for in the list of permitted uses, eating places, and a few other
situations have been determined in the past to be acceptable land uses
within that district because they generally relate to or specifically
relate to or can be associated with an industrial use.
In response to Commissioner Constantine, Planner Cacchione
reported that as part of the Industrial Land Use Study, it was deter-
m~ned that there was adequate ~ndustrial lands for industrial type
uses within the county until the year 2010.
Commissioner Constantine stated if the urban industrial area has
limited space, there are certainly a number of other areas where depo-
sitory institutions are appropriate.
Mr. Richard Henderlong pointed out that Southtrust bank is located
in 0orporate Square which is an industrially zoned district. He indi-
cated that Citizens National Bank on Pine Ridge Road is on a commer-
cial strip. He related that the intent of the submitted request is to
Page 9
June 16, 1993
recognize that Industrial parks are business employment centers and to
provide a necessary service to employees within those centers. He
explained that he has been working with staff to resolve a long term
issue greater need of how to define what an industrial district is
which may evolve into the creation of some new districts dealing with
subject matters, i.e. a business park. He suggested that there needs
to be a comprehensive evaluation of the economic uses within
industrial parks, and noted that this would not take away heavy
industrial uses or narrow the availability of land for same.
Planner Cacchione read from the Comprehensive Plan, the permitted
uses within the Industrial District. She affirmed that staff is of
the opinion that professional offices do not fit into this category
and they were removed from the ordinance in October, 1991. She
explained that this has resulted in many non-conforming uses in the
various parks throughout the county. She noted that as part of the
Industrial Land Use Study, staff recommended that they review those
districts, and this will be accomplished in next year's work program.
Assistant County Attorney Howell revealed the following admi-
nistrative amendments, as contained in the agenda packet: Page 12,
Section 1.9.9; Page 15, Section 2.2.20.3; Page 16, Section 2.2.24.2.1;
Page 17, Section 2.2.24.6.1; Page 20, Section 2.6.32.1; Page 21, Side
Sheet regarding Division 3.8, is being withdrawn by staff; Page 45,
Section 2.2.24.7.1; Page 49, Section 5.2.3.4, however, the Planning
Commission ts recommending denial of same.
Ms. Lee Layne, representing the Collier County Planning
Commission, advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of Section 5.2.3.4, sub3ect to leaving in the word "Immokalee". She
explained that the Planning Commissioners from Immokalee indicated
when the Board combined the two planning commissions, it was agreed
that there would be two members from Immokalee.
County Attorney Cu¥1er advised that the ordinance is not really
clear, and the Board needs to clarify the intent of same.
Commissioner Saunders suggested that until the second public
Page 10
June 16, 1993
hearing is held, the language could read" at least one member shall
be from Immokalee"
Assistant County Attorney Howell stated that she will prepare a
side sheet containing this change for the second public hearing.
Ms. Howell stated that the last amendment is on Page 50, Section
5.3.2.2.
The following persons spoke:
David Maehr, EPTAB Chairman
Lee Layne, representing the Collier County Planning Commission
Barbara Cawley
Bill Barton, representing EDC (w/handout)
John Fitch, representing The Conservancy (w/handout)
Gary Beardsley (w/handout)
Scott Franke
Mike Davis
Clay Carithers
Glenn Simpson
Jim Slesky
Mark Morton
(~o~o)
CollLIILOn~ S&undera announced that the ftrlt public heulnga on
both ord~n~ncee ara concluded.
Commissioner Volpe remarked that he has not heard anything to con-
vines him that the Habitat Protection Ordinance, as presented, is the
ordinance that is needed. He questioned why this is being approached
as a separate ordinance, as opposed to through the context of the LDC.
Mr. Lorenz advised that approximately one year ago, staff
drafted the HP0 as a series of amendments to the LDC, however, this
touched on numerous sections of the LDC and therefore, staff chose a
separate ordinance as the requirement. He noted that the biggest
problem in the development of the ordinance is the 25~ requirement in
the Code and the ordinance addresses those particular upland habitats
as a ranking of same to address the standards.
Commissioner Volpe stated that the NRPA's have been d~scussed and
it appears they should be looked at simultaneously. He suggested
that the NRPA's be developed first, and then the' question with regard
to the Habitat Protection Ordinance could be visited.
Commissioner Saunders remarked if the HPO, as currently drafted,
Page 11
June 16, 1993
in not what the Board is looking for, it makes no sense to have a
second public hearing on this matter. He noted that staff could be
directed to re-draft the ordinance and the second hearing could be re-
advertised, but noted if there are substantial changes, two public
hearings would have to be conducted.
Commissioner Saunders revealed that he does not believe the HPO
goes far enough, based primarily on testimony provided by staff. He
related that the ordinance would not have much impact on the 37 resi-
dential PUD's that have already been approved.
Commissioner Volpe questioned whether a motion should be made to
table further consideration of the HP0, pending consideration and
adoption of the NRPA's.
County Attorney Cuyler advised that it is not necessary to make a
motion to table further consideration. He indicated if the Board is
not satisfied with the ordinance in its present form, there will need
to be some additional work and advertisement. He related if the
second public hearing is not held in approximately two weeks, the
Board is not in a position to adopt the ordinance.
Commissioner Saunders stated if the majority of the Commission
desire to have the NRPA's developed first, or simultaneously with the
MPO, it would be appropriate for that intent to be expressed.
Com~/esioner Volpe ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews and
cmrrie~ 4/1 (Coniasioner Norris opposed), that staff be directed to
continue to develop the Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA's];
conttnne to look at the Habitat Protection Ordinance to determine ways
that ~ be ~ors effective and detsr~ins how it will interplay with
the ~P&'s ~ bring both back si~ultaneonsly.
Commissioner Saunders advised that this ordinance will be tabled
and brought back for further discussion with the NRPA's.
Commissioner Saunders announced that the amendments to the LDO
that are specifically related to the HPO will not be part of the
public hearing on June 29th.
It ~ the consensus of the Board that if standmx~m are to be
P~ 12
.,Tuns 16~ 1993
~toptsd that ars more stringent than state stan4ar~s, Justification
will ~ to b~ provided.
Commissioner Saunders announced that the second hearing on the
~ts to the LDC m~e~nts will be conducted at 5:05 P.N. on
29, 1993, tn the Boardroom, Building "F".
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 9:10 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN
Page 13