BCC Minutes 09/16/1992 S Naples, Florida, September 16, 1992
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. tn SPECIAL SESSION tn Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Patrtcta A. Goodnlght
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Burr L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT: Kathy Meyers and Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerks;
Netl Dorrlll, County Manager; Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the
County Manager; Martha Howell, MarJorte Student, Dennis P. Crontn,
David Wetgel and Richard Yovanovtch, Assistant County Attorneys;
Ken Baglnskt, Planning Services Manager; Ron Ntno and Wayne Arnold,
Planners; David Pettrow, Development Services Director; John
MadaJewskt, Project Review Services Manager; Dick Clark, Code
Enforcement Supervisor; Marco Esptnar, Environmental Specialist; and
Deputy Dennis Huff, Shertffts Office.
Page
September 16, 1992
PUBLIC BTJLRING REG&RDING &I~2~T:~q~IB TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELO~ CODE - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 1992
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
August 27, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was continued from September 2, 1992.
Commissioner Volpe requested that public comments from registered
speakers be heard.
Hartha Howell, Assistant County Attorney, reported that a set of
green sheets has been distributed, along with additional side sheets.
Regarding Article Number 2.?.4.5, with respect to Congregate
Living Facilities, the following people spoke:
George Keller
Mr. Bagtnsk! explained that a portion of this article is being
deleted because of typographical errors. He noted that within
Sections 2.7.4.5.1 and 2.?.4.5.2 the language is the recommendation of
Staff and the public will request their own additional language to be
added.
Commissioner Volpe read the public's recommended language, for the
record. He interpreted this language to provide that before any con-
dtttonal use can be terminated, it ts Incumbent upon the Development
Services Director to notify the property owner, so he has an oppor-
tunity to respond.
Mr. Baginskt clarified that the three-one year extensions are only
to extend a conditional use that has been approved but had no permits
issued within that first year. Commissioner Saunders further added
that the provision maintains that the extension must be applied for
before the expiration of the conditional use, or it will lapse.
Commissioner Saunders stated that if a facility has stopped its
use, for example a Moose Hall, but continues to pay the electric bt11,
it ts still a discontinuance of the use.
Dan Goodacre spoke to this item.
rlO0,, 03'
Page 2
September 16, 1992
Commissioner Saunders stated that he will not support an amendment
that changes a rule so that the David Lawrence Center or any property
owner can retroactively revive a uss that has expired over a year.
Alan Re~-nolds with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., repre-
senting the David Lawrence Center, stated that this is not the proper
forum to debate the merits of the case concerning the David Lawrence
Centerts property in Golden Gate Estates.
Co~mtoo~oner S~undsrs ~, ~econded b~ Co,missioner Goodnt~ht
and carrledunanl~ou~l¥, to adopt the language of the ~end~ente
within the green shasta reOlrdlng Section 2.?.4.5.! ~nd 2.?.4.B.2.
Regarding Section 6.3, Family Care Facilities, HarJorie Student,
Assistant County Attorney, discussed the definitions of family care
facility, care unit, group care facility and handicapped, with respect
to permitted uses in single family resident~al neighborhoods. She
noted that in the Estates district the family care facility ts the
only one that is permitted. She read a portion of the Fair Housing
Act Amendment to the Board.
Douglas Rankin, Attorney representing property owners on llth
Street, discussed his concerns about the difficulty for the County
to enforce limitations on the maximum number of residents and staff.
fie suggested changing the word 'residents' to ~persons under care~.
Tape ~
Mr. Rankin also recommended that the word 'supervisors' be changed
to ~supervisors reasonably necessary to provide care to the persons
'under care'.
In discussing the prox~mity of these types of facilities to other
such facllit~ss, Ms. Student confirmed that th~s is covered by Florida
State Law as well as the Collier County Zoning Ordinance.
Comm~ssioner Saunders detailed that the following changes are
being proposed:
Change the ~six residents' to ~persons under care~;
2. Change the word ~supervisors' to ~supervisors reasonably
necessary to provide care to the persons under caret;
3. Within Group Care Facility, Category 2 should be redefined as
to the language regarding dangerous people, specifically, that
September 16, 1992
Categor~ 2 be defined to be those types of facilities that are
not permitted at all in a single family residential community,
and those Category 2 facilities that are to be excluded from
residential communities are those facilities that house poten-
tially dangerous people.
4. Change the number of supervisors to reflect ~no more than
the minimum required by HRS plus one'.
The following persons spoke to this item:
Mr. Segretto
Gary Barn
Commissioner Saunders ~:nmd, ~econd~d b~ Co~lsstoner Shanahan and
carried ~n~n~u~ly, to Include the proposed langu~g~ w~th~n Fa~lF C~re
Fmctlltlee u to '~er~rns under care~ and the number of ~upervt~ors,
~nd co~ Group Care Facilities CmtegorF 2, fmcllltte~ that would
housm people that are m potential thraat to public health, safety and
welfare ~uld fit Into Category 2 facilities ~re not permitted u
~nF ktnd of m u~e tn m single fatl¥ residential area and would hav~
to be m Conditional
**e Rece~ed mt ?:15 P.M. - Reconvened mt ?:30
Regarding 2.6.23, Mike Carr requested that the language concerning
prohibited animals tn residential districts reflect that the
Vietnamese Pot Bellied Pigs are excluded from this list.
Mr. Bagtnski noted that Lee County allows these pigs tn a res/den-
t/al district up to 4 but no breeding, the City of Naples allows them,
Broward County and City of Fort Myers does not allow them.
Mr. Carr clarified that if the pigs were allowed, an 80 pound
limit can be applied, and the pigs would be properly registered and
tagged.
The following persons spoke to this Item:
D/no $ortano
Fat Ptlcher
Nancy Payton - distributed handout of pig diagram
''' Deputy Clerk ~offman replaced D~puty Clerk I~wF~rs
mt this
Mr. Clark pointed out that there is a legitimate concern because
of the minimum Housing Code. Ne Indicated that people who are not
Page ·
September 16, 1992
Inclined to take good care of their homes would have lees Inclination
to do so if pigs are al/owed and this would result tn more problems.
Commissioner Volpe remarked that he is not prepared to change the
definition of prohibiting animals tn residential districts to allow
for Vietnamese pot bellied pigs.
Coutestoner Hesse cited that he feels that these pigs should be
kept tn an adequate facility that lends Itself to those kinds of ant-
male.
Commissioner Ooodntght stated that whatever an animal ts
accustomed to depends on how that animal was born and raised. She
related if a pig or dog ts raised tn a house, that te what they are
accustomed to, but to say that a pig has the natural instinct of
rooting, ts not necessarily true. She suggested if an individual
desires to have an animal tn his home, there needs to be restrictions,
I.e. no more than two pigs, and the requirement to have them neutered
or spayed.
Commissioner Shanahan Indicated that he does not believe pigs
should be al/owed in residential areas. Commissioner Saunders con-
turfed.
Co~/Nloner Hesse ~ov~d, ~econded by Co~aIssioner Saundere and
C~'T~d 4/1 (Co~taaloner ~tnt~it oppo~e~), that the lan~ of the
Land Dev~l~nt Cod~ not be ~ended to allow Vtet-n&~ese pot bellt~
pi~ In residential areas.
Section 2.6.30, Polling Places was the next issue for discussion.
Mr. Mike Cart affirmed that he concurs with the language.
Mr. Mathlae Tart voiced concern with regard to LDC Page 2-166,
Section 2.6.11.3, Agricultural Districts. He Indicated that the
language takes away agricultural rights and places the property owners
within an agricultural district into residential zoning, noting that
this Is unconstitutional.
Mr. Bagtneki advised that the intent of the proposed language
change le not to include.or exclude anything from an agricultural
category or limit any production or activity of farming, but merely
Page 5
September 16, 1992
to include those parcels that slipped through the cracks where par-
cels were zoned and used as agricultural, within developed residential
areas where staff could not restrict the height of fences or the use
of barbed wire that was allowed tn agricultural districts.
Mr. Tart spoke to Section 2.6.7.1.1, relating to parking and
storage of certain vehicles and noted that "E" Estates District is
being classified as Residential. Mr. Baginski revealed that this
language was adopted in 1991. He indicated that this language deals
with the parking of vehicles on property as per the direction of the
CCPC to specifically address the Estates. Mr. Tart stated that the
Right to Farm Act allows for these vehicles to be tn a bonafide agri-
cultural district.
Co~leetoner Volpe suggested that staff make a further review of
the language and report back.
Tape ~S
Attorney Anthony Piree called attention to Section 2.6.35, LDC
Page 2-189, relating to Communication Towers. He related that he does
not believe this provision te sufficiently protective. He pointed out
that there appears to be a gap between towers of 18§.1~ and those with
heights of 199.9~.
Planner Milk recalled discussions of two weeks ago with respect to
communication towers by a matter of right in the commercial and
industrial districts. He noted that staff was opposed to the 500f
setback language, approved by the Planning Commission. He reported
that the Commission directed staff to review and present information
relating to the setback requirements for towers permitted in the com-
mercial and industrial districts. He presented the scenario of a
tower up to 185~ must be 2.5 times the height of the tower away from a
residentially zoned district. He indicated that this would not be
quite as extensive as the 500~ setback.
Mr. Milk reported that this requirement ts applicable to towers
ranging in height from 75f to 200~.
Mr. Pires called attention to Section 2.6.3, Page 2-158, and
Page 6
September 16, 1992
suggested that the language relating to exclusion from height limita-
tions be clarified since it excludes towers from any height limita-
tion.
Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing Cellular One of Southwest
Florida, provided a copy of a compromise recommendation relating to
Section 2.6.35.6.2. He indicated that he believes staff's proposed
a~endment ts too restrictive.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that the RT District allows building
heights up to 100', but staff's proposal has increased setbacks at
75' In addition, he reported that he does not concur with the hetght
at which increased setbacks become applicable.
Mr. Anderson requested that the Increased setback requirements be
measured from ?6' on up so for that portion of the tower that ts in
excess of the minimum permitted height of 75'.
Mr. Milk advised that he does not concur with the language as pre-
sented by Mr. Anderson since it reduces the setback more than a 1:1
ratio.
Mr. Milk advised that he fully supports the setback of 2.5 times.
The consensus of the Commission was to concur with Mr. Milk's
recommendation.
Commissioner Shanahan~ved, eecor~ded by Commissioner
carried ~iB~u~ly, to continue the pub/lc hearing to October 14,
1992, at 5:05 P.M.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was recessed by Order of the Chair - Time: 9:00 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONINO APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI~ DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
/
Page ?
September 16, 1992
These .~nutes approved by the Board on ~/~-4~_~_~ ~, ! ~ ~
aS presented ~'/ or as corrected .
Page 8