Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/22/1992 S Naples, Florida, July 22, 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 9:00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael 3. Volpe VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan (ABSENT) Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Patricia A. Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Ellie Hoffman and Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; 3ennlfer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager; David Weigel, Marjorte Student, Martha Howell and Rich Yovanovich, Assistant County Attorneys; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; George Archibald, Transportation ". Services Administrator, David Pettrow, Development Services Director; Ken Bagtnski, Planning Services Manager; John MadaJewski, Project Review Services Manager; Barbara Cacchione, Chief Planner; Barbara Prynoski and Marco Espinar, Environmental Specialists; Wayne Arnold and Ron Nino, Planners; Sue Fflson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Jim Waller, Sheriff's Office. Page 1 3uly 22, 1992 RECOI~(E]FDATION TO AFPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELO~ CODE - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 1992 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Chairman Volpe announced that this is the first public hearing to consider amendments to the Land Development Code. He explained that this hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17th. Commissioner Volpe stated that staff is requesting that the amend- ments to Section 3 be heard first. Project Review Services Manager MadaJewski called attention to Page 3-4, Section 3.2.4.10 - Resubdivision. He revealed that this item deals with platted parcels of land and dividing them further into multiple development parcels. He indicated that these are sing/e- family parcels, most of which are within the Golden Gate Estates platted areas. He stated if the five criteria are met, as set out within this section, those parcels would be allowed to utilize the lot line adjustment procedure as adopted by Code. He remarked that staff would then place a resolution on the consent agenda for adoption by the Board in order for the Clerk to note the split of the property on the plat. He remarked that this would suffice to save the public time and money. Mr. MadaJewski explained that the only restriction with regard to the division of land would be that both lots have to front the already existing right-of-way. The following persons spoke with regard to the Resubdtvislon issue: Dr. Neno Spagna Mr. Segretto Mr. John Lee Assistant County Attorney Student advised that the Governor and Cabinet established the Area of State Critical Concern which is mapped in Tallahassee. She reported that she is attempting to obtain that map. 03' Page 2 3uly 22, 1992 Commissioner Volpe questioned whether language could be included indicating that this shall have no application in those areas designated as Areas of Critical State Concern. Mr. Madajewski acknowledged that this could be a sixth qualifier. Ms. Student stated that she will review this matter and report back before the final hearing. Mr. Madajewski directed attention to the Development Services Advisory Committee's yellow side sheet, Section 3.2.6.3.2.1. He stated that Mr. Griffith will address this section. Mr. Ed Griffith revealed that the Development Services Advisory Committee developed the language to look at an early work prov~sion within the LDC. He indicated that the language would allow an appli- cant to begin construction on his work prior to certain items being approved by the Board. He remarked that the County Attorney's Office is in the process of reviewing the subject language. Assistant County Attorney Weigel divulged that work that would be done prior to plat approval could potentially find the County in a position of estoppel or difficulty in the denial of a permit on the otherwise review grounds because of the fact that work would have progressed on the premises. Mr. Griffith announced that Lee County grants a final development order before a plat is approved and recorded by utilizing a bond for protection to the County with regard to risk. He remarked that the ULDC provides that after plat approval is granted, the County has the ability to require the applicant to stop at what he is doing and review an already approved project. Assistant County Attorney Howell advised that the County does have a standard form for preliminary work authorizations. Commissioner Volpe cited that there needs to be some type of security in the event that a project is abandoned. It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to work with Mr. Griffith and the County Attorney's Office between this date and August 5th to broaden the language to provide for proper security and present Page 3 same to the Board. July 22, 1992 Assistant County Attorney Weigel explained the two aspects of bonding. Mr. MadaJewskf referred to Page 3-22, Section 3.2.7.5, yellow side sheet titled "Resubdtvision". He reported that this item falls under the provision of Preliminary Subdivision Platting. He indicated that this matter was brought back to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) last week under "Old Business" to be discussed and they endorsed this proposal. He advised that there is specific criteria in Items A-G, relating to when this process could be utilized and not be required to go back through another preliminary subdivision plat.' There were no speakers. Mr. MadaJewski pointed out that Page 3-52, Section 3.2.9.1.5, gray side sheet deals with subdivision performance security and the requirement of the posting of that security when a Community Development District exists in that project. Assistant County Attorney Yovanovich explained that this section requires Community Development Districts to post the standard sub- division security if they are the entity constructing the subdivision type improvements. He indicated that the purpose of this provision is to assure that the required subdivision improvements are constructed. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Madajewski reported that the Code allows for a cash deposit agreement, Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit containing an Evergreen provision, surety bond, or an escrow agreement with the first mortgagee on the property. The following persons spoke with regard to Section 3.2.9.1.5: Mr. John Farquher (provided copy of suggested language) Mr. Bruce Anderson Mr. George Vega It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Farquher forward informat~on to the County Attorney's office for further review. Mr. MadaJewski pointed out that Pages 3-85 and 3-92 on the gray sheets relate to Excavations that are done for agricultural purposes. Mr. MadaJewski advised that Mr. Jack McKenna of Agnoll, Barber & Page 4 July 22, 1992 Brundage, Inc. will be addressing the Commission with respect to changes to the Conditions Section in Subdivision and the issue of sidewalks. He revealed that staff is opposed to the proposed changes. Tape #2 Mr. Jack McKenna of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., provided handouts, proposing a language change to Section 3.2.7.2, Conditions, which would allow the Planning Commission to grant exceptions during the PSP process, i.e. 12' lane widths within industrial parks. Mr. MadaJewski related that in order to change a 14' lane width to 12', an applicant would need to appeal the Board of Zoning Appeals and request an amendment to the Code. Assistant County Attorney Student suggested that she take a detailed look at the proposed language change and report back to the Board. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that clarification should be made to the Subdivision Regulations with regard to road cross sections, i.e. 12' lanes with 2' foot paved shoulders. He remarked that there are 12' lanes on State Roads, however, they include paved shoulders that are much wider than 14' He indicated that by being more specific, the lane widths could be reduced but increase the shoulder structure so that the ability of the roadway is not lost in order to handle the wheel loadings of large trucks. He noted that staff would have to develop the appropriate language to be included in the specifications and brought back to the Board. With regard to the issue r.equiring sidewalks on both sides of the road, within industrial parks, Mr. Madajewski reported that staff is agreeable to reducing this requirement to one side of the road. Environmental Specialist Prynoski addressed the vegetation removal protection and preservation section of the Code. She called attention to the salmon sheets, Page 3-124, Section 3.9.5.2.1, noting that staff is deleting the following language: "and has been requested to be removed by a public law enforcement agency or utility." Page 5 July 22, 1992 Ms. Prynoski pointed out additional language on Page 3-124, Section 3.9.5.2.6 providing for the removal of native vegetation but replacing same with non-native vegetation of comparable caliber. Mr. F~lt Ward spoke to this section of the LDC. Ms. Prynoski referred to Page 3-124, Section 3.9.5.2.7 on the yellow side sheet. She remarked that the Zoning Code did not allow single-family homes to clear for many uses beyond the one acre allowed under the building permit. She explained that language is beinG added providinG for single-family homes to clear for any accessory use allowed in that District. She remarked that this would allow people to clear for gardens or those living in the Estates to clear for hot- ses. Mr. John Lee spoke with regard to this provision. Ms. Prynoski stated that Page 3-127, Section 3.9.6.4.2 on the yellow sheets allows the one acre or less clearing to include PUD's and subdivision, or any parcel that is non-agricultural or non- commercial in which single family lots have been subdivided for single-family use only. Environmental Specialist Espinar referred to the salmon sheets, Page 3-129, Section 3.9.6.6.6, detailing the removal of exotics from single family lots. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Espinar reported that " due to safety reasons, property owners are encouraged to remove Australian Pines since they are.very weak trees and during a storm event they have the tendency to break and cause severe damage. The following persons spoke with respect to this section: Mr. Whit Ward Mr. Patrick Neale ''' Recess 7:40 P.M. - Reconvened 7:50 P.M. '*' Ms. Prynoskt stated that Page 3-128, Section 3.9.6.5 on the yellow sheets deals with agricultural land clearing. She recalled that the CCPC directed staff to work with representatives from Collier Enterprises to address their concerns. She indicated that staff has 07 · Page 6 July 22, 1992 been working with Collier Enterprises for the past three or four weeks and concurrence is about to be reached with regard to time frames relative to on-going maintenance allowing for clearing without an applicant being required to come in for an additional permit. Mr. David Land presented and spoke about a handout (copy not pro- vided to the Clerk's office) of suggested language changes to be con- sidered. Mr. Madajewski stated that staff wi]] work with Mr. Land to incor- porate language into a better consolidated form and present same to the Commission at the next hearing. Assistant County Attorney Howell explained that Ordinance 76-42 provided for land clearing requirements relative to agricultural lands and those requirements are now reincarnated into the LDC. She indi- cated that staff is attempting to determine to whom these requirements should apply. She remarked that staff feels that the LDC permittinG requirements should be applicable to all new operations and to those operations that received permits under Ordinance 7S-42. She revealed that the Commiss~on needs to determine wh~ther those operations that did not obtain permits under Ordinance 76-42 should be exempt and start as of today, or require that they submit proof that they were an agricultural interest before 1976 with an on-going operation and they would also be exempt. Mr. MadaJewski stated that there was an initial approach that a duplication of effort was occurring, however, staff has demonstrated that this is not so. He indicated that staff has met with represen- tatives from the CORPS, DER, Division of Forestry, Fish and Game Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife to draw that distinction. He recommended that all existing ongoing operations that cannot demonstrate a permit under Ordinance 76-42, apply and obtain same so that everyone would be on an equal basis of having some type of permit ~ssued by the County. Mr. MadaJewski advised that staff will present a reasonable provi- 05' Page 7 July 22, 1992 sion to the Commission at the next hearing. In addition, the Commission directed staff to work with Mr. Land and provide language with regard to fence lines, permits and fees relative to same. · e De~m~t¥ Clerk Guovin replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman at this time '' Attorney Dudley Goodlette with Cummings & Lockwood, representing the Registry Hotel Corporation, asked to reserve the right to work with Staff on Section 3.13, Coastal Construction Setback Line. He said the language he was originally proposing has gone through a revi- sion between Staff and himself and he would like the opportunity to bring back this section at the next hearing. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Goodlette explained an issue has arisen with respect to cabanas that have been on the Clam Pass Park beach for many years. He indicated the Registry was required to remove the cabanas daily during the sea turtle nesting season, and although they are portable, they weigh 100 pounds each. He suggested in the non-sea turtle nesting season, from November 1st through April 30th, they would like to leave some of the cabanas on the beach overnight providing the Development Services Director authorizes the Registry to do so. He mentioned there are sufficient safeguards in Section 3.13.7.3. He concluded between this date and the continuation of this public hearing, he and Staff will be able to agree on satisfactory language to address his concern. Assistant County Attorney Martha Howell directed the Board's attention to Section 3.9.6, Review Procedures, on page 3-129 of the salmon side sheets. She said the language was proposed by the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), however, Staff disagrees with their suggestion because the stricken language "in perpetuity" is the County's only enforcement mechanism. Mr. Madajewski added it is Staff's position if someone is required to remove exotics and it is not done in perpetuity through a manage- ment plan and enforcement type action, the exotics have the propensity to repopulate the area and populate other areas, resulting in an on- going problem. Page 8 July 22, 1992 Assistant County Attorney Howell noted the CCPC voted in favor of removing the language. Patrick Neale, Chairman of the EAB, explained the EAB recommended removing the language because there are insufficient resources for enforcement. AssJstant County Attorney Howell addressed Section ].5.5, Regulating Noise Construction Activity, on page 1-7 of the yellow side sheets. Mr. MadaJewski informed the Board that the Building Code for the County is the only document that contained restrictions as to times and days of the week that construction could occur on a project. He said because of a specific problem that occurred, Staff has worked to include a specific section of the ULDC that sets specific hours and days of the week as well as what holidays work cannot occur, in order that everyone is treated the same in the County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney Richard Yovanovich stated provisions have been included for emergency situations for a person to apply for a permit to work on the days or during the hours not normally permitted. The following people spoke regardinG Section 1.5.5: 3ohn Lee Lyle Richardson Assistant County Attorney Howell referred to Section 1.6.3.3, Rendering of Interpretation, on page 1-8 of the yellow side sheets. She explained this provides for a requirement to have a legal suf- ffclency review of interpretations issued on the ULDC. She said this will insure that the Growth PlanninG Department interpretations are consistent with any that the County Attorney's Office has issued, and will also make sure if there are any legal implications, that Staff and the County Attorney's Office will consult before the interpreta- tion Goes out to the applicant. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Howell agreed to add language statinG an official record of all interpretations by the Development 10 Page 9 July 22, 1992 Services Director or the Growth Planning Director will be kept in the County Attorney's Office. Attorney Robert Duane suggested the words "within 30 days" be added after "interpretation". Attorney Patrick Neale also spoke regarding this section. After discussion, it was the consensus that 45 days is an equitable timetable for both Staff and the applicant. Assistant County Attorney Howell directed the Board's attention to page 1-14, Section 1.7.10, Public Notice, on the 9ray side sheets. She recalled the Board requested Attorney Anthony Pires to address his concerns with the public notice requirement for vested rights hearings and stipulations. Attorney Pires suggested notice be given to contiguous property owners for vested rights hearings and stipulations, similar to that Given for a variance or provisional use application. Assistant County Attorney Howell commented currently, notice is required only when there will be a hearing, not when there is a stipu- lation. She said the purpose of the stipulation is to expedite the process, rather than have every application be heard by a hearing officer. She noted this section will only be in existence until November, 1992, at which time no further applications for vested rights from the ULDC will be accepted. She made the suggestion that notice be given to property owners within 300 feet of the subject pro- perty whenever there is an application between now and November. She indicated that will allow affected property owners to submit something in writing to the County Attorney's Office to incorporate into the stipulation, or at least provide the opportunity to discuss the issues. It was the consensus to incorporate the above suggestion into the language of Section 1.7.10. Mr. Baginski reviewed changes to Section 2.1.]3, Reduction Of Lot Area Prohibited, on page 2-4 of the salmon side sheets. He recom- mended a further revision by adding "lot dimensions or areas" after Page 10 July 22, 1992 the word "Yards" in the second sentence. Mr. Baginski next called attention to Section 2.2.1.2.2, Uses Accessory to Permitted Uses in the Golf Course District, on page 2-6 of the yellow side sheets. He said these revisions will allow for a pro shop limited to 1,000 square feet ]n size, as well as restaurants with a seating capacity of less than 150 seats and restrictions on the hours of operation for that restaurant. He noted Section 2.2.1.3 allows, through a Conditional Use, pro shops in excess of 1,000 square feet and restaurants with seatinG capacity of greater than 150 seats. Commissioner Saunders suggested in Section 2.2.1.3, paragraph 1, the word "exclusively" be changed to "primarily" as it ~elates to the intention by a restaurant to serve patrons of a Golf course. Attorney Pires suggested language regarding restaurants accessory to Permitted Uses be changed to "150 seats or less" in order to have the full range of alcoholic beverages available. After discussion, it was the consensus to incorporate the two above recommendations into the revisions. Co~issioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and c~rrted unant~ously, to continue the public hearing to August 5, 1992, mt 5:05 P.M. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner S&unders and carried ~ousl¥, to continue the second public hearing scheduled for August 5, 1992, to August 19, 1992, at 5:05 P.M. July 22, 1992 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:05 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL MICHA~. VO ~ Board on corrected CHAIRMAN Page 12