Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/31/2000 S (LDC Amendments)May 31, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 31, 2000 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: CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine Barbara B. Berry James D. Carter Pamela S. Mac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: Mike McNees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, May 31, 5:05 p.m. 2000 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTYMANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF 1 May 31 ,2000 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, DIVISION 1.9. ENFORCEMENT; ARTICLE 2, ZONING, DIVISION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS; DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.5. EXCAVATION; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; 3.11. ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES PROTECTION; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF DOCK FACILITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT; APPENDIX D, AIRPORT ZONING; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 May 31 ,2000 May 31, 2000 Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 14, 2000 AT 5:05 P.M. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there, and welcome to the -- what is today? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Today is the 31st day of May. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- May 31 Land Development Code hearing of the Board of County Commissioners. If you'd stand with us and join in a pledge to the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. What we'll do is Ron, if you want to go right through these, and then we'll save our questions until the end, as you just click right through them. And then we'll also at the end -- I don't think we have any registered speakers, but if someone arrives and needs to speak, we'll do that at the end as well. MR. NINO: Thank you. MS. PAYTON: There's no speaker slips. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anyone other than Nancy here who would like to speak? Okay. Mike, can we accommodate them with speaker slips? Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes. It's your intention to go through each one very summarily, or do you just want to hear those amendments which ran into controversy? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Many of these we have actually heard in some way, shape or manner before, so let's work our way through those that have had some level of controversy. MR. NINO: Okay. The first agenda item is under -- it's on Page 6 of your-- I can't read the page number here. It's on chronological Page 6, after the summary sheet, that deals with amendments to the C-4 and the RT zoning district. That part of the amendment here was initiated, quite frankly, by Commissioner Carter, in attempting to deal with the greater setbacks for buildings, and at the same time we introduced a notion of a floor area ratio here. Pa~e 2 May 31, 2000 The setback provision for the C-2 area was increased so that in effect we're now looking at a setback of 75 feet; whereas, under the current ordinance, we would have a 50-foot setback for the C-4 district. We have proposed doing the same thing under the RT district, and that ran into some controversy, and for good reason. Because we -- quite frankly, staff didn't realize that all of the RT zoning is really along -- for the most part, is along Park Shore Drive, and it's by and large development -- it's by and large developed. And the introduction of that enhanced setback, quite frankly, would have made most of those buildings nonconforming. So we decided not to -- we agreed that it should not apply to the RT. However, the novel part of this amendment is the proposal to eliminate reference to hotels on the basis of units per acre, and to introduce a floor area ratio, which in the opinion of staff and the DSAC and the Planning Commission made a lot of sense. However, the floor area ratios that we first talked about again were not found acceptable to the DSAC, and for that matter, the Planning Commission as well, and they recommended higher floor areas. Which after study on the part of staff, that is, examining floor area ratios that are in fact in place, we found that the floor area ratio of .6 for hotels was a more appropriate floor area ratio agreed with the DSAC in the matter and the Planning Commission. And in the case of destination resort hotels, that a floor area of .8 met the market -- met what was out there in the real world. And so that as we stand in dealing with this particular amendment, we are in concurrence -- staff is in concurrence with the DSAC and the Planning Commission. So we're all in concurrence. I don't know if the board would have any further problems with that issue. The next item over which some discussion arose was the amendments to the business park district. There was a proposal in the business park district to limit the amount of retail sales that could take place at a secondary -- at a secondarily permitted use. And that was at 10 percent. And the recommendation by Planning Commission was that that ought to be 20 percent. And again, there was good reason for that. Because we currently allow in another zoning district up to 20 percent of Page 3 May 31, 2000 industrial use to be used for retail activities associated with that industrial use. So that really made it harmonious. And staff concurred with that. The next amendment that ran into some discussion was -- had to do with the airport overlay district, and that simply had us dealing with the incorrect maps at the time, and we now have replaced those with the correct airport impact maps. And that's page -- we're up to page -- that was Page 52. We're at Page 61 on your agenda, but Page 52 chronologically. The next item that ran into some discussion was the proposal on the part of the DSAC to amend -- to undo certain requirements for clear zone on automobile overhangs into sidewalks and landscaped areas. The staff disagreed with that amendment, and as a consequence of several meetings following -- actually following the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission agreed with staff, that we shouldn't undo what we did before, and that was to more adequately protect the integrity of the sidewalk and the landscaped area from overhangs. Consequently, after some negotiation with the DSAC chairman and builder representatives, a modification was made to that plan, which is now in your agenda package at Page 70 and 79 on the agenda package, but Page 70 chronologically. And we are in concurrence with the modification which now would establish a clear zone of five feet for sidewalk with no bumper block; three feet for a sidewalk where there's a bumper block at an appropriate distance from the sidewalk. I don't know if there's any member of the public here that is -- finds that the alternative -- or the negotiated plan is still a problem or not, but we're told that that's not the case. Going to Page 94 of your agenda chronologically and 103 of your agenda package, there were some amendments to the temporary use section, which as modified in the package that's before you is concurrent with the DSAC recommendation and Planning Commission recommendation. Those changes were relatively minor; quite frankly, were of a housekeeping nature. And the only substantive issue there was the proposal to extend temporary use permits for multi-tenant buildings from the current 28-day maximum that we now have in the Ordinance 214 in segments of two 14 days to 42 days. Thank you, Fred. And to eliminate -- to allow the planning services director Page 4 May 31, 2000 the discretion to eliminate the fee for nonprofit organizations for special events temporary use permits. Page 138 of your agenda package, 129 chronologically, is the amendment dealing with gopher tortoise preservation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page was that? MR. NINO: That ran into considerable amount of gopher tortoise -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. Page. MR. NINO: Page 129 chronologically, Page 138 of your agenda packet. And after a number of negotiated sessions, the document that's before you represents the views of the Planning Commission, the EAC, the DSAC and staff, and interested environmental groups. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're unanimous? MR. NINO: Absolutely unanimous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a miracle. Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Lots and lots and lots of work. MR. NINO: And those represent -- those elements of the package that's before you, over which there was some extended discussion -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions from the board on those or on other elements? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, let's go to the public speakers. MR. McNEES: You have two public speakers. The first is Amanda Stein, who will be followed by Nancy Payton. MR. NINO: Before I do, Mr. Chairman, could I interject, Michelle Arnold has advised me that one amendment here, which deals with code enforcement responsibilities, Item 3-9 -- Page 127 of your -- chronologically. There's a request to withdraw that. Apparently there are some items that need to be worked out with our legal department in terms of establishing standards by which the rule will be invoked. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll talk more about that before we go. Amanda Stein; is that right? MS. STEIN: Good evening. On behalf of the Collier County Page 5 May 31, 2000 Audubon Society, I would like to offer our support -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for the record, if you'd identify yourself. MS. STEIN: I'm sorry. I'm Amanda Stein. I'm a board member of the Collier County Audubon Society. On behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society, I would like to offer our support of the proposed gopher tortoise protections before you today as an amendment to the Land Development Code. As we all know, current laws do not provide adequate assurances that these creatures will survive the development process in Collier County, both as -- as both animals and habitat are rapidly being destroyed. The tortoises have the unfortunate predicament of needing the same high and dry land that people crave for development. The gopher tortoise ordinance offers a reasonable foundation of protections of individuals and habitat. This kind of protection mechanism required in the comprehensive plan for all listed species, and we -- and we are very supportive of the county's effort before you today on behalf of this one species. We urge you to approve this amendment, and we offer our assistance on both its implementation and the drafting of future amendments for the protection of other species. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. And Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. We're here today to support the proposal that's before you, and we look forward as well to working with staff and other interested parties in additional amendments to this particular section. There are some unresolved issues that we all agreed that we would work on during the next amendment cycle, but it was important to get something on the books that was useful and provided some protection for gopher tortoises. We'd also like to extend our help in pursuing what's been proposed as a gopher tortoise preserve, someplace outside of the urban area that will provide significant habitat for a large population of gopher tortoises. It's kind of a two-pronged attack, protecting existing populations and current habitat, known habitat, and also in another track, parallel track, looking for a Page 6 May 3'1, 2000 preserve with state monies that are out there that are available to Collier County to do such a thing. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Thanks. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. It was a pleasure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, that concludes our public speakers? Let's hear from staff just to -- could we get maybe a 60-second synopsis on why that item's being withdrawn? Hi there. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. There was some language in the Section 3.9 that was of concern. We want to just make sure we're getting it right instead of pushing it through. Initially the language that was in there, there was some concern of whether or not we wanted to leave it so openhanded and have broad-based discretion to staff. And it's been modified. But again, we want to make sure we have the language in there right before we proceed. There was some concern also from the Development Services Advisory Committee with respect to treating single-family owners differently from developers. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It seems to me the concern came more from the Development Services Advisory Committee. That was -- up until this instant, that was the objection I heard. I hadn't heard from staff earlier. I'd like to work on that language before we withdraw it, see what we can come up with in the next two weeks, and if we still can't in that time frame, let's withdraw it then. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But let's make an effort to try to put it together, because there have been a lot of people work on that for several months, so-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And is it two weeks from today is the second one of these? MR. NINO: Yes, June 14th. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: June 14th. There's nothing else, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: No. Page 7 May 31, 2000 CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're adjourned. 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 OL TIM ' TI NE'~ ~HAIRMAN DWIGHT..E, BROCK, CLERK r . ~ ,,::/' .. . .signature These:~:~inutes approved by the Board on presented ~ or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Pa~e 8