Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/05/1991 S Naples, Florida, March 5, 3991 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: Patricia Anne Goodnight VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael 3. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Max A. Hasse, Jr. ABSENT: Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Wanda Arrighl and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the County Attorney; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney; Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Barbara Cacchione, Project Planner; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; John Bo]dt, Water Management Director; Ken Baginski, Planning Services Manager; Robert Lord, Sam Saadeh and Bill "~'~ver, Planners; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office. Page '. March 5, 1991 ten #3A ORDINANCE 91-24, ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY SWALE/CULVERT · MORATORIUM WITHIN AN AREA OF NAPLES PARK - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 13 and 27, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing wait op~n~d I.o consider an or(]l- nance establishing the Collier County Swale/Culvert Moratorium Ordinance within an area of Naples Park. Water Management Director John Bo]Jt stated that this is the second of the two required public hearings for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Boldt noted that this has not proven to be a controversial issue. In response to Commissioner Shanaban, Mr. Boldt Informed that a detailed map indicating the locations of the culverts planned will be provided to project services. Richard Wood, Chairman of the Improvement Committee for Naples Park, encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to adopted the sub- Ject ordinance. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/0, ~hat the public hearing be closed. Co--~iee~oner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/0, tha~ ~he Ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted'and entered into Ordinance Book No. 43: ORDINANCE 91-24 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THE PERMITTING OF THE CONVERSION OF SWALES TO CULVERTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN AN AREA OF NAPLES PARK, A PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FINDINGS AND PURPOSE; TITLE AND CITATION; APPLICABII, ITY; IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM; DURATION~ PENALTIES; CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Ite~#3B PETITION NO. ZO-90-17, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REQUESTING AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 8, SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION 8.12d., OFF-STREET VEHICULAR FACILITIES - PARING & LOADING, IN ORDER TO REVISE OFF-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD MARCH 19, 1991 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 25, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with Pa~e 2 March 5, 1991 the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition Z0-90-17, Community Development Services Division, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting an ordinance amendinG Ordinance Number 82-2, the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations, by amending Section 8, Supplementary District Regulations, Subsection 8.12d. , Off-Street Vehicular Facilities - Parking and Loading, In order to revise off-site parking requirements. Planner Hoover informed that the amendment is drafted to require that all off-street parking facilities be located on lots under the same ownership as the lot they serve. He informed that the three pro- posed categories allowing off-street parking are for it to be allowed automatically by the Zoning Ordinance; secondly, for it to be allowed by staff's recommendation; or thirdly, for it to be allowed through the Board of Zoning Appeals after a Planning Commission hearing and recommendation by staff. He explained that the change to add review criteria to the proposed amendment was made by staff after the Planning Commission approved the subject amendment. In response to Commis~,.. ,er Volpe, Mr. Hoover reported that the Planning Commission changed the distance requirement for the off- street parking to be no more than 400 feet, measured from the nearest building setback line of the use they are intended to serve. As to the question regarding the parking being separated by a road from the facility to be served, Mr. Hoover informed that the proposed amendment allows for an application to be filed and reviewed, if there are no arterial roads involved as noted by the Comprehensive Plan. Bruce Anderson, representing the Cypress Landlug Corporation who are the owners of the Factory Bay Marina and Shopping Center, stated that the restriction of paragraph 3f regardin~ an off-site parking lot having to be bound on both sides by commercial zoning be changed back to the way it existed when the Planning Commission approved it. Mr. Hoover explained that the County Attorney's office had con- .~. cerns about allowing a lot for parkin~ purposes to be bound only on one side by commercial zoning because it would not meet the require- Page 3 March 5, 1991 ment of the Comprehensive Plan, and, they requested the change to require the lot to be bound on two sides to make the proposed amend- ment consistent with the Comprehensiv~ Plan. Mr. Anderson commented that an off-slte parking lot should not be considered as a commercial parcel; but rather as a provisional use as the City of Naples does. He pointed out that through the provisional use process the necessary appropriate safe guards and limitations on lighting, buffering, etc. for a proposed parking lot can be imposed. After a discussion regarding Mr. Anderson's specific issue for his client, Mr. Hoover clartf~ed that paragraph 3f Implies that if the pro- perty being considered for a parking lot is not suitable for rezoning to commercial then an application for off-site parking cannot be applied for. He related that since the off-site parktng would be to service a commercial use then it too should he zoned commercial. Planner Cacchione concurred with Mr. Hoover's comments. She added that the basic rationale for the recommendation in paragraph 3 is that off-s~te parking Is viewed as an integral part of the permitted commercial use and accord:..:. to the Comprehensive Plan the locational criteria for commercial use is for activity centers, PUD commercial, or commercial under criteria which does not allow for parking lots in resldentially zoned areas under any conditions. John Emerson, representing 3. Alander, questioned the 67% require- ment of parking having to be on the lot with the principal structure because it does not seem logical in the case of contiguous property fo~ parking. He argued that the proposed ordinance should be more flexible and allow the requirement to be 50~. Mr. Hoover explained that the 67~ require;nent is designed to prevent restaurants from expanding beyond the existing use. He affirmed that this percentage will be re-evaluated for its appropriateness. Pat Neal requested that in regards to paragraph 2a, which requires all lots to be under the same cwnership, there should be the similar provision as noted in Sections 5 and 6 of the oYdinance providing for ,age 4 March 5, 1991 a long term lease for a lot with a written agreement stating its use to be for parking. He pointed out that in paragraph 3f the word "intent" as it refers to the C-6 district should be more specific. Planning Services Manager Baginski stated that paragraph 3f can be reworded to be more specific; however, to answer the question regarding the intent of the C-6 district, he explained that it is meant to mean that the lot would need to meet the criteria of the C-6 in-fill commercial district. In response to Commissioner Shanahan's comments, Mr. Hoover noted that he will also review the 400 foot requirement. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Planning Commission found when they approved Petition Z0-90-17 as it was before the present changes made by the Long Range Planning staff that it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, these new changes are subject to debate. Go~issioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/0, to close the public hearing. It was noted that the z~cond public hearing for Petition Z0-90-17 will be held on March 19, 1991. PETITION ZO-90-18, COI~UNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, REi~RESE1TTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2, TH~ COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 8, SUPPLEME1TTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION 8.12f, OFF-STREET VEHICUT~%R FACILITIES - PARKING AND LOADING, IN ORDER TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR SH/tI~ED PARKING - FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 19, 1991 Legal notice having been published in the Nap]es Daily News on February 25, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition Z0-90-18, filed by Community Development Services Division, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 82-2, the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations, by amending Section 8 and adding Subsectlon 8.12f., Off-Street Vehicular Facilities - Parking and Loading, in order to add provisions for shared parking. Page 5 ~arch 5, 1991 Planner Hoover explained that Thomas Wood of Vega, Brown, Stanley & Martin, P.A., representing Sign of the Vine Restaurant, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Zoning Ordinance by addin~J Subsection 8.12f for shared parking. He advised that this would provide a mechanism for submitting a petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals requesting shared parking approval for off-site parking where the petitioner does not own the land. He noted that the subject petition was heard in December, 1990, but the motion for approval was not carried by a 4/1 vote; therefore, this is the first of two hearings. He pointed out that at the December, 1990, hearing it was requested that a review criteria be added as well as land reservation be required for all new structures which have been added. He informed that in regards to the requirement for parking for new structures, staff provided language in paragraph 6f requesting land reservation be required for all shared parking approvals except where the shared parking is between a church and another land use or only between exiting structures that have received Certificates of Occupancy. He explained that churches hm,'- been exempt because they are generally open only on Sunday mornings and when a church is designed it typi- cally will not change its use; however, if there are other buildings for educational or recreational purposes involved with the request from the church, a land reservation could be required. He pointed out that when considering a shared parking agreement a specifically detailed aerial map will be provided to show the surrounding uses and the growth potential of the requested area. Commissioner Volpe suggested that government buildings such as schools, jails, fire stations, etc. be evaluated for shared parking for beach access in the same manner as churches. Mr. Hoover affirmed to do this an bring back a report. Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that there has been discussion regarding the duration of an agreement to which Mr. Hoover indicated that the time of an agreement has not been provided for in the ordi- nance, but staff will review the issue. Page 6 March 5, 1991 Tom Wood, representing Sign of the Vine Restaurant, stated that he will work with staff in the review process of the request made. In response to Commissioner Shanahah, Mr. Hoover related that the County Attorney's office advised the Planning staff that this petition should be readvertised for the Board of County Commissioners' approval only. He pointed out that the only changes made after the proposed ordinance was unanimously approved by the CCPC were to add the two items noted as requested by the Board of County Commissioners. Pat Neal, speaking on behalf of the Snook Inn and Lake Front Commercial Condo, called attention to paragraph 2b where the distance re~lirement is 300 feet, and suggested that there be a level con- sistent with Petition Z0-90-17 which also deals with the parking issue. He recommended that consideration be given to off-site parking facility agreements for dedicated employee parking which may require a larger distance requireme~... Mr. Hoover stated that he will review this for this ordinance as well as for Petition Z0-90-17. Mr. Neal requested that paragraph 3b be reworded to say that the credit may be applied to all one property or split among the proper- 'ties rather than saying between, because more than two properties may 'be involved, to which Mr. Hoover concurred that this will be reviewed. Commissioner Volpe suggested that since shopping centers already have a shared parking agreement between their different uses, a provi- sion should be made that shared parking does not apply to shopping centers. Mr. Hoover concurred. C~ssio~r Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasae and m~ &/0, to close the public hearing. It was noted that the second public hearing for Petition Z0-90-18 will be held on March 19, 1991. ~ITION Z0-90-23, COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, I~SENTING THE BOARD OF COU1TTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING AN ORDINANCE AF~_~DING ORDINANCE NUMBER 82-2 BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 7.17, MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION DISTRICT, AND 7.18, MOBILE HOME RENTAL PAJ~K, TO ALLOW HUI~RICAN~ SHELTERS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE AND BY A/)OPTING REQUIR~ENTS AND STANDARDS - FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON NJhRCH 19, 1991 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 25, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with / (JOOF~<! [~' Page 7 March 5, 1991 the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition Z0-90-23, filed by Community Development Services Division, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 82-2 by amending Subsection 7.17, MHSD - Mobile Home Subdivision District, by adding Subsection b.2(c) to allow hurricane shelters as a permitted accessory use; by adding Subsection 7.17c.6), Req~irements and Standards for Hurricane Shelters; by amending Subsectlon 7.18, MHRP - Mobile Home Rental Park by adding Subsection b.2(d) to allow hurricane shelters as a permitted accessory use; and by adding Subsection 7.18c.9), Requirements and Standards for Hurricane Shelters. Planner Lord informed that this Is the first public hearing for the subject petition. He noted that the proposed amendment addresses the requirement of policy 13.1.4 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the G:'owth Management Plan providing for hurri- cane shelters to be built to the appropriate codes for each new mobile home community in excess of 25 lots in category one, two, and three vulnerability zones. He noted that this ordinance would help reduce The traffic impact on Collier County evacuation routes while providing for the public safety, health and welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm damage. He commented that there was no public comment for or against this ordinance amendment and no correspondence has been received. He pointed out that the CCPC unani- mously approved the subject ordinance. Mr. Lord clarified that if there is an existing, vested mobile home park with 25 or more lots they do not have to build the requested hurricane structure; however, if this same park wants to add one lot, then they would have to comply and build a structure to accommodate the entire mobile home park. Planning Services Manager Baginski con- curred with Mr. Lord's statement; and added that if a mobile home park is already approved for 300 lots but only 150 of these lots are used presently, a hurricane shelter would not be required until all 300 lots were used and an additional lot added. Page 8 March 5, 1991 Commissioner Volpe suggested that an incentive of some kind be provided to encourage existing mobile home parks to bring the club houses up to standards for a hurricane shelter or build one. Mr. Baginski stated that this can be attempted. In response to a discussion regarding making the proposed ordi- nance retroactive, Mr. Baginski stated that staff took the position that there was no direction or requirement to apply new conditions retroactive to existing parks. He explained that after discussions with the Emergency Services Division, it was decided that any new park with over 25 lots would have to comply with the proposed ordinance and any existing mobile home park with more than 25 approved lots would not have to comply until an additional lot is requested for the park. TaI~-~2 Commissioner Shanahan stated that he has a concern with a mobile home park being allowed to expand by 150 units because the lots were previously approved which exempts them from having to comply with pro- riding a hurricane shelter, He commented that an expansion of 125 units or more should require compliance with the proposed ordi- nance. John Brugger stated that with the impact fees and front footage assessments being charged to the older mobile home parks, these parks planned to convert the land previously used for their sewage plant to two or three more lots to be sold to help defray this additional cost, but this amendment will prevent them from accomplishing this goal. He suggested that the older mobile home parks be exempt completely from the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Shanahan suggested that some analysis be given to the issue raised by Mr. Brugger. County Attorney Cuyler noted that this Issue can be addressed. Commissioner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/0, to close the public hearing. It was noted that the second public hearing for Petition Z0-90-23 will be held on March 19, 1991. Page 9 March 5, 1991 6:45 P.M. - Reconvened: 6:55 P.M. at which -~:-,t~m.Dep~t'F Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Arrigh! ~ ORDIN~C~ ~NDINO O~DINANC~ 82-2o ~ PL~D DIS~I~ - NO AOTION Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 25, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 82-2, the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the unincor- porated area of Col]l,~r Ce~uxlty by altm~ll(lltlg }{,~(:llon 7.27 (I)UD) P.1;:,nnud Unit Development District, by adding Subsection "m", Sunset Provision Requirements. Planner Saadeh explained that the proposed amendment to Ordinance 82-2, is to provide for a Sunset Provision in all PUD fezones. He reported that on January 27 1991, the Commission directed Staff to prepare an amendment to Section 7.27 of the said ordinance. He indi- cated that no correspondence has been rece]ved relative to this amend- ment, noting that four citizens spoke against this petition at the Collier County Planning CommJsslon's (CCPC) public hearing. Mr. Saadeh stated that the CCPC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the subject petition. He reported that the Planning Commission directed staff to look into previously approved PUD's that are undeveloped to determine the number of same. He affirmed that staff has determined that there are 204 approved PUD's on record: 86 undeveloped and ]18 developed. Additionally, Mr. Saadeh indicated that the Planning Commission directed Staff to review the DRI language, as to whether it is proper and legal, and that the proposed ordinance be made retroactive to affect the existing PUD's. He related that the County Attorney's office has advised that this could probably be done, but would require further research which would need to be directed by the Board. In answer to Commissioner Goodnight, Community Development Services Administrator Brutt recalled that when this issue was pre- viously discussed, he mentioned that the dr'.~ft of the Ur~lfled Page 10 March 5, 1991 Development Code contained a page dealing with this matter and could be handled in two ways: deal with this when the Unified Land Development Code is being reviewed by that committee; or take a speedier course of action. He remarked that the Commission directed staff to take the quicker course of action and present same as soon as possible which is being done this evening. Commissioner Volpe stated that earlier discussions evolved around good faith effort toward implementation of an approved zoning for a particular piece of property, but it seems there are concerns relative to what the standards may be, if at the end of a sunset period a per- son has done nothing, and the question whether the property reverts back to A-2 or comes back to the Commission to reva]idate what was then the zoning. He questioned whether the ordinance addresses the manner by which the approv,~., PUD's will be reviewed at the end of the sunset provision. Planner Saadeh affirmed that the ordinance only addresses the new PUD's that would be going through the process, noting that the County Attorney's office, if directed, will research further the possibility of having the ordinance retroactive with regard to existing PUD's. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh replied that if the timeframe requirements are not met, as set forth in the Ordinance, the following may occur: down zone the property; amend the PUD or the master plan; or extend the PUD fezone for one year, if just cause is demonstrated. Planning Services Manager Beginski called attention to Paragraph 4 .dealing with the ramifications of not meeting the requirements. He noted that the first Paragraph, last sentence of the ordinance is drafted to say "may" which allows the Commission the flexibility to address these issues on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Shanahah stated that if a development is to go on, it needs certainty. He indicated that he does not believe that there needs to be conditions that say "may" or "may not" continue to grant those provisions. Page 11 March 5, 1991 Commissioner Volpe declared that he does not see the uncertainty, and noted that he is supportive of the "may" language in the ordi- nance. Mr. Robert Duane stated that there are more reasons why this ordi- nance should not be adopted, rather than adopting same. He noted that if the zoning is to be changed after a five year period, there needs to be a good reason to do so. He suggested the following: assure that the zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan: assure that the conditions that surround the property have not significantly changed from when the initial zoning was approved~ assure that there is ade- quate infrastructure in place to support the existing zoning; and include a standard so that if there have been any fundamental changes in development regulations that the subject zoning would no longer have to meet current vested management standards and practices. He explained that there are ad':'~.ntages in having standards in this type of ordinance since lenders or people who are purchasing property can look with some certainty as to what type of criteria may be applied. ~e remarked that if a piece of property is surrounded by developments that have been approved at the same zoning classification and is con- sistent with the Plan, the developer should not be required to spend the time and the expense to go back through the process again. Attorney John Brugger, representing several developer clients, affirmed that he understands the Commission's concern with regard to the existing PUD's and whether or not they will be built. He noted that the proposed ordinance does not deal with the past problem and the new PUD's will comply with concurrency and density standards. He pointed out that Paragraph 1 of the proposed ordinance indicates that 15~ of the infrastructure must be permitted and Paragraph 2 says that 15% of the final local development orders must be obtained. He stated that in order to obtain #2, a developer must construct #1. He cited examples of Quail Woods and South Winds Estates which are one acre lots, and each have a couple of homes within worth $300,000 - $400,000 but noted that 1§% have not been built and these subdivisions have Page 12 March 5, lggl existed for 10 years. He related that all the zoning may be changed even though 15% of the horizontal infrastructure is in and noted that no bank will provide financing for the first one or two units or until 15~ are in. Gommlssioner Volpe suggested that perhaps additional criteria should be added indicating that adequate financinG is in place to move forward with the project. Attorney BrugGer suggested that "or" be added at the end of Paragraph 1, but noted that lie Is not sure that this will satisfy the financial -institutions. Mr. Chris Vtck, Vice President, Sur~ Bank, stated that the uncer- tainty is definitely what should be avoided. He questioned who would want to buy the first 15% of the houses ]f the "and" is included in the provision. He related ~hat the lending institutions would not finance that project. He reported ]f a subdivision has lO0 lots, the banks would want to see that "x" amount of those are preso]d but would .not be looking at the second criteria which says that 15~ of the Structures m%lNt be th~?Fe. lie indicated that It is dl££1cult to ,~rrtve at a mechanism that will serve all purposes and recommended that the Commission do notbin9 in this respect. Mrs. Barbara Cawley remarked that this is one of the primary issues that the Unified Land Development Code Committee will be reviewing in arriving at their recommendations regardinG the overall Code. She declared that she believes it is premature to take any action at this time in this regard. She pointed out that she feels that it is unworkable to include DRI's in this ordinance, since Chapter 380 allows a project to Go through the process if it is five years passed the phasing schedule. She cited concerns with respect to people attempting to obtain single family loans, noting that an incre- dible amount of staff time will be spent in re-reviewin~ projects. She recommended that all these issues be reviewed by the Unified Land Development Code Committee. She disclosed that Section 3 should be removed from the ordinance with re~ard to DRI's. Page 13 March 5, 1991 Commissioner $hanahan stated that he feels that an ordinance could be developed that would provide sunsetting for PUD's but totally exclude DRI's from that consideration. Mrs. Cawley concurred. Mr. Alan Reynolds, of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., expressed that there is some need for a means of reevaluating "old" PUD's, but noted that the proposed ordinance is not the right ordi- nance. He indicated that he endorses the recommendation of sending this back to the Unified Land Development Committee. He pointed out that when looking at this ordinance and some of the projects within the County, i.e. Wyndemere, Quail Creek, Lely Resort, Pelican Bay and the Vineyards, if the proposed ordinance would have been in place when these projects were zoned, they would have been sunsetted. Mr. Reynolds remarked that if a public health, safety and welfare issue or negative impact is being caused by any of the PUD's, the County may initiate down ~-c,~[ng on any one of those. He indicated that an ordinance should not be adopted that creates problems which do not exist. He expressed that this type of ordinance, with unrealistic · time frames, mitigates against large, well planned projects and encourages developers to accelerate development ahead of the market conditions. Mr. George Botner, of Lely Development Corporation, suggested that the ordinance be reconstructed into a more workable form. He men- rioned that Lely Resort obtained its PUD in 1985, and if it were made subject to the sunset provision, over 260 units per' annum would have to be permitted to keep up with the pace of the proposed schedule. He suggested that a 5 year period for a large project, i.e. Lely Resort, is something that will not work partlcular]y at the front end of the development. He suggested that the Commission consider provisions relating to a schedule in lieu of the sunset provision. He explained that if that schedule cannot be met, this issue could be revisited. He revealed that a time frame will not work for all projects. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Saadeh advised that staff can revisit the ordinance to determine whether DRI's could be Page 14 March 5, 1991 excluded. He revealed that research has been conducted in neighboring counties with respect to sunset provisions and most of these have a 3 year limit, noting that the proposed ordinance allows for 5 years. Commissioner Volpe stated that he understands the concerns of the larger developments with DRI's but noted that he is uncertain that the ordinance as drafted, would result in those DRI's losing their zoning. Mr. Rich Henderlong of Collier Enterprises, recommended that DRI's be deleted from this ordinance since they are a distinct, separate entity and not one in the same as the simple conventional PUD. He disclosed that in certain instances, there are circumstances beyond someone's control, He noted that this ordinance attacks PUD's that are not developed. He related that if the Commission is worried about compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or policy within same, staff shou]d come back and advise of the PUD's that are problem areas and then notify the landowner that his PUD will be reevaluated. He divulged that he has no problem with approvals moving forward on PUD's but is concerned about making these retroactive. Mr. Henderlong stated that if C.O. records are reviewed for the past 10 or 15 years, a determination can be made as to the number of units coming on line and where they are platted and by virtue of the fact that they have zoning, does not necessitate that they will be there. He related that the Commission draws the line as to how far growth will move forward. Mr. Henderlong suggested that staff look at the PUD's and cate- gorize the various groups as to what has been going on. He requested that DRI's be deleted from the ordinance. Commissioner Hasse questioned the time constraints by which the proposed ordinance needs to be heard again. County Attorney Cuyler replied that if this particular ordinance is to be heard according to schedule, the second public hearing would take place in two weeks but that two week date may be continued without readvertising. He explained that if the Commission determines to develop something dif- ferent than what has been proposed, it would require readvertising. Page 15 March 5, 1991 Commissioner Volpe indicated that if the second public hearing is not going to be held in two weeks, then the Planning Commission should hold a workshop and a public hearing before the ordinance comes back to the Commission. Attorney George Varnadoe explained that if the Commission does not intend on moving forward with the specific schedule, he will hold his comments but offer alternative ways to approach this. He noted that he believes that zoning needs to be looked at periodically to deter- mine whether it meets compatibility, consistency with the Growth Management Plan, modern techniques of water management, etc., and should every PUD that is approved include a stamp which indicates that there is a five year time limit, this could result in some bad deci- sions being made. He explained that there should be a policy in the Land Development Regulatio~ which states that zoning that has been on the books for five years, will be reviewed and there will be objective criteria that staff will look at, i.e., whether the project is under- way; compatibility with surrounding growth: consistency with land use element; and adequate public facilities for the future to accommodate Growth. He remarked that staff could bring these back on an indivi- dual basis, and suggested that there be objective criteria at the front end, rather than at the back end. He expressed that the ordi- nance, as drafted, will not work. Attorney Varnadoe stated that DRI's include a substantial deviation process and if they do not commence within a certain time period, they are required to go back through the process. He noted that the focus should be on those projects without controls. Mr. Michael Saadeh pointed out that the proposed ordinance will not work when looking at a project like the Vineyards with 7,000 units and requiring 15% or 1,050 units within the first five years and it takes three years for the infrastructure to be in place in order to market this type of project. In addition, the proposal for the ordi- nance to be retroactive would be offensive for existing PUD's and Page 16 March 5, 1991 DRI's. Commissioner Shanahan remarked that the ordinance is for all new PUD's and is not intended to be retroactive. Mr. Ross Mcintosh stated that in order to have a property zoned today, there must be the support of the community. He indicated that to suggest that this may expire in five years, is very threatening to the community that was behind the developer who applied for the zoning. He cited that he endorses the suggestions relative to cri- teria submitted by Mr. Duane, but ~]oted that the criteria needs to be clear enough so that a prudent individual can make the judgement that he will not loose his zoning. He indicated that the reason the sunset provision is being discussed is due to existing PUD's which are not addressed by the ordinance mnd planning. He questioned why an ordi- nance is being passed that addresses new PUD's. Mr. Mark Morton, Chairman, Unified Land Development Code Committee, advised that he believes that there is a good group of folks present that are focused on this issue and feels that the Commission should continue hearing same. There were no other speakers. C~11~o~er Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carr~ 4/0, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Volpe expressed that he feels that this issue is an important one and the issue of retroactivity is equally important. He noted that there are PUD's that were approved in the early 1980's that do not meet existing criteria. With regard to the 15% for vertical and horizontal construction, he related that the language should be "or" rather than "and". He concurred with the speakers with regard to the DRI's and if there is not sufficient reason for keeping same in the ordinance, they should be exempt. In addition, he noted that he believes that if someone is proceeding in good faith and presents his case as to why he has not done anything previously and is granted an extension, possibly a 5 year extension should be granted. He suggested that this item go back to the CCPC so that the majority of Page 17 March 5, 1991 the big issues could be resolved and then come back to the Commission. Commissioner Goodnight indicated that she does not feel that DRI's should be included in this ordinance. She mentioned that the DRI pro- cess is very firm. She stated that she understood that only DRI's would be exempt from zoning reeva]uat]~)n and this mea~l~ th;it t'~,~ would be required to comply with the Growth Management Plan unless they have qualified for exemptions. She explained that placing a time limit on the PUD's is exactly the way to go. She suggested that staff do additional research on this matter and brought back to the '~' Commission. She advised that conventional zoning within the County is more problematic than the PUD's. Commissioner Hasse related that he concurs with Commissioner Goodni~ht. He recalled the,, several weeks ago, he was in favor of a time limit, similar to what is beinG proposed, but noted that studying the issue, he no longer sees the feas]bility of same since :. there is a problem with regard to economics and people are not able to move forward as rapidly as they have in the past. He revealed that he does not want to see the County rushing into anything and put resttic- . tions on these properties which may result in poor development. Commissioner Shanahah stated that based on what has been said this evening everything should be thrown out until such time that the "..i:.~ Unified Land Development Code Committee comes back after reviewing the '~ '~ document relating to the sunsetting ordinance. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she would like to know what is ' ~ wrong with the existing PUD's that should require a change in the · future. She suggested that staff prepare a white paper and submit .~:~:~ . same to the Commission before the summer recess to be discussed as an ~.'~' informational item. that w~re approved years ago and they have not broken ground and they affect the future infrastructure planning of Collier County. Commissioner Volpe stated that he is not in favor of staff pre- paring a white paper, as suggested by Commissioner Goodnight. He Page 18 March 5, 1991 noted that he feels that the community, Board of County Commissioners and the representatives from the banking and development community can come up with something that is workable. Commissioner Goodnight questioned why an ordinance should be drafted placing a time limit on new PUD's if there are no problems with the old PUD's. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether there is a purpose in having the sunset provision. Mr. Brutt advised that in Good planning practices it is necessary to have a sunset provision. He noted that the projects that are on paper today require infrastructure for future Growth. He stated that when lookinG into the futurE. land use plans and the present Comprehensive Plan need to be looked at in addition to balancing out the future infrastructure demands and the future infrastructure planning with the known number of dwellinG units which can be allowed. He indicated that it may be well to take the historical perspective to look back to see the actual demands. He reported that the MPO is doing a build out which is extremely good to have so that the fact can be recognized as whether the demands can be met. Commissioner Shanaham asked whether Mr. Brutt is suggesting that this is not needed for the future since the County ]s protected by the Growth Management Plan, but that the past should be reviewed. Mr. Brutt replied in the affirmative. Page 19 Narch 5, 1991 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 9:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL -PATRICIA ANNE G~HAIRMAN / '//,"..' ,' r;;,9~- ' /.,~'.min~: approved by the Board on ~~'/3~///~/ --.., ~ ,~ ~ ~'~ · / as p~ese~ted '~ or as corrected Page 20