Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/09/1986 W - - .. I Naples, Florida, April 9, 1986 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 2:00 P.M. in WORXSHOP SBSSION in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the fOllowing members present: CHAIRMAN: John~. Pis tor VICE-CHAIRMAN: Anne Goodnight Frederick J. Voss Max A. Hasse ABSENT: C. C. "Red" Holland ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk; Donald B. Lusk, County Manager; Pam Brangaccio, Deputy Assistant County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Vickie Mullins, Community Development Administrator; Dave pettrow, Zoning/Planning Director; and Ann MCKim, Planner. ALSO PRESENT WERE MEMBERS OF THE CCPC: Edward Oates, Karl Corley, Arnold Glass, R. H. Zimmerman, Jackie Williams, William G. Tracy, and Joseph Kristi. AGENDA CCPC and BCC members to establish a policy for the continuance of Petitions. GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING A POLICY FOR CONTINUANCE OF PETITIONS Commissioner Pistor stated that he appreciates the CCPC being able to attend this meeting in order to help resolve some of the t. ! am 093 PA~t 26S Page 1 aOOK 093 PAr,t 269 APRIL " 1986 problems that need to be discussed regarding the continuation of peti- tions. Planner McKim stated that what brought this up is ~he fact that Staff gets requests by petitioners to continue various petitions for various reasons, adding that there are times that Staff request con- tinuances for different reasons. She stated that this has presented a difficult situation for the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners because the public cannot be assured that the petitions that are requested for continuance will be continued. She stated that the public gets upset by these situations, adding that the public is never sure when the petition is going to be heard, which is what brought this problem to a forefront. She stated that it is time a policy is established so that everyone is aware of how to proceed when either the petitioner or staff wishes a continuance. She stated that Staff is suggesting that under certain circumstances a petition would be continued, for example, if the petition and supporting infor- mation are not complete. Mr. Oates questioned why the petition would be advertised if the supporting informa~ion is not complete, to which Planner McKim stated . that with PUD's, the petitioner is required to revise the PUD after a Planning Commission meeting. She stated that other circumstances are if the CCPC made a recommendation that an item murt be resolved at the staff level prior to the Board hearing and that item is not resolved in time to meet the agenda deadline; if new information is made available Page 2 - - - I I I - - - I APRIL ~, 1986 which could affect the recommendation which the Staff and petitioner agree needs to be considered prior to the Board hearing; if a revised final PUD document has not been received by the time requested to meet the agenda deadline; or for other reasons relating to the completeness of the petition, supporting il.formation, or recommendations. Mr. Glass stated that it would be a practical solution to not schedule the Board hearing until the CCPC hearing was over and all information was complete. Planner McKim stated that it used to be done that way at one time, but by scheduling these petitiona in advance it is a benefit to the petitioner who usually wants to get the petition through as quickly as possible. Commissioner Pis tor stated that when the Board waited until the CCPC had completed their considerations and then advertise it, it used to take as much as 6 months to get a petition through and there were a lot of complaints regarding the time limit. He stated that it was decided that 30 to 45 days could be cut off the process by advertising the CCPC meeting and the Board meeting concurrently. Planner McKim stated that provisional uses do not require adver- tisement before the Board, only advertisement before the CCPC, noting that they do not create a problem. She stated that all information is complete before this is put on the agenda. She noted that these do not create a problem and usually the only time that these are requested to be continued is when the petitioner requests it. She Page 3 !DOK 09a PAGt 270 aOOK 093 PAr.r 271 APRIL IF, 1986 stated that variances are not advertised until all the supporting information has been received, and there is not usually continuances on these. She noted that the only ones that create a problem proce- dure wise are the rezones and most of them are the PUD's. She reported that the rezones that go to one of the straight zoning districts like C-4 or C-3 are usually no problem, but the PUD's cause some problems because there is a lot to handle in reviewing one. She stated that if it was narrowed down to where the problems lie, it would be in the PUD's, adding that probably 90\ of the problems have been PUD's. She stated that after the Planning Commission meeting, the recommendations have to be incorporated into that PUD document and Staff has a hard time in the interpretation of the Planning Commission's recommendations as sometimes the petitioner and staff do not exactly agree on what the Planning Commission meant, which takes some time for Staff and the petitioner to work out. She stated that at times the Planning Commission directs that certain things be worked out before it goes to the Board, and that is not known at the time of advertisement. She stated that at times there are no problems until . the Planning Commis~ion meeting and then adjacent property owners object to it and then the petitioner wishes to work with the property owners to try and get some things resolved. She stated that to resolve these type of problems, the petition could not be advertised for the Board until after the Planning Commission, adding that on the other hand, to be fair to the developers and their timetable, it has ,\ Page 4 - .. .. I '''.'''..."'"'".o<".,,_;_,,__.___._,'-_-.....,''''',,.'"''''''>.."~..,,''"...''''..",....."""'"".,,,""~..,"'.,,,"'.'..,,",",,.,~,.,,'''_.,,,.~ ·- - - I APRIL " 1986 been advertised and scheduled for a Board meeting prior to having everything resolved. She stated that it has been handled on a case-by- case basis for ·some of these petitions because each petition seems to be somewhat different. Commissioner Voss stated that the biggest problem is when the people show up for the Commission meetings and the Developer comes in ~t the last minute and asks for a postponement. He stated that it seems that once the agenda is published in the paper for the following . Tuesday, then that petition should be considered that day and it should not be postponed. Planner McKim stated that a way to avoid such a situation would be that if a petitioner wishes to request a continuation of a petition will not be on the agenda and the develop~r can ask that of the Commission on the scheduled day and the Commission can then decide at the public hearing whether or not to continue it. In answer to Mr. Oates, Planner McKim stated that it is adver- tised 30 days prior to the Board meeting, but in order to meet the newspaper deadline and have all paperwork ready, it would take five to six weeks from the date of the CCPC meeting to be heard by the Board if it was not advertised until after the CCPC heard it. Mr. Kristi referred to the Executive Summary indicating that he feels that Option "B" should be used along with Option "E", adding that this should resolve most of the problems. He noted that Option "B" refers to advertising after the CCPC meeting and Option "E" refers to aDDK 093 mE 272 Page 5 ø ....._--_.."",-""""',......"..»."'""... '" ' .1. t ~ aOOlC 093 fAGl273 'i.... . APRIL f, 1986 having petitions withdrawn after the petition has been allowed one or two continuances. Commiseioner Pistor ques~ioned if any of the continuances have had any legitimate reasons for being continued, to which Planner McKim replied that there are times when she is not aware of why the peti- tioner is requesting a continuance. Commissioner Voss stated that once it is advertised in the paper to be heard before the Board, it should be heard. Mr. Corley stated that instead of advertising the public hearing to be heard by the Board a week or so after the CCPC meeting, it could automatically be advertised to be heard by the Board three weeks after the CCPC meeting which would give everyone time to complete the necessary paperwork and resolve the problems. Planner McKim stated that if a petitioner asks for a continuance, they could be told that it would have to be readvertised which would take another 6 or 7 weeks to be heard. Commissioner Pistor stated that the main problem seems to be PUD's, but other petitions Can cause problems too and, therefore, it . should be figured o~t to cover all situations. Mr. George Keller stated that he would suggest that no con- tinuances be given for a period of more than two weeks and that only one continuance shall be allowed. He stated that the big problem the public has is when a petitioner asks for a continuance of a month and that time period goes into the summer when the public is not around, ~ Page 6 - - - -_""''''11'"' ...",<..~,,,~..,,,,,",.,, .",",'''_'''w____ _" I - - .. I APRIL t, 1986 then lhere is no opposition and the petition is approved. Mrs. Charlotte Westman stated that the League of Women Voters has a number of problems with the whole business of continuances. She stated that it ~ppears that when a particular petition is heard by the Board it is quite different tnan what the CCPC heard because of all the changes. She stated that she feels that all the paperwork and problems should be finalized with the CCPC before it is brought to the Board. She stated that if there is enough thought in the beginning, at the time of filing the petition, there should not b~ that many problems. Mr. Glass stated that if the CCPC directs revisions on certain petitions, those petitions should come back to the CCPC as "old busi- ness" before they come to the Board for a final review. Planner McKim stated that the petitioner has the option not to make any of the recommended changes and the Board is the only one with the final say, but it could still go back to the CCPC and that could change their recommendation. Mr. Bill Barton stated that delays cost money and create problems for everyone involved if they are unnecessary delays and he is glad to see that there is concern regarding this. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Voss with regards to the fact that once the petition goes on the agenda, it should be heard unless there is an uncontrollable problem, like a death i~ the family. He stated that he feels that it could be an option of the petitioner if he gets to the aOOK 093 PAGt 274 Page 7 d . ~. ~l, ~ <""··",·"""~,""·,·"··",,,,,,,-,______._,.._.__,,,,,,",,,,,,,,~_,,,,,,.'·"'li'''''''''''''''"'";,¡.""_,,............_.,..< aDO ( 093 PAr,t 275 APRIL fl, 1986 CCPC ~eting and finds that there is a lot of opposition, he should be able to ask for a continuance at that time. He stated that almost without exception when he aSK! for a continuance, he advises the Staff well in advance of publishing the agenda. He noted that the agenda that is published indicates that the petitioner is requesting a con- tinuance which is no assurance to the public because that still could be heard, and therefore, the public shows up for fear that it is going to be heard that day, which is where the problem lies. He stated that if the petitioner finds out at the CCPC meeting that there is a lot of opposition, then he could ask for a continuance at that point and it could be put into the petition indicating that it would automa- tically be continued for a certain period of time and there would not be opposition at the Board meeting because it would indicate on the agenda that the petition is continued. He stated that he feels that the petitioner should be able to do that one time. Commissioner Pistor stated that he has a problem with this situation as certain people are notified by letter that the hearing is coming up and the date of it. He stated that if someone tells the public that this was advertised for a certain date and they do not read the paper the'Sunday before the meeting to see if it is going to be heard, they still end up showing up at the meeting. Mr. Barton stated that the majority of the people know where it is on the agenda, the exact location of the project, and a great deal about it. He stated that he feels that this method would solve 90% to Page .8 :~ - - .. . --~",,,-",,,,,-,,_..,......,-;,....~.._, "'-;"';~"'''~'''-~;'~''--'''''' "-"""'""'"'-"-""''''''~''''''''''''' . ~ ·- .. .. I APRIL " 1986 95\ of the problems. In answer to Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Barton stated that either at the CCPC meeting or the next day, but prior to the time that the agenda is printed, the Petitioner would sit ôown with Staff and ask for a con- tinuance if there has been a lot of controversy at the CCPC meeting. Commissioner Voss stated that he agrees with Mr. Barton, adding that once a petition is advertised it should be heard. He stated that if it is going to be postponed, then the agenda in the newspaper should so indicate. County Attorney Cuyler stated that if the Board approves such a policy indicating that Staff would have the authority to postpone or delay a petition by indicating it on the agenda that is published in the newspaper, then Staff could do same. Commissioner Voss stated that there should only be one con- tinuance with a time limit, and Mr. Barton indicated that the time limit for a continued petition could be no less than 2 weeks and no more than 4 weeks. Mr. Barton stated that Staff or the Petitioner should have the prerogative for no reason at all to be able to request that one con- tinuance. He stated that some people do not indicate that there is any opposition until the day of the Board meeting, adding that he calls surrounding property owners and asks them if they have a problem. In referring to the Executive Summary, Commissioner Pistor stated that the word automatically with reference to a continuation, should be aOOK 093 PArot 276 -\ Page 9 . . "."-,.."-,."~~-,,...-...-.-,,.....---...........- ... 0''''''''"_.'.,,,,,,,,,"_,_,,, _ aD OK 093 PArot 2Tl 1 ~ APRIL fJ, 1986 deleted and Petitioner or Staff should be the ones to request a con- tinuation. Planner McKim stated that there would have to be mentioned in a policy something to the effect to allow the petitioner time to work with the opposition. Mr. Oates stated that under Item "a" of the Executive Summary, the words or resolved should be inserted at the end. Commissioner Voss stated that he would like to suggest that the CCPC indicate to the petitioner that if a project is not underway within a certain period of time, then they have to come back for reconsideration. Deputy Assistant County Manager Brangaccio stated that they are working on this matter and they would like to have another workshop to discuss this. Commissioner Pis tor stated that this is something that could be brought to the CCPC for their input and then brought to the Board, adding that he would like to have this done as soon as possible. County Attorney Cuyler stated that he will draw up a resolution that will establish ~ policy concerning continuance of petitions and present it to the CCPC and then to the Board. In answer to Deputy Assistant County Manager Brangaccio, Commissioner Pistor stated that if the Staff or the petitioner decides they want a continuation after they have been to the CCPC meeting, the agenda will say that this item is to be continued to date positive. ~\ Page 10 - - .. / APRIL " 1986 Assistant County Attorney Cuyler stated that the Board would not want to give up their dis~retion, adding that the continuance would be for t\/O to four weeks and only one continuance. Commissioner Pistor indicated that it would be published on the agenda and at the time of the mgeting, there would be a formal vote on the continuance for legality purposes. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: .3: l5 P.M. aOOK 093' PAr,t 27S Page 11