Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/19/1992 S Naples, Florida, August 19, 1992 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners tn 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 ~-. ihmva 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: Michael J. Volpe · i. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Patricia A. Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Debby Farris and Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Leo' 0ohs, Administrative Services Administrator; Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cu¥1er, County Attorney; Martha i~ Howell, Tom Palmer and MarJorie Student, Assistant County Attorneys; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Ken Baginsk!, Planning Services Manager; John Wilver, Customer Services Supervisor; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator: Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Bob Blanchard, 'Growth Planning Director; Bryan Milk, Ron Nino and Wayne Arnold, Planners; Barbara Prynoski, Environmentalist; and Deputy Dennis Huff, Sheriff's Office. Page I August 19, 1992 #1 £t~' ~& ~('(~ 'lt~CO~B~TUkTION TO APPROV~ AH~RD~ENTS TO ~ CO~I~R CO~ ~ ~ ~~ COD~ CO~Z~D ~OM ~K AUGUST 5, 2992 ~KTZNG - SKCO~ ~ ~LIC ~G TO BE ~LD 9/2/92 AT 5:05 P.M. Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on 3uly 14, 1992, as evidenced by Aff.idavtt of Publication filed w/th the Clerk, public hearing was continued from the August 5, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Volpe announced that Articles discussed during the two previous meetings regarding Amendments to the Collier County Land Development Code will not be revisited at this time but will instead be again debated at the second public hearing, the date for which will be established at the conclusion of tonight's meeting. 3chh Wtlver, Customer Services Supervisor, pointed out the pro- posed changes reflected on the salmon side sheets designated as pages 2-139; 2-141; 2-142; 2-143; 2-144; 2-145; 2-146; 2-147; 2-148, Section 2.5.8.6; 2-151 and 2-153 without eliciting comment from the public. Pursuant to distribution of white s/de sheet 2-148, Sect/on 2.5.8.7.2, following Mr. Wilver's explanation of same, Commissioner Volpe's expressed concerns, and Commissioner Saunders' suggestion to flag the Section for the second public hearing, the following persons spoke to the Issue of Section 2.5.8.7.2: Attorney George Varnadoe Hike Davis Gary Beardsley Bill Branan ' At this time discussion centered on Section 2.6.23, the Section relevant to potbellied pigs, and the following persons spoke to this issue: ', Mike Carr (provided a bound comptlat/on of material regarding potbellied pigs as house pets and Introduced "Butch", the potbellied pig) Dins Sortano (introduced "Barney" the potbellied pig) (presented a Petition allegedly containing 88 signatures, however not provided the Clerk for the record) Nick Souza (phonetic) Shetla Godwin Pam Hawley Ashley Godwin Todd C. Godwin Nancy Kelly Nancy Ann Payton (D/strtbuted material regarding potbellied p/gs) Chris Straton Garry Beyrent During the discussion, Commissioner Saunders suggested that staff, between now and the time of the next public hearing, contact August 19, 1992 'local governmental authorities which have legalized potbellied pigs to ' determine if they have encountered problems since doing so. Pursuant to Planner Milk's explanations, which Included the intent of salmon side sheet 2-189, Section 2.6.3§.5.1, and white side sheet 2-189, Section 2.6.35.6.2, Commissioner Volpe concluded that staff has attempted to merge the Communication Tower Ordinance into the Land Development Code, that whatever requirements necessary to do so have been met, and that the Communication Tower Ordinance has been viewed as the controlling document. The following persons spoke to the Sections relevant to com- i. lmunicat~on towers: Attorney Anthony Pires, Jr. (Referred to aerial maps) Rip Perry Attorney Bruce Anderson · '' Garry Beyrent ~Co~m~se~one~ Huse left the ~eet~ng at approxi~ately ?:00 P.M. $e$ R~ceee: 7:35 P.M. - Reconvened: 7:50 P.M. Regarding Section 2.6.30, Mike Cart distributed a handout pro- posing additional language, and Mr. Baginski confirmed that staff has no objections to the proposal. It was the consensus that staff review the proposal and report ~.~.-back at the second public hearing. Mr. Carr announced he has previously met with various members of staff regarding the suggested language change. !-. ' Mr. Baginski responded that staff prefers the term "residential 'i.~' development" as opposed to "project", and Mr. Cart confirmed that ter- :;mtnologyposes no problem. ~::~ In response to Dwight Nadeau, Mr. Baginskt explained that salmon Side sheet 2-161, Section 2.6.7.1.1, was proposed for change at the behest of Code Enforcement staff. Mr. Nadeau said that by striking the language of Section 2.6.7.1.~ it will preclude a number of recreational vehicles. A brief discussion ensued regarding Section 2.6.7.1.1, at which August 19, 1992 ~ii~,time Mr. Brutt suggested the Section can be further addressed at the ?!~ext public hearing. Ms. Sam Holland advised It was her understanding there would be ~/'.language presented relative to Section 2.7.4.5, the conditional use :language. ,es ~e]mt'~ Clerk Hoff~am replaced Deputy Clerk Farria at this Ms. Holland explained that the current language in the Code is confusing to everyone involved. She indicated that the language she As proposing would allow the Development Services Director to notify ~::=:.the applicant that the use had been discontinued and the applicant :'would have thirty days to respond and ~hen the petition would be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for a hearing. Mr. Baginski concurred that the existing language needs to be modified and the proposed language premen~ed by Ms. Ho~land is accep- ~.~table. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she is in support of the .~;~anguage If it is intended for future problems, however, noting she Is not supportive if it is to be retroactive. Commissioner Shanahan remarked that he supports the proposed language, but ts opposed to retroactivity. Commissioner Saunders Indicated that the proposed language would not apply to any conditional use that no longer exists. Ms. Mtchelle Tanner of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. called attention to Section 2.6.2? relative to cjuster development. M~. Bagtnskt reported that he has communicated with Ms. Tanner who ?' proposes minor changes in the language. He indicated that the pro- posed changes accomplish the same thing as intended by staff, noting that he has no objections to the language as proposed. ~/? Mr. ~agtnskl presented staff side sheets, reflecting Section 2.6.2?.4.4 addressing the overhangs for developments approved for Cjuster. Mr. Bagtnskt referred to the yellow sheets, Page 2-179, noting ~001~ I'~JOPA';~: 05 Page 4 August 19, 1992 ':~that the language in brackets "except for clerestory windows" will be deleted- Nr. Bagineki indicated that Section 2.6.2.7.4.6 on Page 2-179 wil! be modified by changing the title to "Additional Reductions to Development Standards." In addition, he revealed that the beginning of the following paragraph will read "Additional reductions to the development standards." He noted that Paragraph 2 will read: "The residential pro~ect shall have a signature entrance way serving a unified plan of development." He stated that Paragraph 4 will read: "Street materials, signage and lighting shall maintain a uniform theme throughout the project's access ways" and the term "complimentary" is to be deleted. Further, he related that the last paragraph, beginning with "At the time of application pursuant to..." shall be deleted. A discussion ensued relating to the fact that the last changes as presented had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. County Attorney Cuyler advised that the Commission has the discretion to decide whether issues should be heard if they have not been heard by the P~anning Commission. He indicated that the Commission will need to determine whether entire sections of the Code should be re-written or substantially re-written and not have them go back to the CCPC. Commissioner Volpe suggested that at the very least, the County Attorney's Office needs to review the yellow sheets and make a deter- mination relative to those issues of a subs~antial nature. Mr. Martin Pinckney spoke to LDC Page 6-62, relating to the defi- nition of "Front Yard." Mr. Baginski presented suggested lan~age changes to the defini- tion. He pointed out that the term "including cul-de-sacs" has been added to identify them as irregularly shaped lots. Additionally, he noted that language is added stating the "length of a standard parking space aa established within Section 2.3.4 Off Street Vehicular Facilities: Design Standards." Mr. Pinckney suggested that the language be changed to reflect that the required front yard shall not be less than the length of the Page 5 August 19, 1992 standard parking place at any spot where there is a driveway or a per- mitred vehicle parking area. He indicated that staff's new definition :? would reduce the usable area on a cul-de-sac lot. Hr. Bagtnski advised that he will review the language as proposed · ~ by Hr. Pinckney and report back to the Board at the second hearing. Assistant County Attorney Howell called attention to the salmon ~i., .sheets Page 4-6, amendments to Article 4, which incorporates by reference educational facilities system impact fees and emergency medical services impact fees. Assistant County Attorney Student referred to Article 5, Location ~... of Meetings, noting that she prepared the amended language. She advised that there has been quite a bit of controversy with regard to leerings in Immokalee. She explained that the new language will clarify the process. Ms. Howell reported that Page 5-6 clarifies the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Student addressed Page §-5, white sheet, Section 5.2.11. She ~ndlcated that the CCPC has been having problems with respect to boat dock resolutions and preliminary subdivision plats. She reported that pursuant to the Code, the CCPC takes final action, however, there has been confusion in instances when there is an aggrieved person as to ~whether he should appeal the circuit court or appear before the Board of County Commissioners in a public petition. She affirmed that the "; proposed language will clarify this situation. ~-~ · Ms Howell called attention to Page 6-1, Section 6 1 1 which is a · .~i. clarification to the rules of construction for the Code when another ordinance ~e incorporated by reference. She noted that the new language clarifies which rules of construction are applicable. Ms. Student reported that Article 6, reflects changes to the defi- .nitiona. She noted that this includes definitions of a care unit, family care facility and group care facility. Mr. Baginsk! indicated that there have been suggestions that a new ' definition be added for "primary kitchens" in con~unction with addi- Page 6 August 19, 1992 ~':i'~tional language proposed by Code Enforcement dealing with .single family dwelling units when rooms or other sections of the house are rented out or used for multiple families. Ms. Howell stated that white sheet Page 1-24, Section 1.10.3 includes a sentence which clarifies when impact fees have to be paid. Ns. Howell reported that Table 2.4, LDC Page 2-136, includes a correction to the Landscape Buffering Table which was Inadvertently left out. Ms. Howell indicated that Section 2.6.9 refers to essential sar- .vices, noting that there will be further revisions at the second storage facilities; community, religious or sporting events; or outright temporary sales, i.e. automobiles, spas, or vegetables. hearing. Mr. Bagtnski advised that Page 2-186, Section 2.6.33.1 deals with temporary uses. He explained that the three types of temporary uses are: those associated with construction, i.e. temporary sales or He noted that language is added tn the Intent and Purpose, "and to pro- vide for other types of temporary uses such as community events, sales and promotions." In addition, he remarked that language ts added to Paragraph 3, "Temporary permits tn this category shall be restricted to those zoning districts tn which the use would normally be per- mitred, unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners via a Public Petition Request." Mr. Baginskt divulged that extensive language has been added with regard to temporary sales, tn hopes of eliminating many of the current problems that staff has been encountering on a daily basis. Ms. Lee Layne questioned whether the definition of "Primary Kitchen" should Include a refrigerator. Mr. Baginskt replied that he is uncertain whether it ts necessary to include "refrigerator" within the definition of "Primary Kitchen" There were no other speakers. Co~iesione~ Saunderm ~ovad, seconded by ConIssionar Shanahan and C~XT~ 4/0, to close the public hea~ing. Page ? August 19, 1992 · Commissioner Volpe announced that the second public hearing will · ..':be conducted on September 2, 1992, at 6:05 P.M. He advised that ~'' Commissioner Goodntght will not be present on September 2nd, and rE, suggested that this be a short meeting with Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 being heard, and then continue this hearing to another date when a full Board will be present. There being no further business for the Good of the · eet~ng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 9~"'P~M~". ' BOARD OF COUNTY C0~SI0~RS . , ,. ~.~, , . BOARD OF ZONING'~PE~S/EX ~. ~"' SPECIAL DISTRICTS UN~"Z~ :'.'/'~ '" ATTEST: 3~S C. GZLES~ CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented // or as corrected Page 8