BCC Minutes 08/05/1992 S Naples, Florida, August 5, 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 specia! 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: Michael J. Volpe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Max A. Hesse, Jr.
Particle A. Goodnight
ALSO PRESENT: Debby Farrts and Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerks;
Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; James Fttzek, Management Intern; Ken
Cuyler, County Attorney; Martha Howell, Richard Yovanovich, Thomas
Palmer and MarJorte Student, Assistant County Attorneys; Dave Pettrow,
Development Services Director; John Mada]ewski, Project Review
Services Manager; Ken Baginskt, Planning Services Manager; Bob
Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Dick Clark, Code Enforcement
Supervisor; Bryan Milk, Wayne Arnold, Ron Nino, and'Joe De/ate,
Planners; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Barbara
Prynoeki, Marco Esptnar, and Mike Kirby, Environmental Specialists;
John Wilver, Customer Service Supervisor; Sue Filson, Administrative
Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Shertffts Office.
Page
August 5, 1992
P. gCO~]I~]kTTON TO ~OV~ AMEnDMeNTS TO ~E COLLIER COUNT~
DB~OimM~ CODE CO]ITIR~T~D FRO~ ~ JULY 22, 1992 H~TTNG -
TO &UG1;~T 19, 1992 AT 5:05 P.M.
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 continued from the July 22, 1992 meeting.
Commissioner Volpe announced this is a continuation of the first
public hearing which is being held in regard to the Amendments of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
Project Review Services Manager MadaJewski questioned whether
things dealt with in Article III and for which staff was directed to
revisit will be discussed tonight and Commissioner Volpe stated it is
not his intent to readdress those matters previously discussed at this
time.
Bill Burns Inquired whether Section 3.9 of Article 3, Removal of
Vegetation, will be discussed tonight, and Commissioner Volpe con-
firmed it was previously addressed but suggested he confer with staff
regarding the results of that discussion.
Assistant County Attorney Howell explained that the Salmon
colored side sheets are the original sheets proposed and presented to
the Collier County Planning Commission; that the grey side sheets
represent language changes recommended by the Collier County Planning
Commission; while the yellow side sheets supersede both the gray and
salmon side sheets and represent things which have come up since the
time of the Collier County Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Services Manager Baginski advised that gray side sheet
2-14, 2.2.4.3, Conditional Uses, represents new language for con-
ditional use in all the RSF-6 districts and is basically a mechanism
for providing recreational facilities after the development has been
constructed.
There were no speakers regarding this item.
Planning Services Manager Baginski revealed yellow side sheet
Page 2
August §, 1992
2-14, 2.2.4.3, Item #5, specifically changes the term cjuster
"housing" to cjuster "development" and includes single family struc-
tures within the cjuster definition and position approval, the Intent
being to provide more flexibility for diverse product lines within the
existing residential districts rather than forcing everyone to pursue
Planned Unit Developments.
There were no speakers regarding this Item.
Planning Services Manager BagInskt advised there are a series of
salmon colored, gray colored and yellow colored side sheets that all
pertain to the RMF-6 district. He explained the salmon and gray side
sheets are not necessary as they have been superseded by the yellow
sheets, and requested that staff be allowed to present the final
lanquage at the last public hearing as there are remaining issues
which need to be "fine tuned" such as additional development criteria,
adjustment of distance between structures, providing minimum standards
for duplexes and two-family dwellings, etc.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planning Services Manager
Bagtnskl explained the differences between two-family dwelling, duplex
and a mu/ti-family dwelling.
Referring to page 31, yellow side sheet, Alan Reynolds of Wilson,
Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., suggested: a reference to Section 2.6.36
should be Included where townhouses are Identified as a permitted use;
on page 32, Section 2.2.5.4.1 addressing minimum lot area, the
underlined language ts appropriate with the word "parcel" substituted
for the word "structure" and "7,260 square feet for each dwelling
~tlltt" deleted; in Section 2.2.5.4.2., Minimum Lot Width should be
clarified to be applicable to multi-family parcels; on page 33,
Section 2.2.5.4.5, Maximum Density .... not to exceed six (6) dwelling
units per acre, should be clarified as that is "gross" acre; Section
2.2.5.4.?, Subparagraph 2, should be moved up to paragraph 1.
Planning Services Manager Bagtnskt explained that the proposed
change reflected on salmon side sheet 2-19, Section 2.2.6.4.6, is
unnecessary if the changes proposed by staff for cjustered conditions
Page 3
4
August 5, 1992
are adopted, and the same ts true for salmon side sheet 2-21,
2.2.?.4.6.
Planning Services Manager Baginsk! referred to the changes
reflected on yellow side sheet 2-18 and pointed out that, due to a
typographical error, it should read "RMF-12" instead of RMF-6.
There were no registered speakers regarding these provisions.
Planning Services Manager Baginski detailed proposed changes
reflected on ye/low side sheet 2-21, Section 2.2.8.2; gray side sheet
2-24, Section 2.2.9.3, Conditional Uses, which supersedes the salmon
side sheet 2-24; salmon sheet 2-26, 2.2.10.2.1; gray side sheet 2-26,
2.2.10.3 which supersedes the salmon side sheet 2-26; salmon side
sheet 2-26, 2.2.10.4.3.4, Yard Exceptions; salmon side sheet 2-26,
2.2.10.4.4.2, Maximum Height; salmon side sheet 2-28, Section 2.2.11,
TTRVC District; gray sade sheet 2-29, 2.2.1~.2.2; salmon side sheet
2-32, 33 - Section 2.2.11.4.~5; gray side sheet 2-33, Section
2.2.1X.4.16; and salmon side sheet 2-33, Section 2.2.12.
Bill Hoover of Butler Engineering, Inc. requested changes
affecting the 1,000 square foot minimum building size requirement in
all six of the commercial zoning districts, alleging he provided the
Board of County Commissioners and staff with copies of same on July
14th, but no copy was provided for the record. He indicated he is
agreeable to 600 square feet as a minimum building size requirement,
and it was the consensus that staff should readdress the minimum
building size requirement.
Planning Services Manager Baginski explained the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-34, Section 2.2.12.2.1, Item 7;
salmon s~de sheet 2-34, 35, 36 affecting changes within the C-l, C-~/T
diatr~ct; salmon side sheet 2-37, Section 2.2.13.2.1, Permitted Uses
in Commercial Convenience D/strict (C-2); salmon side sheet 2-37,
Amendment to C-2 district, Section 2.2.1S.2.2, caretaker's residence
as commercial use; yellow side sheet 2-37, Section 2.2.~3.2.1.?, to
correct a typographical error; salmon side sheet 2-38, multiple
changes to Sections 2.2.~2.4, 2.2.~4.4, 2.2.1§.4, 2.2.1§~.4, and
Page 4
August 5, 1992
2.2.16.4= salmon side sheet 2-39, Section 2.2.14.2.1, Amendment to the
C-3 district removing bars, lounges, etc. from the C-3 district as a
permitted uses salmon side sheet 2-40, amendment to C-3 district,
Section 2.2.14.2.1~ salmon side sheet 2-40, Section 2.2.14.3; gray
side sheet, Section 2.2.14 modifying existing conditional use of amu-
sements and recreations~ and salmon side sheet 2-40, Section 2.2.14.3,
adding as Item 5, Social Services.
Assistant County Attorney Howell distributed white side sheet
2-40, Section 2.2.14.2.1, and Planning Services Manager Baginski
explained it represents an amendment to the C-3 District allowing
marinas, if previously approved and in existence at the time of adop-
tion of this Code. He acknowledged there is also a salmon side sheet
2-40, Section 2.2.14 allowing the same marinas as a conditional use.
The following persons spoke to the issue of marinas and existing
uses tn C-3 zoning d~stricts:
Attorney Patrick Neale Attorney George Varnadoe
Anthony Pires, Jr. Todd Turrel!
In response to Planning Services Manager Baginski, Commissioner'
Volpe clarified staff's direction at this point is to address Isle of
Capri, and focus on the C-3 zoning districts located on navigable
water and identify what parcels will be affected by allowing a per-
mitted principal use of a marina or decide whether it best to stay
with those uses previously approved.
Bob Duane interjected that information has been provided to
staff.
Planning Services Manager Baglnskt Identified the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-42, Section 2.2.15.2.1, as an amend-
ment to the C-4 d~strict, Permitted Uses, by modifying the Amusements
and Recreation Services-Indoor by providing expansion for outdoor
uses. Regarding page 2-43, he explained there ts both a salmon and a
gray side sheet, the latter representing recommendations of the CCPC
(Collier County Planning Commission) and staff providing locattonal
and development criteria that allows a carwash as a ps=mitred use
Page
August 5, 1992
within the C-4 district.
Perry Peeplee spoke to the Issue of carwashes tn C-4 districts.
Planner Milk explained that, by allowing both permitted uses in
the C-4 and conditional uses in the C-4, staff was attempting to ite-
mize what type of washing would be done in the district.
It was the consensus that carwashes should be a conditional use
In C-4 district8 when in close proximity to residential properties.
Planning Services Manager Baginski pointed out the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-42, Section 2.2.15.2.1, adding
another permitted use to the C-4 district, i.e. commercial printing,
excluding newspapers.
Regarding communication tower sections, Assistant County Attorney
Howell announced there ere side sheets for each zoning district where
they will not be al/owed, adding Mr. Pires agreed with the suggestion
that they all be discussed mt one time.
Planning Services Manager Bagtnskt interjected there is a
typographical error under the permitted use addressing communication
towers as it should be renumbered.
Planning Services Manager Bagtnski detailed the changes reflected
on salmon side sheet 2-42, Section 2.2.15.2.1, by adding a use pro-
riding for the eating and drinking establishments, excluding bottle
clubs and salmon side sheet 2-42, Section 2.2.15.2.1, providing an
amendment to include hospitals as a permitted use.
Commissioner Volpe suggested staff reconsider hospitals within a
C-4 district as a conditional use when adjoining a residential neigh-
borhood.
Planning Services Manager Baginski pointed out the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-43, Section 2.2.15.2.1, adding as a
permitted use within the C-4 district social services; salmon side
sheet 2-43, Section 2.2.15.3, allowing bottle clubs as a Conditional
Use in C-4 districts; salmon side sheet 2-43, Section 2.2.15.3
allowing car washes, excluding semi-truck, bus washing, as a
Page 6
August $, 1992
Conditional Use; salmon side sheet 2-45, Section 2.2.15~.3, strictly a
typographical error and, thus, changed to C-5; salmon side sheet 2-46,
Section 2.2.15~.3, adding bottle clubs as a Conditional Use in C-5
districts; salmon side sheet 2-45, Section 2.2.15~.3, al/owing as a
Conditional Use a detached caretaker's residence within the
district; and salmon side sheet 2-46, Section 2.2.15~.3, allowing
transfer stations as a Conditional Use.
Assistant County Attorney Howell interjected there is a whole
supplemental set of district regulations on caretaker residences.
ess l~emm: 7:05 P.M. - Rlconvened: 7:25 P.M. ess
Planning Services Manager Baginski pointed out changes relevant
to the Industrial District as reflected on salmon side sheet 2-48,
Section 2.2.16.2.1 providing locational criteria for uses dealing with
applications, fertilizers, limes, chemicals, etc.; salmon side sheet
2-48, Section 2.2.16.2.1, adding as a Permitted Use auction rooms
within the Industrial District; salmon side sheet 2-48, Section
2.2.16.2.1, adding as a Permitted Use testing laboratories, management
services, and management consultants; salmon side sheet 2-49, Section
2.2.16.2.1, adding as Permitted Uses wholesale activities such as sale
of Insecticides, etc.; salmon side sheet 2-49, Section 2.2.16.3.1,
providing development locational criteria for adult day care centers;
salmon side sheet 2-§0, Section 2.2.16.3, motor freight transportation
and warehousing; salmon side sheet 2-$1, Section 2.2.16.3, adding
refuse systems as a Conditional Use within an Industrta! District;
salmon side sheet 2-51, Section 2.2.16, Industrial District, the
second page being staff recommendations; salmon ~lde sheet 2-51,
Section 2.2.16.4.9, adding locattonal restrictions for lighting within
the Industrial District; salmon side sheet 2-53, Section 2.2.18.1,
reflecting language changes; gray side sheet 2-58, Section 2.2.20.2.4,
representing additional language under the minimum area required and
addressing "contiguous" property; and gray side sheet 2-58, Section
2.2.20.2.4, being a recomme~dation from the CCPC (Collier County
Planning Commission) which staff does not agree w~th and, therefore,
Page 7
August 5, 1992
requests it be stricken.
The following persons spoke to the issue of the changes reflected
on gray side sheets 2-58, Section 2.2.20.2.4:
George Vega Bob Duane
Regarding gray side sheet 2-58, Commissioner Saunders voiced sup-
port for the recommendations of the CCPC (Collier County Planning
Co.mission), however, the consensus was that staff should review the
matter for presentation at a later meeting of the Board of County
Cosuniasioners.
Planning Services Manager Bagtnski pointed out the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-?6, Section ~.2.23.4.4, language
corrections.
Environ~enta! Specialist Prynoski explained that salmon side
sheet 2-?9 ts superseded by white side sheet 2-?9 which reflects two
additions recommended by staff allowing site alteration for a minimu~
of 2,500 square feet as well as additional language addressing some
land management operations that may occur tn the Area of Critical
State Concern.
Bob Duane encouraged adoption of the language proposed on white
side sheet 2-79.
Envtronmenta! Specialist Prynosk! pointed out the changes
reflected on salmon side sheet 2-81, Section 2.2.24.4, allowing relief
for the urban areas of Copeland, Plantation Island Mobile Homesites,
etc. located within the Area of Critical State Concern, as well gray
side sheet 2-85, Section 2.2.24.8, dealing with exceptions.
Assistant County Attorney Howell explained the changes reflected
on salmon side sheet 2-88, Section 2.2.25.1, regarding historical and
archaeological sites with the County.
Planning Services Manager Bagtnskt Identified the changes
reflected on yellow side sheet 2-94, Section 2.2.26.6.2, deal with
notification policies and procedures when a parcel or site is going to
be designated by the Board of County Commissioners as a historical or
archaeological site; salmon side sheet 2-107, a matter of appropriate
Page 8
August 5, 1992
terminology; salmon side sheet 2-110, Section 2.3.12, attempting to
clarify the procedure necessary to request and receive approval of an
off-site parking reservation; salmon side sheet 2-112, Section 2.3.14,
Parking Standard, aa other permitted uses within different districts;
salmon side sheet 2-120, Section 2.3.20.2.2, changing language from
"handicapped" to "disabled"; and salmon side sheet 2-122, standar-
dization of the forms used throughout the book.
$~8 (~m/setoner Saundere left the meeting at 8:05 P.M.
Mr. Delate referred to Section 2.4.3.5, LDC page 2-126 of the
salmon sidesheets, which reflects the bonding requirement for
landscaping. He said Staff has expanded the language to make clear
what a landscape bond is and the mechanisms to procure that bond. He
noted the County has been exempted from the bonding requirement and
Staff has added that an estimated opinion of cost is also required
with the bond. He concluded the CCPC agreed with Staffts recommen-
dation.
The following people spoke regarding Section 2.4.3.5:
Hank Buckhannan Christian Andrea
Sidney Showalton
Commissioner Volpe commented he has not seen any Justification for
eliminating the bonding requirements. He added Compliance Services
and the CCPC support the mechanism.
Commissioner Shanahan suggested Staff obtain information con-
cerning Cape Coral's program, to review whether the bonding require-
manta may be eliminated through a similar creative volunteer program.
Mr. Delate presented changes to LDC page 2-127, Section 4.4.4.1
on both the yellow and salmon sidesheets0 regarding the quality of
plant material used to meet the requirements. He said Staff disagrees
with the CCPC recommendation to lower the percentage requirements for
native tress and shrubs.
The following people spoke regarding th~s Section:
George Fogg
Tape ~S
John Douglas
Chris Straton
Nancy Payton
Jeff Moore
Art Neumann
Page 9
August 5, 1992
Sidney Showalton Hank Buckhannan
George Fogg
Commissioner Goodntght suggested Staff be directed to review the
South Florida Water Management District booklet on native and
xerlscape landscapln~ and return with recommendations. She voiced her
concern with re~lring native vegetation that may not be drought
tolerut.
~r. Delete referred to ~DO page ~-13~, Section ~.4.?,4 on the
vellow m~d grav stdesheets. He said this language concerns a new
fifth paragraph relating to water ~anage~ent tn buffers. He reported
on the changes being requested bv Staff and explained drawings to
lll~Inate those ohanges as well as what ts being proposed b~ the
vats sector.
~e following people spoke regarding this Section:
Alan Re.olds George Fogg
Michael Fernandez Reed Jarvt
Martin Ptnc~ey Garry Beyrent
Ed G~lfflth Hank Buckhannan
Co~lsslone~ Volpe suggested flexibility be considered for smaller
sites because of economic issues.
Co~lsslone~ Goodnlght proposed that buffer areas be integrated
with the retention areas whenever possible, and that sidewalks also be
Integrated with vegetation as long as the criteria for vegetation tn
the buffer area ts met.
Co~tsstoner Hasse indicated he would like site specific criteria
to be Investigated.
Co~lsstoner Shanahan agreed that smaller parcels should be given
flexibility ~d suggested basic ~tdeltnes be developed to be as less
restrictive as possible.
Co~tssioner Saunders suggested Staff's proposed lan~age be
approved, but that a mechanism be provided for property o~ers to pre-
sent ~ alternative for Staff review that would not necessarily fit
the exact proposal Staff ts currently seeking.
It was the consensus that Staff be directed to meet with the
Page 10
August 5, 1992
design professionals to put together guidelines upon which a variance
may be granted.
Wr. Delete referred to LDC page 2-134, Section 2.4.?.2, of the
salmon sidesheets, which proposes that language from the landscaping
section be included in the buffering section. He reported there is no
substantive change to the language.
The following people spoke regarding this Section:
Hank Buckhannan Garry Beyrent
Commissioner Volpe suggested Staff temper the proposed language
with regard to existing landscaping being brought into conformity "to
the maximum extent possible".
Michael Fernandez called the Board*s attention to two alternatives
on the gray aidesheets concerning LDC pages 2-132 and 2-233, Section
2.4.5.4, Green Space Required in Shopping Centers. He suggested the
current language of the ULDC be retained.
Mr. Delete explained when the ULDC was being drafted, the require-
ment for green space was Inadvertently changed from 7~ to 2~, and
Staff is attempting to change the percentage back to the original ?~
and reduce the other requirement for inter,or landscaping to §~. He
noted Staff is also proposing to reduce the number of trees required
tn the green space areas to reflect actual conditions and to prevent
crowding on the sites. He added Alternative I also includes buildings
~uch as Walmart and Pace Warehouses into the shopping center
landscaping requirements, while Alternative II does not consider that
requirement.
Mr. Baginski concluded that Staff recommends Alternative I be
approved by the Board.
Tape #4
SAdne¥ Showalton communicated his concern with the requirements
for multi-size trees and double rows of hedges. He referred to
correspondence given to the Board of County Comm~esioners. (Copies
not provided to the Clerk to the Board.)
Mr. Delete reported the current requirement is for 50~ oT trees to
August 5, 1992
be eight feet In height and the other one-half must be 10 feet. He
said that compromise tn height requirements ts a result of the ULDC
hearings, committee meetings, as well as meetings of the CCPC and
Board of County Commissioners.
Co~ateeloner Hasee ~c~-e~d, seconded by Commteatoner Shanahan and
CaZTted unanimously, to continue the public hearing to August 19,
1992, ~t 6:05 P.M.
There being no further businese for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:17 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD[S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
MICHAEL~OLP~, CHAIRMAN
approved by the Board on
or as corrected
Page 12