Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/17/1993 S (LDC Amendments) Naples, Florida, November 17, 1993 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(e) of such special districts as have been created according to /aw and having conducted business herein, met on this date at $:05 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: Annette Guevin and Sue Barbiretti, Recording Secretariea~ Neil Dorrill, County Mana~er~ Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Martha Howell and Richard Yovanovich, Assistant County Attorneys= Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Leo Cobs, Administrative Services Administrator: Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Bob Blanchard, SAte Development Review Director~ Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Director~ Dr. Fran St&llAngs, Natural Resources Director: Ken Baginski, Current Plannin~ Manager; John MadaJewski, Project Plan Review Manager: Ed Ma~uAre, Development Compliance Director= Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Environmental Specialist: Mike Kirby, Cod~ Compliance Investigator: Barbara Pr%~noski, Chief Environmental Specialist, Project Plan Review; and Deputy Jim Waller, Sheriff'~ Office. O! Page November 17, :1993 Tape #1 ~ TO THE COLLIER CO~qTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - 12/1/93 ~ TO BE CO~I~D TO 12/9/93 Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on November 9, :1993, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Dr. Fran Stallings, Natural Resources Director, explained there are two recommended amendments to the Natural Resources Section of the Land Development Code (LDC). He recommended State standards be adopted that wtl! allow the permitting to be delegated to Collier County, which will be more convenient for the citizenry. Secondly0 he said, an amendment ts being driven by the Growth Management Plan which states there shall be no unacceptable loss of wetlands, etc. He therefore svggested that most of the exemptions granted by the State be eliminated, which are prl~arll¥ private boat docks and certain governmenta~ operations; however, the exemptions relating to utilities should be retained. In response to Commissioner Norris, Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist, listed the exemptions being recommended for elimination by Staff. Commissioner Norris recalled a previous meeting whereby the Board directed Staff to adopt the State standards, to which Commissioner Constantine agreed. The following person spoke at this time: Barbara Cawle¥ It wa~ the conlsn~ul of ~hs Board that the standards, la racom- ~ended by the CCPC and eat forth by the State, be ~ncludad ~n the pro- posed .~end~enta. D=. Stallings continued, explaining that Staff Inadvertently outlawed beach raking on Ttgertatl Beach tn one of the earlier LDC amendments, therefore, an am~ndment Is being proposed to correct the language. Page 2 November 17, 1993 Commissioner Volpe suggested other areas within the community need to be included along with Ttgertatl Beach, for example, Clam Pass. Dr. Stallings reported the CCPC recommended beach raking be allowed anywhere in Collier County wherever a federal or State permit may be obtained. He remarked there is no federal permit and State permits are routinely granted, so If the CCPC recommendation is adopted, beach raking will be allowed in all areas. The following person spoke at this time: David Addison It was the consensus that Staff be d~rected to mend Section 3.14.S.1 to slime for beach raking to occur only if a State per, it ia obtained. Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Director, listed minor changes to the language contained in Sections 1.9.3 and 1.9.8.6. He also noted Section 2.1.15 with regard to roadside sales has been amended to pro- vide more simple language. He stated language has been added to Section 2.5.6.16 for the removal of signs that have not been properly permitted. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Clark agreed to amend the language in Section 2.5.7 for the termination of prohibited signs, to replace the word "immediately" with "within 30 days". Ken Bagtnskt, Current Planning Manager, presented alternative language on page 20.5, to that contained in Section 2.5.8.1.~ with respect to single faced and double faced signs. He indicated that language will be added to Section 2.5.8.?.2 as paragraphs #1 and 4, leaving the lan~age tn paragraphs #1 and #4 in Section 2.5.8.1.1 as currently written. The following person spoke at this time: Mike Davis Mr. Baginski explained the changes on the bottom of page 91 cover the same ground as those on page 22, with additional specifics with regard to yard setbacks. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Baglnskt responded that Page 3 November l?, 1993 the Board should ignore the language on page 22 and replace the language proposed on page 21 with that contained on page 91. Mr. Clark next referred to Section 2.6.?.2.2 on page 24, which contains additional language limiting the number of permits that can be granted during one calendar year for recreational equipment parked or stored in residential areas. Mr. Clark agreed to substitute the language provided In paragraph #2 to match that in paragraph #! which will allow 28 days as the maxi- mum al/owed time period for storage of both recreational equipment and non-resident vehicles on residential properties. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Matthews, Mr. Clark agreed to change the language on page 24, Section 2.6.7.3.1, paragraph 4, to include "vans," before "passenger type vans". Mr. Clark detailed several housekeeping changes on pages 25 through 32. He recommended the words "of notification" be added to the proposed language at the bottom of page 31 and that the same words be added to the Identical sentence on the top of page 32. Ed Maguire, Development Compliance Director, detailed several minor changes to the well construction ordinance portion of the LDC, Division 3.6. Com~issioner Volpe questioned if there are any substantive changes being proposed? Mr. Maguire noted one substantive change ts the inclusion of ben- tonite grout as an acceptable method of grouting. Mike Kirby, Code Compliance Investigator, explained that the changes as presented on page 45 re-write the old restoration stan- dards, which will now be referred to as "Corrective Measures for Environmental Violations". He said that language will cover water, water quality, stream and soil erosion. He suggested the language which has been added is clarification to what is already Implied in the old text. He pointed out that Staff agrees with the CCPC recom- mendation to change the 15 day requirement to complete mitigation to 30 days. 05 Page · November l?, 1993 Mr. Kirby proposed an additional change to the original proposal on page 47, paragraph 5. He asked that the sentence begin, "If the 'violation' has caused any change", rather than "if the unlawful remo- val of vegetation has caused any change". e.e Recording Secretary Barbirettt replaced Recording Secretary Barbara Cawley requested that the mitigation completion time frame be extended beyond the 15 day requirement. She pointed out that the State allows l or 3 months for mitigation completion, Ms. Cawley also requested more flexibility regarding ratios. Mr. Clark reiterated Mr. Kirby's statement that most of the viola- ttons are small, and the State agencies are Involved in the bigger violations. He believes that it ts prudent to keep these mitigation requirements in, because the majority are the smaller type. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Kirby answered that these requirements are for violations only. Commissioner Saunders asked if there was any desire of the Board to change any of the proposed amendments. It was the consensus of the Board to keep the amendments as ts. Ken Baginskt, Long Range Planning Manager, reviewed the substan- tive changes to the Development Services amendments. Mr. Bagtnskt referred to page 6?.5, which ts a Citizen Petition, which provides criteria for development standards for single family tracts within the RMF-6 district. Bruce Anderson explained that the current minimum yard require- ments in the RMF-6 district have the effect of discouraging develop- ment of lower density single family homes. Mr. Anderson stated that it seemed nonsensical to require The same setbacks for a single family home that are required for a 6 unit multi-family building. He believes that minimum yard requirements based upon the actual use of the land will save property owners time and cost. 06 Page November 17, 1993 Mr. Baginskt stated that he has no problem with Mr. Anderson's amendment. The consensus of the Board was to accept the amendment. Commissioner Volpe, referring to page 67, requested clarification of the addition of servants quarters to our districts. Mr. Baglnskt explained that the addition of servants quarters is an attempt to provide expanded use in the zoning districts. He com- mented that the request comes up frequently. Frank Brutt confirmed that some of the plans sent in for review specifically Identifies "servants quarters'*, and this causes confusion for staff. Hr. Bagtnski pointed out that Section 2.6.37, references kitchens in an attempt to alleviate the rental of an additional unit in a single family area. The consensus of the Board was not to allow the servant quarters to be included in Section Commissioner Matthews requested that staff address the Board's concerns, Mr. Baginski referred to page 71 and explained that this amend- ment, which was submitted by E.M.S., provides an alternative to the current requirement for hurricane shelters tn mobile home parks. In response to Commissioner Matthews, Lee Layne, representing the CCPC, explained that the mobile home parks are generally the first to he evacuated in a hurricane, therefore the cash-tn-lieu ts prac- tical. Mr. Baglneki revealed that a new definition of soup kitchen is being provided on page 72 along with proposed changes that would eliminate those facilities known as soup kitchens from the group care facilities, redefining them as a conditional use within the same district. Commissioner Norris asked whether the language prohibiting rehabi- litation is too restrictive? Commissioner Norris questioned whether this language could be 07 Page 6 November 17, 1993 deleted? It was the consensus of the Board to delete language from the definition of "Soup Kitchen" to read: "Shall mean a facility involved tn the regular serving of prepared food for on-premise consumption to indigent persons, where those persons are not domiciled on the premi- ses, or otherwise not consistent with the definition of a care unit." In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Baginski replied that the Soup Kitchen would be al/owed in all Commercial Districts as a con- dittonal use. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Baginskt answered that lawfully existing Soup Kitchens are considered to have conditional use approval. Assistant County Attorney Howell advised that this language has not been reviewed for legal sufficiency. The following people spoke on the Issue: Bob Duncan John Ltndell Earl Kegg Dave Carpenter George Derbyshire Phi/lip Wesley Charles Smith Commissioner Constantine stated that the purpose is to provide consistency and child care facilities, mental health facilities, and hospitals require the Board of County Commissioners final approval on conditional use. Commissioner Volpe acknowledged that this is a substantiative change which has not been considered by the Collier County Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Board that the language on pages 73.5 and 177.5 will be advertised for public hearing and submitted to the Collier County Planning Commission for their consideration. In answer to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Baginek! confirmed that the Collier County Planning Commission had reviewed the language on pages ?2 and 73 and voted to recommend adoption. Commissioner Volpe Indicated that he was not supportive of adding the definition of "Soup Kitchen" at this point. Page ? November 17, 1993 In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Baginski explained that the attempt in adding the definition is to restrict the soup kitchen from those locations that did not provide rehabilitation or lodging. Commissioner Volpe asked what effect the new definition would have on St. Matthews? Mr. Bagtnski revealed that under any definition at the current location St. Matthews is already in legal existence, therefore would be considered to have a conditional use at the current location. Commissioner Saunders suggested that if this new regulation ts imposed, that as part of the regulation all existing soup kitchens are "grandfathered" tn aa existing non-conforming uses. He emphasized that the question raised ts what about the new location that is not currently existing? He contended that under this definition it would require a conditional use. In answer to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Baginski stated that under this definition, if an establishment were providing meals to someone who ia not domiciled on the site, it would be construed as a soup kitchen which would require a conditional use. Commissioner Norris commented that there is no distinction bet- ween free-standing or use from any other source. Mr. Baginski agreed to present language at the next meeting to consider the vesting of existing facilities. · t~ Recording Secretary Ouevtn replaced Recording Secretary Barbtrett! at thim time. see Answering Commissioner Volpe, Mr. BagJnskt explained the permitted uses as expanded in Section 2.2.12.2.1 on page 74, will now allow for administrative offices as opposed to simply retail uses within the commercial districts. He mentioned for example, a construction bust- ness with heav~ equipment ts not allowed, however, the office of such a contractor may now be allowed in the C-1 District. He noted the same t~e of change is being proposed on pages 75 and 76. Responding to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Bagtnakt indicated the language as proposed on page 84, changing the minimum lot area In the Page 8 November l?, 2993 industrial zoning district from 20,000 to 20,000 square feet, was approved during the 1992 amendment cycle, however, was inadvertently not included in the actual text. Tape ~3 Com~lseloner Constantine ~nquired what standard was used to require 50 parking spaces per athletic field, as proposed on page 887 Planner Ron Nino explained that was the recommendation of the Parka and Recreation Advisory Committee. Commissioner Volpe asked that the Board be provided with national standards for athletic field parking spaces before the final public hearing. Co~ualesioner Matthews ales requested that a survey be submitted of what the County currently has in terms of parking spaces. Mr. Baginski next referred to page 89, Section 2.6.4, Exceptions to Required Yards. He said the new language attempts to provide admi- nistrative authority to Staff for the approval of variances under cer- tain ~netances. Commissioner Volpe referred to page 92, Section 2.6.9.1, stating the language now allows for governmental facilities as permitted uses in the Estates zoning district, such as not-for-profit child care, educational facilities, libraries, museums, parks and recreational service faclltties. He inquired if those are currently conditional uses7 Assistant County Attorney Martha Howell explained that governmen- tal facilities are already allowed, and this language provides a defi- nition of those facilities. The following person spoke at this time: Doug Rankin In addressing Mr. Ranktn's concern, Commissioner Saundera suggested that "non-residential" be added before "child care" and 'educational facilities", to which Assistant County Attorney Howell conc~lrred. Responding to Commissioner Saundsrs, Mr. Baglnskl noted pages 95 Page 9 Hovember ~7, ~993 through 101 have been withdrawn. Hr. Baginskl next referred to Section 2.6.33, Temporary Use Permits, which he stated has been extensively re-written. He said many clarifications were made, and language was added to provide alternatives to always requiring a site development plan in order to make the process less time consuming and less expensive. He indicated page 108 contains the substantive change providing specific criteria for securing temporary use permits for temporary seasonal sales. The following person spoke at this time: Doug Rankin Hr. Baginski assured Hr. Rankin that the requirement for a porary use permit does not apply to the Florida Sports Park, which is an approved PUD. He noted the annual circus, however, does require a carnival permit which must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. ese lt~c~t~: 8:25 P.H. - Reconvened: 8:30 P.H. ese Co~iseloner Volpe questioned what will be accomplished with the changes as proposed on page 103 with regard to temporary offices within a development? Planner Bob ~tulhere explained a temporary use permit will be required on, for example, a temporary sales trailer on a project which has received either final site development approval or has been platted. He said the developer will be required to show Staff the location, what has been done to address traffic and safety impacts, fencing, lighting, etc. Commissioner Volpe noted he Is concerned that these temporary on- site sales facilities are allowed, and they remain forever. Planner Hulhere commented that the facilities are intended to be temporary and are permitted for a period of 24 months with a one year renewal approved by the CCPC, and beyond that require Board of County Commissioners approval. Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, indicated he does not believe concurrence with the 24-month restrtc- Page 10 November l?, 1993 tIons has ever been Investigated, and perhaps Staff should look into this situation. The following person spoke at this time: John Asher Coutesloner Saundere suggested that Mr. Asher provide the Board with proposed language prior to the final hearing to address his con- cern regarding &llowtng a temporary sales facility on an adjacent par- cel which Is zoned agricultural. The following person spoke at this time: Barbara Cawley After lengthy discussion regarding Ms. Cawley'a concerns, it the consm that Section 2,6.$3.9, Teaporary Uae Pernlta for Special · v~nte, be wlthdrawnuntll the next a~end~ent cycle. ~. kglnskt explained proposed additional language to Section 2.6.3?, lttchens In D~elllng Unite, aa contained on page 112. Co~alaitoner Volpe expressed his concern that the proposed lan~ invites the possibility of t~o-fa~lly or duplexes b~tng cre&t~d in aingl~-fuily areas. TI~ following person ~poke at thio tim: It ~ the con~ensus to a~nd the language on peg~ 113, Section 2.T.2o3oi, ~ proposed by Ns. Cawle¥, to require notification of pro- party o~nere within SOO feet only when a 'nbitantlal' ~ ~nd~nt Nr. Baglnskt pointed out that Staff agrees with the CCPC recom- mended change to the proposed language on page 120 within Section 2.?.6, Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Process, that the Zoning Certificate fee should not be required when a Building Permit Is reviewed simultaneously, and that only the Building Permit review fee be paid. John NadaJewskt, Project Plan Review Nanager, referred to page 122, and explained the added language to Section 3.2.4.8.1 provides clarification to establish limits on the number of lots that can go Page 11 November 17, 1993 through an adjustment without a replatting. Hr. MadaJewski next addressed Section 3.2.4.11, Rural Area Subdivisions. He pointed out the package provided to the Board Is based on direction from the CCPC and contains two legal issues. He recalled over one year ago, the Board directed Staff to conduct a workshop with the development community with the ultimate goal of coming back to discuss the rural area of the County and how properties in that area could be dealt with, He noted in speaking with the County Attorney, he feels Collier County can legally have two dif- ferent definitions of subdivision based on the urban and rural areas. He explained the CCPC definition deals with an amnesty, due to the volume of parcels, that will set a date adopted by the Board of County Comm~eeloners as to any parcel on the tax rolls that can demonstrate an easement to gat to ~tself and ia a legal lot of record will be accepted in its current state~ therefore, any parcel with an easement would be vested. He pointed out Staff is in concurrence with the CCPC suggestion that the exclusionary clause be lowered from 10 to five acres. He reported the one issue of conflict between Staff and the CCPC ia paragraph b) of the CCPC Draft, which will allow a subdivision of land without recording a plat and leaves the question of how to improve the property and under what standards. He referred to a sketch~ which simplifies the difference in their positions. He suggested with amnesty being provided, why then allow the same situation to begin occurring once again. County Attorney Cuyler stressed that paragraph al, which provides the amnesty language, is a large step for Co~lier County and is a very significant difference from the past. The following people spoke at this time: Robert Duane George Vega Jim Siesk¥ John Asher In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. MadaJeweki explained Staff disagrees with the CCPC Draft paragraph b), because there ia nothing in the County's regulations to allow Staff discretion in setting a Page 12 November 17, 1993 special standard In the rural area for a private easement that does not exist in the remainder of the County. Commissioner Volpe commented that there does not seem to be a disagreement with the need for criteria to be established. He remarked he is not pursuaded by Staff's argument and is inclined to agree with the CCPC Draft. County Attorney Cuyler cautioned the Board to remain open for additional discussion of this issue at the second public hearing. It was the consensus to conditionally approve the CCP~ language. Mr. Bagtnskt referred to page 127 dealing with Section 3.2.6.3.6 Model Sales Centers, Model Homes, Review and and Determination. He noted this Section is being removed from the Subdivision Regulations and placed in the Zoning Code. He noted the changes on pages 132 and 133 provide language clarification for water management system regula- tions and buffer areas. Mr. MadaJewskt noted changes to pages 134 through 136 are house- keeping tn nature; pages 137 and 138 have been withdrawn; pages 139 through 142 are minor clarification and name changes; and page 143 has been withdrawn. Mr. Baglnski detailed the various minor changes on pages 142 through 146. Mr. MadaJewak! noted that page 147 has been withdrawn and the changes on pages 148 through 154 ara also minor in nature, providing for additional criteria, name changes, clarification and a reduction in paperwork. Mr. MadaJewski continued, referring to page 155, Section 3.6.7.2, Side Slopes. He indicated Staff ia in support of the CCP¢ recommen- ded changes to the proposed language, specifically in paragraph 2, after the word "native" and before "legally obtained", "nursery grown or" should be Inserted; and on page 156 on the third line, the percen- tage should be changed from eight to eighty. The following person spoke at this time: Barbara Cawley ,OOK O00P,*t 14 Page 13 November ~?. 1993 Responding to Ms. Cawley's concerns with the language in paragraph 3 of page 155, Chief Environmental Specialist Barbara Prynoekt stated chemicals may be utilized for the removal of cattails that are proven to be safe and non-toxic to other vegetation and wildlife. She suggested that she and Ma. Cawley work together on acceptable language prior to the final public hearing. Mr. MadaJewskt continued, advising that pages 157 and 158 have been withdra~n and page 159 adds new standards and an administrative process that will offer additional design flexibility for non-water management lake systems. He said page 160 has been withdrawn; the County Attorney will provide language for clarification of page 161 at the final public hearing: pages 163 through 165 provide further c/arA- flcatton; pages 166 and 167 have been withdrawn; page 168 adds cri- teria to provide assistance during emergency situations whereby a vegetation removal permit will not be required; page 169 removes fee language which Is set by resolution; and pages 170 through 175 add crAter/a, c/ar/f/cation language and provide for minor title changes Illd housekeeping language. Mr. Baglnek! referred to page 181 containing definitions, and asked that the definition for "Sign, V-shaped" be retained. Commissioner Saunders communicated the second public hearing to consider the Land Development Code amendments is scheduled for December 1, however, that meeting will be continued to December 9, 1993, at 5:05 P.M. Page 14 November 17, ~993 There being no further bueineee for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 9:55 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY C0~ISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL v BUNT L. SAUNDERS, CHAI~N aa preeWnted approved by the Board on , ~/~or as corrected Page