Minutes 04/23/2015 April 23, 2015
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 23, 2015
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee Land Development Review Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION
at the Growth Management Division Building, Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL with the following persons present:
Chairman: Robert Mulhere
Clay Brooker
Blair Foley
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Lenberger, Environmental Specialist
Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner/LDC Manager
Richard Anderson, Senior Environmental Specialist
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Paula Fleishman, Sr. Operations Analyst
Jeremy Frantz, Planner
Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney
1
April 23, 2015
Any person in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from
the Collier County Growth Management Division,Department of Planning and Zoning.
1. Call to Order
Vice Chairman Brooker called the meeting to order at 1:00pm and a quorum was established.
2. Approve agenda
Mr. Foley moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 2- 0.
5. Public Comments (this item was heard before item 3)
Rebecca Gonzalez, Collier County Sheriff's Office—Crime Prevention expressed concern
regarding the language in Section 4.06.02.4.b -A continuous 3 gallon double row hedge spaced 3 feet
on center of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of 3 feet
height within one year shall be required in the landscape buffer where vehicular areas are adjacent to
the road right-of-way,pursuant to section 4.06.05 C.4. She noted the 3 foot height requirement
absent of a maximum height is a security and safety issue as police officers or others passing by a
property have a restricted view into the site making the likelihood of a crime being committed more
likely. She recommended the Section require the plantings to be a maximum of 3 feet in height.
Discussion occurred with Committee and Staff noting:
• The requirement is intended to ensure the plantings reach 3 foot height within one year.
• Requiring a 3 foot maximum may be optimal, but enforcing the requirement may be difficult
given all the commercial properties in the County.
• Many commercial sites already have the planting greater than 3 feet in height.
• Some existing species may not be suited to a maximum height of 3 feet given their natural
characteristics.
• The requirement proposed by Ms. Gonzalez could be limited to those areas adjacent to a road
right of way.
Staff queried on the feasibility of amending the language for the plantings to be 3 —4 feet in height?
Officer Gonzalez reported that requirement would help alleviate the concerns.
Staff reported they will review the request including consultations with landscape architects and
report back to the Committee.
Wayne Arnold, Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. addressed the Subcommittee requesting an update on
the status of the LDC amendment addressing the size limitation for some uses in the C2 and C3.
Ms. Cilek reported the proposed amendment is not in this Cycle but she anticipates it will be in the
Cycle 2 amendments proposed later this year.
Mr. Mulhere arrived at 1:20pm and assumed the Chair.
3. Review Amendments
a. 10.02.06 Ag Clearing Requirements
Ms. Araque presented the proposed amendment.
2
April 23, 2015
Change: 1. Amend LDC section 3.05.05 F Vegetation Removal Permit to clarify that property
owners on Rural Agricultural (A) zoned property can remove vegetation for single-
family accessory uses.
2. Amend LDC section 10.02.06 C to establish a permit process for vegetation
clearing for non-bona fide permitted and accessory uses in the Rural Agricultural
District(A) zoning district.
3. Amend LDC section 10.02.06 C with regards to future bona fide agricultural farm
operations in order to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan' 25 year
change in land use limitation.
Reason: Historically, vegetation removal has occurred on agricultural zoned property through a
permit process. The proposed amendment seeks to clarify this in LDC section 3.05.05 F
and the provision will specifically allow for clearing for accessory uses related to single
family uses on Rural Agricultural (A) zoned land.
The Committee reviewed the proposed amendments and provided the following recommendations
or comments:
1. Add an introduction which clearly defines "non bona fide ag use" with examples. Concern
was expressed some parties may abuse the provision if the allowable exception is not clearly
defined. Ensure the definition is consistent throughout the proposed amendment.
2. Amend the Administrative Code simultaneously as it is cited in the amendment—Staff
reported the Administrative Code language refers to the application process, not the
amendment wording, so it will not conflict with the proposed amendment.
3. Section 10.02.06C.l.a.i - Change the language from"If an ST or ACSC-ST overlay is attached
to the zoning..." to "If an ST or ACSC-ST overlay is within the zoning..." Staff reported the
language was taken from other sections of the land development code.
4. Section 10.02.06C.1.a.iv - Change from "...provided in 3.05.07.C"to "...provide in LDC
Section 3.05.07.C..." and ensure any other areas where Sections are referenced they are
identified in the same manner.
5. Section 10.02.06C.l.b.i - "An on-site inspection has been made by staff"
6. Section 10.02.06C.l.a.ii—"...species habitat(s) have been addressed in..."
7. Section 10.02.06C.l.b.iii to read—"Additional data and/or information as may be required by
the County..."
8. Section 10.02.06C.1.b.iv to read—"The proposed use is allowed within the Rural..."
9. Section 10.02.06C.1.c— Staff reviews the concept that a permit valid for a period of 5 years
may be automatically renewed. Should some additional criteria need to be met other than the
activity was engaged in an agricultural activity.
10. Section 10.02.06C.1.d.ii(a) and Section 10.02.06C.1.d.ii(c)—add the word "and"to the end of
the lines to ensure it is clear all the criteria must be met within this section.
11. Section 10.02.06C.2.a.vi - Discussion occurred on the rationale for deleting the wording"the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners will not rezone the property described in the
agricultural clearing permit for a period of 25 years from the date of approval of the
agricultural clearing permit by the County Manager or designee, unless for any such
conversions in less than 25 years, the converted land shall be restored with native vegetation
to the degree required by the LDC. "
3
April 23, 2015
The Committee expressed the concern that removal of the language may allow a party to clear
the land and subsequently file a request for rezoning defeating the purpose of the proposed
exemption and skirting the County's native vegetation requirements. —Staff noted they would
contact David Weeks, Planning and Zoning Director who was not present to address the item
at a future meeting.
Staff reported they will review the recommendations and concerns identified and return the
proposed amendment to the Subcommittee for consideration.
b. 3.05.07 Preserve Setbacks
Mr. Lenberger presented the proposed amendment.
Change: Remove conflicting language with regards to an exemption for single-family residences
from vegetation retention requirements.
Reason: The language in LDC section 3.05.07 H.4.a was inadvertently retained during a prior
LDC amendment for this section. The correct LDC provisions addressing preserve
standards and how they relate to single-family residences are provided in LDC section
3.05.07 and are described in the amendment request. Single-family residences, except
for within the RFMU District, are exempt from the native vegetation retention
requirements.
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the amendment as proposed subject to the narrative on page 1 —
LDC section 3.05.07A.7, line 2 being amended to read "...requirements and from the on site
preserves." Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3—0.
c. 10.02.06 CCSL Permits
Mr. Lenberger presented the proposed amendment.
Change: To exempt the following activities from obtaining a Coastal Construction Setback Line
(CCSL)permit or CCSL variance:
1. Implementation of Federal, State, or County approved preserve and listed species
management plans on publicly owned land designated as parks, preserves, or
mitigation areas.
2. Implementation of County approved preserve and listed species management plans
pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 H.
3. Activities approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)that may alter
ground elevations such as artificial beach nourishment projects and excavation or
maintenance dredging of inlet channels.
4. Hand removal of prohibited exotic and non-native vegetation.
Reason: Implementation of Federal, State, and County approved preserve and listed species
management plans on publicly owned land designated as parks, preserves or mitigation
areas are already approved or permitted by the government entities which manage or
regulate these lands.
The Committee reviewed the proposed amendment and made the following recommendations:
1. Section 10.02.06G.2 to read"Accept as exempted in subsection 4 below, the following
activities seaward..."
4
April 23, 2015
2. Section 10.02.06G.2.4 to read"permit, or approved plan otherwise required under this
Section; All required...."
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the amendment as proposed subject to the two changes
recommended above. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3—0.
d. 3.05.08; 3.05.02 Prohibited Exotic Vegetation
Mr. Lenberger presented the proposed amendment.
Change: To provide criteria when certain prohibited exotic vegetation may remain on property when
developed. Housekeeping measures to correct inconsistencies to single-family exemption
and provide cross reference to applicable LDC sections.
Reason: On May 27, 2014, a property owner presented a petition to the BCC requesting an
exception from LDC section 3.05.08 in order to retain Java plum (Syzygium cumini) on his
property. Because of the age and size of the Java plum trees, the property owner proposed
the BCC designate these trees as Specimen Trees as defined by LDC section 3.05.09. This
designation requires approval by the BCC. The BCC later approved Resolution 2014-118
and the Java plums were allowed to remain. The BCC also directed staff to review and
bring back a proposed LDC amendment that would allow for flexibility in terms of the
requirements and removal of certain species of trees.
The Subcommittee made the following recommendations:
1. Section 3.05.08D.1 to read "...landscape requirements at the time of permit approval."
2. Section 3.05.08D - Staff to review and consider amending language to provide wording such as
".... upon finding that any of the following conditions exist."
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendment as proposed subject to the two
changes recommended above. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3—0.
e. 2.03.09; 4.02.03 Golf Course Setbacks
Mr. Henderlong presented the proposed amendment.
Change: To re-codify a 50-foot setback requirement for clubhouse, maintenance building, and
accessory uses from abutting residential and non-residential districts. Landscaping and a
Type "B" buffer shall also be provided adjacent to the golf course property line. Besides
adding the setback requirement for non-residential districts, this amendment corrects a
minor scrivener error.
Reason: Prior to the re-codification of the LDC in 2004, Section 2.2.1.4.3 of the Golf Course
(GC) zoning district contained a 50-foot setback for those permitted accessory uses
adjacent to any residential district. Currently, the LDC does not address an accessory use
setback requirement between golf course maintenance buildings and any residential or
non-residential property.
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendment subject to it clearly identifying
the requirements for golf courses located in PUD's are not subject to the proposed
amendment.. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3— 0.
5
April 23, 2015
f. 4.08.07 SRA Characteristics Chart
Mr. Henderlong presented the proposed amendment.
Change: LDC section 4.08.07 J.I.A is Collier County's RLSA Overlay SRA Characteristics
Chart. The chart refers to underlined uses, however there are no underlined uses. This
amendment reinstates the underlined uses not required for SRA designations within the
Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) District. The word "workforce" is being added
to the affordable housing density bonus and the amendment shall clarify Policy 4.7
pertains to the RLSA in the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The previous RLSA Overlay SRA Characteristic Chart is
removed and replaced with four tables to create a better illustration of a Town, Village,
Hamlet or Compact Rural Development form of SRA development.
Reason: Pursuant to Ordinance 2007-18, the amendment corrects a scrivener error to identify
those required uses from those uses not required within the RLSA district. For
utilitarian purposes, a tabular format replaces the chart. In compliance with the
ordinance, the word "workforce"to affordable housing density bonus is reinstated. The
amendment also clarifies Policy 4.7 refers to the RLSA in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Footnotes have been removed and
relocated to the relevant form of SRA development or appropriate section.
The Committee reviewed the proposed amendment and made the following recommendations:
The table be revised to identify "Uses allowed but not required" as opposed to "Uses not
required."
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the amendment as proposed subject to the change recommended
above. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3— 0.
The Committee recommended the proposed to Alan Reynolds of Stantec for comment given he
assisted in developing the requirements for the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
g. 10.02.07 Requirements for COAs
Mr. Frantz and Ms. Fleishman presented the proposed amendment.
Change: To amend the Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy (COA) provisions as follows:
1. Within LDC section 10.02.07 B, there are two exemptions for temporary permits: 1)
for temporary construction and development permits and, 2) for temporary use
permits. Each includes a time limit, "not to exceed a cumulative period of 1 year."
It is proposed that this timeframe is removed for both of these exemptions.
2. To allow applicants who have paid 100 percent of the estimated transportation
impact fees at a prior impact fee rate, and who now hold a balance in excess of the
current rate, to transfer the remaining balance to another approved project within
the same, or adjacent, transportation impact fee district.
Reason: Temporary uses are generally replaced by permanent structures that will be required to
obtain a COA or are removed once construction is complete. For example, temporary
construction and development permits for a Temporary Model Sales Center and
Temporary Model Home permits are valid for three years. However, the current COA
6
April 23, 2015
exemption is limited to one year and the permitted temporary uses are subject to
obtaining a COA. Although the permits for these temporary uses exceeds the COA
exemption, due to the temporary nature of these structures, it is proposed the process
used to manage concurrency-related matters is more appropriately addressed with
approval of the final permanent structure.
Under Committee discussion Staff reported there are no provisions for the County to refund the
fees.
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment as presented. Second by
Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 3—0.
4. Follow up on previously reviewed amendments
Staff provided the following updates including:
• Section 4.02.04 - Zero lot line was clarified.
• Section 4.06.05J - Allowing sod to be placed on a 3:1 slope - Staff was not in favor of the
proposal as it is a maintenance issue. Mr. Foley noted he can provide documentation on the
suitability of use of sod for those areas of treatment.
• Summary Chart - Staff reported they will bringing a summary chart forward for the proposed
amendment which will outline actions taken and comments.
• Comments not incorporated into proposed amendments - Any comments provided by the
various parties on the proposed amendments will be brought forward as the amendment moves
through the approval process.
Mr. Foley recommended the Sections governing excavation permits be reviewed for possible
amendments given a permit is required for excavating a stormwater treatment area whereby material is
not being transported off site for a commercial activity.
Mr. Mulhere noted he was under the impression the permit requirements were to address impacts of
truck traffic when material is removed off site, not for the placing of material on site. They
recommended he contact Staff to determine if the issue may be handled via an"Official
Interpretation."
6. Adjourn
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05pm
Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee —Land Development Review Subcommittee
April 23, 2015
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on 4 (4// /J;2015 as
presented 1/ or as amended
8