LDR Subcommittee Minutes 09/19/2016 September 19, 2016
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, September 19, 2016
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 3:00PM in a REGULAR
SESSION at the Growth Management Department Building, Room 609/610 2800 N.
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the following persons present:
Blair Foley
Robert Mulhere
Clay Brooker
David Dunnavant
Chris Mitchell
Stan Chrzanowski
Dalas Disney
ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager
Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner
Jack McKenna, County Engineer
Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater Planning
Matt McLean, Development Review Director
1
September 19, 2016
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording
from the Collier County Growth Management Division —Planning and Regulation building—Contact
Mr. Evy Ybaceta at 239-252-2400.
1. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 3:02pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Mr. Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Chrzanowski. Carried unanimously 5
— 0.
3. New Business
a. Confirmation That Discharge Rates Do Not Apply to Single-Family Lots
Mr. Kurtz noted:
• The County is undertaking measures to implement a recommendation contained in the
Watershed Management Plan to reduce stormwater discharge rates into canals.
• A basin by basin analysis has been completed to determine the proposed discharge rates.
• Both new developments and redevelopment will be subject to the new rates.
• Single family lots will not be required to comply with the discharge rates.
Mr. Dunnavant arrived at 3:05pm
Mr. Mitchell arrived at 3:07pm
b. Draft LDC Amendment
Staff presented a proposed amendment to LDC section 6.05.01 - Water Management
Requirements noting the following:
• The current proposal is to require a drainage plan for all single-family lots, two-family
lots, and duplexes.
• Exemptions include:
• Lots in the Estates zoning district less than 2.25 acres in size with less than 20
percent lot coverage.
• Lots in the Estates zoning district more than 2.25 acres in size.
• Those lots within the boundaries of a development issued a South Florida Water
Management District for Surface Water Management or Environmental Resource
Protection permit.
c. Committee Questions and Initial Feedback
Discussion
• Consideration should be given to regulating the amount of impervious areas on site as
opposed to lot coverage which only encompasses roofed areas.
• Smaller lots should be able to exceed coverage requirement if you provide on site
storage.
• Driveways generally are not a major concern given the stormwater sheet flows into the
lot's yard.
• May not want to exempt lots greater than 2.25 acres in their entirety given the
development may comprise the total lot with impervious areas.
2
September 19, 2016
• Duplexes are not permitted in the Estates zoning district and any conditional uses require
a Site Development Plan.
• Staff noted the 2.25 acres threshold was based on the minimum lot size in the Estates
zoning district.
Staff and the Subcommittee discussed the proposed amendment by Section with the
Subcommittee recommending the following changes at this point in time:
1. Section 6.05.01 F.2.c.ii - Single-family dwelling units located on lots less than 2.25 acres
in the Estates zoning district that do not exceed 20 percent lot coverage. — Consider using
impervious area instead of"lot coverage" and establishing design parameters based on
thresholds of impervious areas.
Staff indicated that they would provide more detailed information regarding impervious
area and lot sizes for the next meeting.
Rationale: The term "impervious areas"more adequately addresses the stormwater
impacts on site. Development on a lot should not exceed a certain amount of impervious
area unless the proposed standards are met.
2. Section 6.05.01 F.2.c.i—Consider citing single family and two family uses as opposed to
"Any residential use within the boundaries..."
Rationale: Provide consistency with intent of Section.
3. Section 6.05.01 F.3.a—Remove the language "Stormwater runoff shall not flow from the
subject premises onto abutting properties." This section should require a design storm
instead.
Rationale: Difficult to enforce or require given stormwater flows across lots throughout
the County. Furthermore, it was noted that this requirement would be preempted by
Florida State Statutes.
4. Standardize the term stormwater or surface water throughout the document.
Rationale: The terms are identical in meaning and may cause confusion.
5. Section 6.05.01 F.3.b—Regarding the requirement for a 3-inch orifice, this type of
requirement may require a professional engineer to prepare.
6. Section 6.05.01 F.4.a.x - Consider the language "Any additional information necessary
to determine compliance with this Section"as opposed to "Any additional information
requested by the County Manager or designee regarding the drainage plan."
Rationale: Establishes a more definable reason for requesting the information.
7. Section 6.05.01 F.4.b - Drainage plans shall be prepared by a Florida Licensed Engineer.
8. Section 6.05.01 F.4.iv—Consider changing the requirement to provide the elevation of
adjacent properties to require the elevation at the property line.
3
September 19, 2016
9. Section 6.05.01 F.4.a.ix—Consider removing the requirement of providing the location
of the swimming pool overflow.
Rationale: It is part of an approved building permit, not related to stormwater drainage.
—Staff noted the purpose of some of the items in Section 6.05.01 F.4.a is for Staff to be
made aware of any items on site that may affect drainage, not to impose new regulations.
The Committee determined:
1. Staff should provide an analysis of impervious areas on lots based on lot sizes.
2. Mr. Foley,Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Chrzanowski should coordinate with Staff on the
design storm criteria and forward the proposals to the full Subcommittee for review.
3. Staff to develop applicability thresholds that apply to the Estates zoning districts only
(percentages of impervious areas).
4. Lots proposing redevelopment should not be exempted unless certain parameters are
met given the improvements may negatively affect the adjacent landowner.
d. Update on Timeframe of Amendment Vetting and Adoption
Staff reported they will review the comments and revise the language and return to the
Subcommittee with an updated proposal.
4. Public Comment
None
5. Next Meeting Date
To Be Determined
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the
order of the Chair at 4:15PM.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COM► TTEE - LAND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW SUB I M► ITTEE
/
These Minutes were approved by the Committee on , as presented , or as
amended
4