Loading...
DSAC Minutes 06/11/2003 RJune 11, 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Conference Room "E" 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 2:00 PM June 11, 2003 (continued from June 4, 2003) LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Sub-committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "E" of 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Peter Van Arsdale Dalas D. Disney Justin Martin Tom Peek Marco A. Espinar (left at ~4:55PM) Robert Mulhere Herb Savage (arrived at 2:33PM) Robert Duane (left at -4:55PM) Brian Jones Thomas Masters Collier County Staff: Russell Webb, Nancy Siemion, Russ Muller, Patrick White (arrived at 2:23PM), Stan Chrzanowski (arrived at 2:43PM), Susan Murray (arrived at 2:44PM) Members of the Public: Deborah Forester - Bonita Bay Group (left at 3:07PM) David Ellis - CBIA Dennis Church - Bonita Bay Group (left at 3:07PM) Page 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA June 4, 2003 2~00 P.M. I. Approval of Agenda- Minutes-May 7, 2003 Meeting II. Staff Announcements A. Development Services Division Update B. Transportation Division Update C. Public Utilities Division Update III. Old Business IV. Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Budget and Operations (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Justin Martin) V. New Business A. Parks Indexing. Amy Patterson VI. Committee Member Comments June 11, 2003 I. Call to Order -The continued meeting, (continued from June 4, 2003), was called to order at -2:15PM. II. Preliminary Subdivision Plats -Mr. Duane stated that he spoke with Mr. Schmitt about the PSP, (preliminary subdivision plats), being either eliminated or retained as an option in the code. Mr. Duane reported that both Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Cook saw a need for this action. Mr. Duane felt that this modification should be drafted into this LDC amendment cycle rather than the next cycle. -Mr. Duane made a motion to recommend to the director that this item be included in the current LDC amendment cycle rather than the next. It was seconded by Mr. Peek. -Mr. Van Arsdale asked if there was anyway to get rid of this without having to make a modification in the LDC. Mr. Duane replied that it would require a modification to the LDC; either remove the amendment or make it optional. Mr. Mulhere supported making this amendment an optional item. Mr. Webb stated that they do not have the staff time to do this modification until LDC Amendment Cycle 3. He added that this "came down from Joe" Schmitt. Mr. Duane stated that he was willing to have a special meeting in order to facilitate the process. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -Mr. Mulhere offered his assistance in drafting the amendment. Mr. Van Arsdale stated that they would write a letter to the director informing him of their recommendation and offering both professional and committee help. III. DSAC meeting on July 2, 2003 -A meeting is scheduled for July 2nd' 2003, but the committee was concerned that staff would not notify the members if a quorum could not be present. Mr. Webb felt that staff time did not need to be devoted to determining whether or not a quorum would be present, but that this was the responsibility of the committee members. Mr. Masters agreed; he believed that the members were responsible to notify staff if they would be absent. Mr. Mulhere agreed, but added that staff Page 2 June 11, 2003 should notify the members if they find that a quorum will not be present after they receive cancellation calls. Mr. Webb agreed with Mr. Mulhere. Mr. Van Arsdale felt that it was the responsibility of staff to stay on top of the attendance. -Mr. Peek suggested that staff email the members to ensure attendance or staff could add a message on the bottom of the agenda that stated: "it will be assumed that you will be present at the meeting, if you fail to respond to this email". Mr. Webb stated that he could agree with this comment being listed on the agenda, but cautioned that staff's time is devoted to assisting four committees. IV. Cycle 2 2003 LDC Amendments A) Section 2.4.3.5 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Webb noted there was a revision to this amendment that changed the distance from 10ft to 12.5fi. -Mr. Disney asked why they were changing this by 2.5ft. Nancy Siemion stated that they were attempting to remove the light poles from under the tree canopies. She clarified that staff was primarily concerned with the light poles being placed in the islands. Mr. Disney did not feel that 2.5ft was enough. -Mr. Mulhere stated that people wanted to put the light poles in green-space because they are more attractive and protected there. Nancy Siemion noted that they are not functional if the light is blocked by trees. -Mr. Peek asked if this amendment prohibited placing accent lighting on trees. Nancy Siemion stated that it did not; only parking lot/sight lighting. -Mr. Disney felt that pushing the light fixtures "out" would be less attractive. Nancy Siemion disagreed and added that functionality was the primary goal. -Mr. Martin asked if they could eliminate the trees. Nancy Siemion stated that they could not, but suggested separate islands for the light pole. -All the committee members supported the amendment. B) Section 2.4.4.18.1 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Peek felt that creating a low-berm at a uniform height was unattractive and added that nature is not uniform. Mr. Disney agreed and added that a maximum Page 3 June 11, 2003 height of 12ft would not address sound buffering to the extent desired by some developments. -Mr. Martin stated that "no steeper than 10-1" should be used rather than "minimum slope". Nancy Siemion agreed to the change. -Mr. Martin asked why sod could not be used as a stabilizer instead of an "erosion control fabric". Nancy Siemion stated that it was because the slopes were 2-1. Mr. Martin pointed out that the slope could be 4-1. Nancy Siemion stated that the wording was misleading and it was meant to be a 2-1 slope. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Mulhere suggested the words: "for berms with a slope steeper than x, an erosion control fabric shall be utilized". Nancy Siemion agreed, adding that the slope would be 2-1. -Mr. Martin asked what the "centerline" was and that a point of clarification be placed into this portion of the amendment. -For clarity purposes, Mr. Disney suggested that they use the words: "tow of slope of the berm must be located..." instead of"the base of the berm". -Nancy Siemion asked that the committee establish a height for the berms that would be acceptable. Mr. Peek stated that he would rather see "performance standards or criteria" listed in the code rather than a uniform height. -Dennis Church, Bonita Bay Group, stated that this amendment took the tow of slope from 5ft-10ft, which in effect takes 5ft-10ft from people's property size. -Mr. Mulhere made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment as written and to recommend that staff rewrite the amendment to develop specific performance standards that would address staff concerns relative to berms. It was seconded by Mr. Peek. -Mr. Martin added that he would also like to see the specification that erosion control fabric will only be used on 2-1 slope or steeper. Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Peek included this in the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. C) Section 2.4.5.2.1 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Martin asked how you measured within 15ft of another building's view. He asked that "view" be defined. Page 4 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Martin asked what the purpose was for the last sentence, "If rooftop parking is not .... ". Nancy Siemion stated that they were trying to make up for "lost" landscaping. Mr. Mulhere felt that this was a "punishment" for someone who chose to build vertically. Mr. Mulhere explained that that the purpose of vehicular landscaping was lighting and aesthetics, therefore if there was no surface parking, then there was no need to make the landscaping "more aesthetic". -Mr. Disney stated that there are larger issues than the landscaping. He listed his concerns: the distance of 1500ft, how does the trellis on the roof of the parking structure affect allowable building height, the costs are substantial, appearance vs. type 1 & type 2 non-combustible construction, is there a need for a trellis on top a roof that is completely shaded, where is the trellis to be placed, this is an architectural design issue on top of a building not a landscaping issue, and offset increased landscaping of the ground that is not necessary. Mr. Disney asked staff to consider the large implications with what they are asking to be done and added that this amendment does not clearly identify them. -Mr. Mulhere stated that the 2nd paragraph should be rewritten to clarify that all or some portion of the displaced landscaping be utilized as parking structure perimeter landscaping to soften the appearance. He also noted that the first paragraph should clarify "1500ft from another building and if the rooftop parking is visible from that building". -Mr. Peek asked that the limitation of 1500ft be removed and that the amendment state that any parking structure with rooftop parking should have a trellis on it. He didn't agree that the structure should be required, but he felt that if it was required, then they needed to be consistent. Susan Murray stated that they could revise the amendment as Mr. Peek suggested. She also noted that they could revise the amendment with respect to the additional landscaping, clarifying the intent of buffering the parking structure itself. -Mr. Van Arsdale was against requiring landscaping on the rooftop of a parking structure, since it is a "building". -Mr. Martin wanted to leave this portion of the LDC as is and did not support the proposed amendment. Page 5 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Mulhere made a motion to recommend that this amendment be revised to eliminate any rooftop landscaping required for parking structures, but support requiring foundation landscaping around parking structures as long as the staff develops more specific language relating to this. It was seconded by Mr. Savage. -Mr. ]ylartin felt that if the parking structure required additional landscaping, then it should be required consistently throughout the code. -Mr. Disney felt that the architectural issues should be relocated into section 2.8. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. D) Section 2.4.5.4 - Landscaping and Buffering -Nancy Siemion stated that the only change was that the old item #2 is now item #1 and they are removing the words "beginning on June 1, 2002". -All the committee members supported the amendment. E) Section 2.4.6.6 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Martin asked why "building perimeter" was being changed to "foundation". Nancy Siemion informed him that staff felt foundation would be a more accurate word to describe what it is. -Nancy Siemion stated that the changes were primarily on page 27 with the table. She explained that this amendment was a BCC request. -Mr. Disney felt that this amendment consumed so much land that it reduced the density, usable land, and that it takes away individual property rights. -Mr. Mulhere stated that he could understand a need for more setback from building height, but this amendment consequently reduces building height. Susan Murray stated that she believed this was an "unintended" consequence and she would need to take a closer look at the amendment and make sure that the intent works. -Mr. Disney made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment, because the formulas do not work. The motion also included a request that this amendment be revised and that it returns before DSAC for review. Page 6 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Mulhere suggested that the motion be amended to consider the volume of perimeter planting rather than the width. Mr. Disney did not agree and did not amend his motion. -The motion was recalled. Mr. Mulhere seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. F) Section 2.4.7.2 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Disney felt that 90days was too short. Susan Murray stated that the BCC requested 90days, because they want non-conforming sites brought into compliance sooner. Susan Murray explained that issues arising with this amendment will be covered in the zoning certificate process and that the amendment is really 90days "to the maximum extent possible". -Mr. Mulhere felt that 90days was reasonable. -Mr. Arsdale felt that it was an "onerous" process. -Mr. Mulhere asked how this would apply to a multi-unit building. Susan Murray replied that it would be "to maximum extent possible". Mr. Van Arsdale stated that this allows for a "lack of standard law" and that there would be a need for too many staff interpretations. Susan Murray replied staff does not have many complaints from this and that staff is focusing on the older, degrading sites and the sites without handicap parking spaces. -Mr. Peek made a motion to recommend support of the amendment. It was seconded by Mr. Mulhere. The motion passed: (Mr. Jones & Mr. Disney were opposed). G) Section 2.4.7.3 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Martin noted that on page 30 - at the top of the page- where it states "not less than", the words should be changed to "not steeper than". Susan Murray agreed with this. -Mr. Mulhere noted that on page 30 - #2 where it states "the narrow and steep", the words should be changed to "narrow and steep". In the second line he pointed out that it would be acceptable to say "these nan'ow and steep wet or dry management areas". Page 7 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Duane was bothered by doing this, ("putting a wiggle on"), to dry retention areas. Mr. Disney stated that this does not make sense in a dry retention area. Mr. Espinar added that it made no sense to create an ordinance that negates the primary purpose, (conveyance, water quality, & storage), and makes the secondary purpose, (aesthetics), more important. -Mr. Duane made a motion that on page 30 - under "Configuration of water management areas" - that the words "dry retention areas" be removed. -Mr. Mulhere suggested that they strike those words and say "applicable to wet retention areas" instead of "including wet retention areas. Mr. Peek suggested removing both wet and dry retention areas and have the amendment read: "The shape ofa manmade body of water must be designed to appear natural...". Mr. Duane agreed with Mr. Peek's suggestion. -Mr. Duane amended his motion to strike "including wet and dry detention/retention areas". It was seconded by Marco Espinar. -Mr. Martin asked that the motion be amended to include "steeper than" rather than "not less than" on Page 30 and to replace "with the maximum slope" with the words "steeper than or equal to 4-1" on Page 31. Mr. Duane and Mr. Espinar amended their motions to include these changes. -Mr. Disney stated that Page 31 - Item B, "A public access pier with covered structure and seating component", creates an attractive nuisance and an insurance problem for the client when it is a required element. He suggested the removal of item B. -Mr. Mulhere noted that the amendment changes were confusing and requested that the old language and the proposed language be available when this comes back. Staff agreed to this. -The motion was recalled, not including the suggestion of Mr. Disney. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. -Mr. Dalas made a motion to remove Item B from page 31 and require one of the two remaining choices. It was seconded by Mr. Mulhere. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. H) Section 2.4.7.4 - Landscaping and Buffering Page 8 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Disney stated that this amendment was very difficult to read. Nancy Siemion clarified that this was a reinstatement of a LDC code that had been removed in the year "2000". The "2000" code is now being proposed because the current code is creating a loss of required vegetation and overcrowding of the vegetation. Nancy Siemion provided photos to the committee that displayed the loss of vegetation and overcrowding. (Photos were not provided to the court reporter.) -Mr. Mulhere felt that a 20ft buffer between two commercial properties was an excessive amount. -Mr. Duane asked staff if they considered the sub-committees suggestion to require this only on larger lots. Nancy Siemion stated that she considered it, but did not agree with the suggestion. -Mr. Savage stated that he could agree with 5ft & 5fi, but not requiring 10ft &l Oft. Nancy Siemion stated that the BCC was concerned about a lack of green- space on commercial properties. -Mr. White reminded the committee that they are an advisory committee to the BCC and they need to balance board direction with their advice. He asked that if the committee did not support an item, then would they explain why or advise alternatives. -Mr. Disney noted that consistently through the amendments, the fiscal impact is reported as none, when in fact the fiscal impact is large. Mr. White explained that the fiscal impact listed on the amendment reports is the county's fiscal impact, and not an economic analysis for the private individual. Mr. Mulhere noted that this portion of the report was originally intended to cover the fiscal impacts on the county and of the people being regulated by the code. Mr. Martin suggested that two items be listed on the reports: fiscal impacts to the county and fiscal impacts to the community. Mr. White replied that while fiscal impacts may be part of the review, the fiscal impact alone should not be the reason to deny an amendment. He asked that the committee give staff"positive's & negative's on public policy that the board can look at". Mr. Savage stated that the committee represents the industry and therefore the BCC should here all concerns, including fiscal impacts. Page 9 June 11,2003 -Mr. Mulhere made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment, but not supporting the increase of the landscape buffers from 10ft - 20ft. It was seconded by Mr. Duane. The motion passed, (Mr. Jones & Mr. Disney were opposed). I) Section 2.4.7.5 - Landscaping and Buffering -Mr. Martin asked that quantifiable standards be placed into the amendment rather than referring to the "Collier Naplescape 90's Streetscape Master Plan". If the change was not made, then he felt that the master plan should be placed on a website where it would be easily accessible to the public. Mr. Disney agreed with these comments. Susan Murray stated that they will revise this amendment and bring it back for review by the committee meeting on July 2nd, 2003. J) Section 2.6.9.1 & 2.6.9.2 - Essential Services -Mr. Duane made a motion to recommend approval of this amendment. It was seconded by Mr. Mulhere. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. K) Section 2.6.11 - Fences -Mr. Martin asked why chain link and wood fences had to be a minimum of 100fi from the public right-of-way, Page 43 - Item lA. Mr. Disney stated that he had asked the same question and the reason was, primarily, so that no one sees the chain link fence. -Mr. Mulhere made a suggestion for a language correction that would clarify exemptions. Susan Murray agreed to make the changes. -Mr. Martin noted that on Page 43 - lB it states "fences shall not exceed 4 feet in height", but other parts of the code say 3 feet. Susan Murray stated that she would look into this. -Mr. Disney referred to the bottom of page 43, where the code reads: the walls and the fences on commercial properties, contiguous to commercially non- residential developments ....". He stated that this has been a problem on past projects and asked that this statement be removed from the code. Susan Murray stated that a variance can be granted if there is a problem with this situation. Mr. Mulhere suggested placing in the code that someone could apply for a variance Page 10 June 11, 2003 and that someone could ask for a deviation during the zoning process. Susan Murray agreed to this change. L) Section 2.7.2.3.5 - Zoning Amendment Procedures -Mr. Duane noted that the subcommittee supported this amendment and felt that it was a good change. -Mr. Webb stated that there was a second change made; modification of the time period for advertising requirements on the neighborhood informational meeting. -Mr. Mulhere suggested that the amendment would be best to say that one must have it a minimum amount of time before the planning commission review instead of"shall have it within 30days". Mr. Duane agreed with this suggestion. -Mr. Mulhere made a motion to change the words "within 30days of the receipt of the initial round of comments" to the words "at least 14 days preceding the planning commission meeting". It was seconded by Mr. Duane. -On Page 2 the amendment reads: "the advertisement shall be placed within the newspaper and general circulation within the county at least 7 days prior to, but not sooner than 10days before. Mr. Martin felt that this was too short a timeframe. Mr. Mulhere agreed. Mr. Van Arsdale suggested 21 days and 7 days. -Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Duane amended the motion and the second to include this suggestion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. -Mr. White asked if the motion was intended to be specific to the meeting of the CCPC or if it meant the first of the subsequent meetings; EAC or CCPC. -Mr. Mulhere made an amendment to his motion to add the EAC: "a minimum of 14 days prior to the meeting of the EAC or the CCPC, whichever is first". Mr. Duane amended his second. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. M) Section 2.7.3.6 - Zoning Amendment Procedures -Mr. Chrzanowski stated that Joe Schmitt does not like the idea of making a professional engineer responsible; rather he wants to find a responsible party that is likely a CEO of the corporation. Mr. Mulhere did not believe that it should be a VP and felt that all that would be needed is an affidavit. He suggested that they place in the amendment the words: "the truthfulness of this document shall be Page 11 June 11, 2003 attested to by the owner or authorized agent, evident by an affidavit". Mr. White stated that this could be appropriate, but that agent would have to understand that by being designated, they are making a statement, that if false, is considered perjury and punishable by law. -Mr. Martin made a motion to use the wording "...the monitoring report must be in the form of an affidavit and be executed by the property owner or an authorized agent ...... ". Mr. Duane seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. N) The following amendments were voted on together. Section 2.7.7 - Affordable Housing Density bonus Section 6.1.4 - Day Definition Section 6.3 - Definitions -Mr. Duane made a motion that these amendments be approved; they were heard by the subcommittee and supported. Mr. Masters seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. O) Section 3.2.8.4.16.21 - Sidewalk Parking -Mr. Martin stated that he did not support Item #21, because there was no exemption for existing subdivisions. Mr. Webb noted that legislation cannot be applied retroactively. Mr. Martin noted that the review is during the "building permit time". Mr. Mulhere added that it could be a problem if not all of the units have been constructed at the time the amendment is adopted. Mr. Webb agreed and stated that some language may need to be changed in the amendment. Mr. White stated that if the FSP is "through" by the date that this amendment becomes effective, then this regulation would not apply. -Mr. Mulhere suggested the words: "...or plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian sidewalks" instead of the words"...must demonstrate how car(s) will safely fit in the driveway". Mr. Webb agreed to the change. Mr. White asked if the same thing should apply to the corresponding item in Section 3.3.7.9 - #15. Mr. Mulhere stated that it should. Mr. Webb noted that the same language would need to be applied in the Bay Shore Overlay as well. Page 12 June 11, 2003 -Mr. Martin made a motion to add a sentence stating "...however existing PUD's specifying the garage or accessory structure setbacks shall prevail...", and to include Mr. Mulhere's suggestion (referring back to the sidewalks) that was agreed to by Russell Webb. It was seconded by Mr. Mulhere. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously. * Some of the packets referred to at this meeting were distributed at previous DSAC meetings and were not provided to the court reporter in attendance at this meeting. V. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:10PM. Collier County Development Services Committee Chairman Peter Van Arsdale Page 13