LDR Minutes 11/13/2017November 13,2017
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COI-INTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 13,2017
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 3:00 PM in a REGULAR
SESSION at the Growth Management Department Building, Room 609/610, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the following persons present:
Chairman: Clay Brooker
Blair Foley
Robert Mulhere
Brad Schiffer
ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Frantz,LDC Manager, Zonitg Division
Ellen Summers, Senior Planner, Zontng Division
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division
Ray Bellows,, Zornng Manager, Zoning Division
David Weeks, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division
Nicholas Lehman, Environmental Specialist, Pollution Control
Steve Preston, Senior Project Manager, Pollution Control
Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Conhol Manager, Pollution Control
Michelle Amold, Director, Public Transit and Neighborhood
Enhancement
November 13,2017
Any percons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may ruquest a copy of the audio recording
from the Collier Counqt Growlh Management Division,
1. Call to order
Mr. Brooker called the meeting to order at 3:00pm
2. Approve agenda
The Subcommittee approved the Agenda as presented,
3. Approve June2l,20l7, meeting minutes
Mr. Schilfer moved to approve the minules of the June 21, 2017, meeting as presented. Second.
hy Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 3 - 0.
4. Review of LDC amendments
a. Section 4.02.06: Privately Initiated Amendment to Standards for Development in Airport
Zones.
Robert Mulhere introduced the amendment noting it is privately initiated to ad&ess an
application in the Mini-Triangle project.
Change: To expressly identifu an exemption (applicable to the Mini-Triangle project) to the
LDC Airport Zone height limitations, generally utilizing the same format previously used
to identifu an exemption for the Marco Shores Golf Course Community, and to renumbcr/rcformat
the related paragraphs.
Reason: The proposed amendments are necessary to reflect the height exemption (from the
applicable Airport Zone building height limitationi), so anyone utili;ng the LDC to determine
limitations for properties within the designated "Airport Zones" would see the Mini-Triangle has a
limited exemption (from the height limitations) and would understand the need to review the
referenced ordinance number for the Mini-Triangle MPUD to determine the exact nature of the
exemption.
Mr. Mulhere reported:o The proposed amendment is consistent with the current exemption for the Marco Shores
Development.r The proposed amendment is consistent with recommendations by Staff including the
County Attomey's office.o Thc F A.A has issued a "Determination of No Hazard" for the proposed project.o The Naples Airport Authority supported the project once the FAA letters were received.. One of the existing cell phone towers located on site is 196 feet high, taller than the height
of the proposed structures.o The Mini-Triangle Project is generally located at the intersection of U.S. 41, Davis
Boulevard, and Commercial Drive.o He is abstaining from voting on the item and has filed the necessary documentation, Form
88, memorandum of voting conflict with Staff.
Mr. Booker suggested the applicant to look at the agreement between Johnson Bay Development
Corporation, Collier County Airport Authority, and the BCC, dated August 8, 1995, mentioned in
the exemption for the Marco Shores Development, to determine if there were any additional
changes that may need to be addressed by this amendment.
2
November 13.2017
Mr. Schiffer moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend. the Bosrd
of County Commissioners adopt lhe pruposed amendmenL Second by Chairman Brooker.
Carried unanimously 3 - 0. Mr. Mulhere abslained-
* Mr. Foley arrived at 3:3 Spry afier preliminary discussion of the item had taken place. The item
was "recapped" for his benefit and the offtcial vote was laken ul lhis time.
b. Section 2.03.0E: Modifications to the RFMUD and Rural Fringe Areas Map.
Mr. Weeks presented three proposed amendments and reported all of these Items b, c, and d are
"housekeeping items" to clariry sections of the code for consistency with a GMP amendment that
removcd a property fiom the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Distnct.
SUMMARY: To modifu provisions related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the Rural
Fringe Areas map for clarity and compatibility with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Mr. Mulhere moved for the Development Semices Advisory Committee to recommend the Board
of Coanly Commissioners adopt lhe proposed amendmenl Second by Mr, Schffir, Carried
unanimously 3 - 0.
c. Sections 2.03.0t & 3.05.07: Modificatiotrs to the provisions of the NBMO,
SUMMARY: To modifo provisions related to the North Belle Meade Overlay specific only to
Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, for compatibility with the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
Mr. Mulhere asked for clarification regarding the reference to a settlement. Mr. Weeks responded
that the ameodment references a partial stipulated settlement that is related to an agreement with
the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO).
Mr. Mulhere moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board
of Counly Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment Second by Mn Schffir. Caruied
unanimously 3 - 0.
d. Section 4.02.14: Modifications to the Big Cypress ACSC and 5 zoning maps.
ZONING MAPS : 522930, 2033N, 2033 S, 2034N, 20345
Mr. Weeks presented the amendment stating that an administrative rule exempted these areas in
the 1970's and this exemption was recently discovcred by Staff.
Mr. Mulhere asked whether any property owners have been impacted. Mr. Weeks stated that the
four sections are owned by the State.
SUMMARY: To modifl provisions related to the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern
(ACSC) and five zoning maps within Township 52 South, Range 30 East, in order to ensure
consistency with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
3
November 13,2017
Mr. Mulhere moved for the Development Services Advisory Commiltee to recommend the Board
of County Commissioners adopt lhe proposed amendmenl Second by Mn Schffir, Carried
unanimoasly 3 - 0.
Section 6.01.05: Requiring soil erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices for
I & 2-family, townhouses, and underground utility construction
Mr. Henderlong presented the proposcd amendment and introduced staff members from
Stormwater Management and Pollution Control who are prescnt to answer any questions.
SUMMARY: The amendment proposcs to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for soil
erosion and sediment control to devclopments such as single-family, two-family, townhouse
strucrures and underground construction activities.
Mr. Schiffer asked what types of BMPs would prevent the issues presented in the amendment.
Mr. Preston answered that any method that works may be used, including hay bales, sediment
fences or construction phasing.
Mr. Mulhere moved for the Developmenl Semices Advisory Committee lo recommend the Board
of County Commissioners adopt lhe proposed amendmenl subjecl to Seclion 6.01.05.8.3 reading
"Debris generated on site, including but nol limiled to building malerials, concrete truck wash
out,..". Second by Mr, Schffir, Carried unanimously 3 - 0.
Section 4.03.04: Clarifying Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments and Lot Splits.
Mr. Henderlong presented thc proposed amendment.
SUMMARY: The amendment clanfics the review and timely recording procedure for both
lot line adjustments and lot splits, and clarifies that lot splits are applicable in all zoning distncts.
Subcommiftee discussion occurred on:
Section 4.03.04 A - The requirement to file the lot line adjustment or lot split with the
County Clerk's office within 12 months of approval. Concem was expressed the time
frame may be too long and consideration could be given to shortening it.
Section 4.03.04 A - Rernoving the word, "specifically" from line 3 of Section 4.03.04.A.
Section 4.03.04 A - The first sentence is long and may be confusing and could be revised
for grammar and clarity.
Mr. Foley arrived at j:35pm
Staff reporled they would research the timeframe for ftling with the County Clerk and report
back to the DSAC when lhe ilem is heard. Stalf will also make correclions to lhe nafialive thsl
currently states lot splits and lot line adjuslments are limited to the Rural Agricaltural (A) and
Estates (E) xoning districts.
Mr, Mulhere moved for lhe Development Semices Advisory Commitlee lo recommend lhe Board
of Counly Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment subject to staff reviewing the
rationale for lhe l2-month requirement referenced above und teporting back to the full
4
November 13,2017
Committee; Section 4.03.04 A lo read "Generally. Only lot line adjustments or lot split requests
meeting the applicable land developmenl regulations, including the minimum lol area and
dimensions..." and; the firsl sentence in Section 4.03.04 A to be broken up for grammar and
clarily. Second by Mr. Schffir. Carried unanimously 4 - 0.
g. Section 10.01.02: Clarifying criteria for Early Work Authorizations.
Mr. Henderlong presented the proposed amendment, stating it is a clean-up item fiom a change to
the process that occuned in 2006.
SUMMARY: The amendment proposes to remove the requirement for a determination of legal
sufficiency for an Early Work Authorization (EWA) permit agreement.
Mr. Brooker noted that there is a repeated paragraph in the narrative.
Mr. Foley moved for the Developmenl Semices Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of
Coung Commissioners adopl lhe proposed amendment sabject to removing the duplicate
paragraph (slarts "Since 2005, EWA....') from the introduction Second by Mulhere. Carried
unanimously 4 - 0.
h. Section 10.02.13 & 10.03.06: Clarifying Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change
approval process.
Mr. Frantz presented the proposed amendment, noting the amendment was generated due to a
Board of County Commissioners directive to ensure the County complies with the Florida Statutes.
Thc proposal includes any necessary amendments to the Administrative Code.
SUMMARY: The amendment adds a requirement for PUD insubstantial changes (PDIs) and
PUD minor changes (PMCs) to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to
approve the ordinance amendment.
The Subcommiftee discussed the process ofapproval of ordinances and Mr. Bosi clarified that the
CCPC and HEX approve the ordinance amendment, and the BCC affrrms the amendment.
Mr. Schffir moved for lhe Development Semices Advisory Committee to recommend the Bourd
of Coung Conmlssioners adopl lhe proposed amendment and Chapter 3, Section G.3 and G4
(or any others as necessary to fu$ill the requiremenls) of the Administralive Code. Second by
Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 4 - 0.
i. Sections 2.03.07, 4.02.01, 4.02.03, 4.02.04 & 4.02.06: Clarifying dimensional standards for
accessory buildings and structures,
Mr. Frantz presented the proposed amcndment, stating it began in response to a variance hcaring
but staff has also added changes to improve the usability ofthe two existing tables.
SUMMARY: To reorganize the dimensional standards tables for accessory structurcs to clariry
several provisions and highlight swimming pool and screen enclosure setbacks.
Staffnoted that a change to the structure to structure setback was described in the amendment
narrativc, but was not rgcorded in the amendment.
November 13,2017
Subcommittee discussion occurred on the rationale for allowing an exception to setbacks for
generators rather than modifuing the setback itself. It was discussed that the table should identifu \-.
the general setback for the use first as "SPS," and then provide exceptions for certain
circumstances. However, it was determined that the exception could be notcd differently in thc
tablc.
The Subcommiltee rccommended the following changes:
1. Revise lhe reference to davits, hoists and lifis from "SPS" to "None."
2. Provide a footnote within applicable sections of the lable and an explanation b'ithin the table
nNoles' lo direct users to reference other section of County codes as necessary for
exemptions and exclusions to designs standard.
Mr. Mulhere moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board
of Counly Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment subject to lhe changes listed above.
Second by Mr. Schffir. Carried unanimoasly 4 - 0.
j. Section 10.02.09: Removing limits on texts amendments to the LDC.
Mr. Frantz presented the proposed amendment.
SUMMARY: The amendment proposes to modifu the number of times amendments to the Land
Development Code (LDC) may be made.
Staffnoted the proposal is to remove the two times a year limit that amendments may be proposcd.
The proposal includes amendments to the Administrative Code as well, which was not previously
identified in the narrative.
The Subcommittee requested Slalfto contacl lhe County Attorney's olfice lo ensure the proposal
is complianl with State Statutes. The Subcommittee also rcqaested Stafl research why lhe
original limit was in place.
Mr. Foley suggested considering whether the ability to request a waiver from ttre pre-application
meeting requirement in the Administrative Code should be identified.
Mr. Foley moved for the Development Senices Advisory Committee to recomntend the Board of
Counly Commissioners adopt the proposed amendmenl and lhose proposed lo Chapter 2,
Section B (ot other as necessary to fulfill the requiremenls) of the Administtative Code. Second
by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimoasly 4 - 0.
k. Section 9.04.04: Estabtishing an exception from an Administrative Veriance for Minor After-
the-Fact Encroachments
Ms. Summers presented the proposed amendment, and clarified that the exemption does not apply
to foundations that encroach on required yards.
SUMMARY: To create an exception from the requirement to pursue an Administrative Variance
for residential structures with setback encroachments of three inches or less that result ftom the
application of exterior wall treatments.
6
5.
November 13,201.7
Mr. Schffir movedfor the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend lhe Board
of Counly Commissioners adopt the proposed amendmenl Second by Mr. Foley. Carried
unanimously 4 - 0.
l. Sections 2.03.03 & 2,03.04: Establishing martial arts, gymnastics, and dance as permitted
uses in C-3 zoning district.
Mr, Bellows presented the proposed amendment, stating that this amendment addresses corlmon
questions from the public by codifoing an existing staff memo.
SUMMARY: The amendment proposes to clariff "martial arts" and " dance, gymnastics, judo,
and karate instructions," as permitted uses in thc C-3 and Industrial zoning districts where physical
fitness facilities are also permitted uses. It clarifies "outdoor" amusement and recreation services
are conditional uses in the C-3 zoning district and reinstate an omitted Standard Industnal
Classification Code in the C-4 zoning district.
Mr. Schilfer moved for the Development Semices Advisory Committee lo recommend lhe Board
of County Commissioners adopl the proposed amendmenl Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried
unanimously 4 - 0.
m, Sections 1.0E.02 & 9.03.03: Re-codifying definition for "nonconforming lot of record"
Mr. Bellows presented the proposed amendment.
SUMMARY: To reinstate the definition for a "nonconforming lot of record" as previously
codified by Ordinance 91-102 and amended by Ordinance 99-6.
Staffrcported thc amendment is to clarify ambiguities in the types of non conformity.
Mr. Brooker asked for clarification regarding the removal ofthe language proposed to be
removcd which said, "except as my then be allowed by this Code." Staffresponded that the
language could be retained.
Mr. Mulhere asked for clarification regarding the effective date of this Code." Mr. Bellows
responded that this language sometimes refers to a date in 1974. Thc Subcommittee suggested that
staff contact the County Aftorney's Office to determine any language changes that may be required
to clarify the "effective date of this Code" references contained in the proposed amendment.
The Subcommillee reviewed the proposed amendmenl and recommended the following changes:l. Correcl two tltpos in lhe narralive.
2. Section 9.03.03A.4 - reinsert the language proposed to be removed "except os may then be
allowed by this Code."
3. Use the appropfiate date rather than the phruse "eft'eclive date of this Code."
Mn Mulhere moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend lhe Board
of Counly Commissioners adopl the proposed amendment sabject to the recommendations listed
above. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Canied unanimously 3 - 0.
Public comments
None
7
November 13,2017
Mr. Brooker enquired as to the latest Board action and timing of the moratorium on medical
marijuana dispensaries. Staff noted that the Board directed staff to extend the moratorium for an
additional six months and monitor whether the Legislature provides local governments with the ability
to regulate dispensaries. Mr. Brooker noted that extending moratoriums beyond one year can be
problematic legally.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order
of the Chair at 4:25PM.
COLLIER COTJNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE . LA}[D DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
Attached to these meeting minutes is Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict For County,
Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers.
as presented , or asThese Minutes were approved by the Committee on
amended
8
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNIGIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
_/7Rtbc,.l t/.
l/\liEH I SEruE ls AUI'T OF:
o (lrY e"dlY o oTHER LocTLAGEN.Y
3 (k-2rea-fzs,t /r-n e-
tl- tg'?-o/
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
Thls form lE for use by sny p€rson seMng at the courty, clty, or othor local levsl of goesmment on an appointed or elected boad. councll,
commlsslon, authorlty, or committee, lt applies to mernbers of advisory and norFadvisory bodies who are presented wllh a votng conflicl of
interesl under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responslblliflos under the law when tacod wlth voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of lnErest will vary grEally depending
on vrhether you hold an eleclive o{ appointive position. For thls rsegon, plea3e pay closo atbnton to the inshucdiors on biE brm befurB
completing and fillng thB form
cE FORiI CB - EFF. 11r20t3
A.bpled by rE dEn(a ln Rde 347.oto{1)(0. F.A,C-
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WTH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A p€rson holding elective or appolritfuE counv munlcjpsl, or oth€r local public ofrc€ MUST ABSTAIN from voting on e mes6urE whiclt
would inurB to his or her specisl privale gain or loss, Each €lectod or sppolnt€d locsl omcsr slso MUSTABSTAIN from knowingly votirE on
a measure which would inure to ths sp€oial galn or loss of I princlpal (oth€r han a govemmonl agancy) by whorn he or stE is r€tained
(including the parent, subsldiary, or sibllng organizEtlon ol E princlpal by whloh he or she ls retsined)i to the spocial priv€te gain or loss of a
relative; or !c the sp6cial private gain or loss of 8 business associste. Commissroners of community redevelopmont agencies (CRAS) under
Sec. 163.358 or 163.357, F.S., and omcarB of indBp€nd€nt specisl tax disEicts elected on a one-ac.e, on+vole basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law. a "relatlve' includes only the officar's fathei mothei son, dsughtgr. husbgnd, wife, brother, siste( father-ln-l6u
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daLlghtsr]ftlaw A'buslness assoclate' m€ang any p€rson or entity cngaged ln or carrying on a business
enterprlso with the ofilcer as I partner, Jolnt \enturcr, coowner of property. or corporate shaGholder (where the shares of the corporatlon
arB not listed on any natlonal or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
ln addltion to ebgtainlng frDm voling in the situations descrlbod sbow, you must dlsclose th€ confrict
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publdy stetng to th€ sssembty he neture ot your intBrest ln the measurE on which you alg
abst8ining from vodng; ard
WTHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by compl€ting and filino thlB torm with lh€ person responsibls for rEcordhg t|g
minules of the mBetirE, who should lncorporsb he fa,rm ln th€ minut€s
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must absteln from voting in the situaibns d€scrb€d 8bo\./E, you ar€ not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwls€
participating ln thes6 mettsrs. Ho,yever, you must dlsclose he natuG ot th€ confilct bebre mehng any atEmpl lo influence lhe decision,
whether orally or in wrltlng snd wlle$er made by you oI at your dirBctbn.
IF YOU INTENO TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE YI]LL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete snd fil€ this form (bebre making any atlBmpt to influenca the d6dslon) wtth tho person rgsponsibl€ for recording the
minutB of the m.atirE, who will lncorporate tho lorm in tho minutes. (Continued on pag6 2)
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the brm must b€ provlded immediatety to th€ ohsr membgrs of tho agoncy.
' The form must be read publicly at the nsxt meetirE afrer hE form is filed.
IF YOU i'AKE NOATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
' You must dlsclose oratly the nature of your confllct in the m€asure belore panicjpating.
' You must compl 5 days after the vote occurs with the person responshlo for rscording the mlnutes of the
me6Ing, who m minute3. A copy of the form must be provided imm€diately to the o0;r mombers of lhB
agency, snd the tha neld m6€tin9 aflor the torm is fi16d.
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112,317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF rHE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY REPRIMAND, OR AovlL PENALTY NOTTO EXCEED 910,000.
cE FORM 8a, EFF. 1r/20r3
Adopted by refercncs h Rul6 31-7.010(1)(0, F^,c.
R
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
. hersby dlsclose that on
(a)A msasurB came orwill come befoE my agency which (check one or more)
. inurEd to my special privite gain or lnssl
lnursd to the special gain or lo6s ofmy business associate,
inurod to the special gain or loss of my
inur€d to ths specialgaln or loss of
whom lam retainedfiil a-4 a- C.5,15*t -{t,,,.--+ -
inurBd to the spBcialgaln or loss ot which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibllng orgsnization or subBidlary of a principal \,vhich has re.tained me.
(b) The measure bsforc my agenry and the nature otmy conflicting inter€st ln the measure is as folrows:
L- -9 u.% AE-.-*C---A +, 7,,-V{-n- ^!-,d,n-1 l-.5t-s. l-<o.r A,ep.r-n Ou.-\^.a )(rcLt ". ",
lf disdosure of spociffc inbrmation would violsle confidentiallty or privilege pur8uant to law or rules goveming attomeys, a public officer,rrrho ls also an attomey. may comply with the dlsclosure requlrements ot thls sectlon by olsctosltB thjnature 6f fie tnterest in such a way
ss b provide the publlc wlth notics of the conflicl
l( -t3')-ut7
Date Filed
PAGE 2