CCPC Minutes 06/17/2004 R
June 17,2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, June 17, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 830 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Paul Midney
Kenneth Abernathy
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
Robert Vigliotti
Dwight Richardson
(Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, COrllmunity Dev. & Environmental Services
Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
1
""
.A"
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 17,2004, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County
Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters
coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community
Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 20, 2004, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 17,2004, JOINT WORKSHOP; MAY 18,2004, WORKSHOP; MAY 25, 2004,
REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5756, Cypress Glen Development Corporation represented by George H.
Hermason, P.E., requesting a variance of 1.25 feet from IS-foot separation between structures required
by the Cypress Glen PUD, to 13.75 feet, for the separation between Building 6 and Building 7. The
property is located in the Cypress Glen PUD, also described as Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer)
1
__._.". __"___.m.._."__,_..__..
B. LDC Amendments, CONTINUED: An Ordinance Of The Board Of County Commissioners Of Collier
County, Florida, Recodifying The Collier County Land Development Code, Which Includes The
Comprehensive Regulations For The Unincorporated Area Of Collier County, Florida, By Superceding
Ordinance Number 91-102, As Amended; Providing For: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings Of
Fact; Section Three, Recodification Of The Unified Land Development Code, More Specifically By Creating
The Following: Chapter I - General Provisions, Including Sec. 1.01.00 Title, Sec. 1.02.00 Authority, Sec.
1.03.00 Rules Of Construction, Sec. 1.04.00 Applicability, Sec. 1.05.00 Findings, Purpose And Intent, Sec.
1.06.00 Rules Of Interpretation, Sec. 1.07.00 Laws Adopted By Reference, Sec. 1.08.00 Definitions; Chapter
2 _ Zoning Districts And Uses, Including Sec. 2.01.00 Generally, Sec. 2.02.00 Establishment Of Zoning
Districts, Sec. 2.03.00 Zoning Districts, Sec. 2.04.00 Permissible, Conditional, And Accessory Uses In
Zoning Districts, Sec. 2.05.00 Density Standards, Sec. 2.06.00 Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Sec.
2.07.00 Table Of Setbacks For Base Zoning Districts; Chapter 3 - Resource Protection, Including Sec.
3.01.00 Generally, Sec. 3.02.00 Floodplain Protection, Sec. 3.03.00 Coastal Zone Management, Sec. 3.04.00
Protection Of Endangered, Threatened, Or Listed Species, Sec. 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal, Protection, And
Preservation, Sec. 3.06.00 Wellfield And Groundwater Protection; Chapter 4 - Site Design And
Development Standards, Including Sec. 4.01.00 Generally, Sec. 4.02.00 Site Design Standards, Sec. 4.03.00
Subdivision Design And Layout, Sec. 4.04.00 Transportation System Standards, Sec. 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking
And Loading, Sec. 4.06.00 Landscaping, Buffering, And Vegetation Retention, Sec. 4.07.00 Design Standards
For Planned Unit Developments, Sec. 4.08.00 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District
Standards And Procedures, List Of Tables In Chapter 4; Chapter 5 - Supplemental Standards, Including Sec.
5.01.00 Generally, Sec. 5.02.00 Home Occupations, Sec. 5.03.00 Accessory Uses And Structures, Sec.
5.04.00 Temporary Uses And Structures, Sec. 5.05.00 Supplemental Standards For Specific Uses, Sec.
5.06.00 Signs, Including An Amendment To Sec. 5.06.06 Political Signs; Chapter 6 - Infrastructure
Improvements And Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, Including Sec. 6.01.00 Generally, Sec. 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, Sec. 6.03.00 Wastewater Systems And Improvements Standard,
Sec. 6.04.00 Potable Water Systems And Improvements Standards, Sec. 6.05.00 Water Management Systems
And Drainage Improvement Standards, Sec. 6.06.00 Transportation System Standards; Chapter 7 -
Reserved; Chapter 8 _ Decision-Making And Administrative Bodies, Including Sec. 8.01.00 Generally, Sec.
8.02.00 Board Of County Commissioners, Sec. 8.03.00 Planning Commission, Sec. 8.04.00 Board Of Zoning
Appeals, Sec. 8.05.00 Building Board Of Adjustments And Appeals, Sec. 8.06.00 Environmental Advisory
Council, Sec. 8.07.00 Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board, Sec. 8.08.00 Code Enforcement Board;
Sec. 8.09.00 Community Development And Environmental Services Division; Chapter 9 - Variations From
Code Requirements, Including Sec. 9.01.00 Generally, Sec. 9.02.00 Development With Vested Rights, Sec.
9.03.00 Nonconformities, Sec. 9.04.00 Variances; Chapter 10 - Application, Review, And Decision-Making
Procedures, Including Sec. 10.01.00 Generally, Sec. 10.02.00 Application Requirements, Sec. 10.03.00
Notice Requirements, Sec. 10.04.00 Review And Action On Applications For Development Orders And
Petitions For Amendments To The Official Zoning Map, The LDC, Or The GMP, Sec. 10.05.00
Amendments To Development Orders, Sec. 10.06.00 Appeals, Sec. 10.07.00 Enforcement, Sec. 10.08.00
Conditional Uses Procedures, And Appendices A Through H, Including A New Appendix "H" Of Cross-
References Between The LDC And UDC; Section Four, Repealer; Section Five, Conflict And Severability;
Section Six, Inclusion In The Collier County Land Development Code; And Section Seven, Effective Date.
(Coordinator: Russell Webb)
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
eepe AgendalRB/sp
2
June 17,2004
1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call- a quorum was established with Mr. Richardson being excused.
3. Addenda to the Agenda: None
4. Planning Commission Absences: Mr. Midney will not be in attendance in July.
5. Approval of Minutes - May 20, 2004, Regular Meeting:
Mr. Budd asked for approval of the May 6th & May 20th minutes.
Mr. Vigliotti moved to approve the May 6th & May 20th, 2004 minutes. Second by
Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Mr. Schiffer asked about the May 6th minutes as he did not receive them in his packet.
Several other members did not receive them either.
Mr. Vigliotti moved to approve the May 20th minutes only. Second by Mr. Strain.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
6. BCC Report - Recaps - May 17, 2004, Joint Workshop, May 18th, 2004,
Workshop, May 25, 2004, Regular Meeting - Mr. Bellows reported:
· BCC heard the Conditional Use for the church on San Marcos Blvd. Planning
Commission had a tie vote and the Board upheld the staffs recommendation for
denial 5-0.
· Hamilton Harbor was approved.
7. Chairman's Report: None
8. Advertised Public Hearings:
A. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5756, Cypress Glen Development
Corporation represented by George H. Hermason, P.E., requesting a
variance of 1.25 feet from 15-foot separation between structures
required by the Cypress Glen PUD, to 13.75 feet, for the separation
between Building 6 and Building 7. The property is located in the
Cypress Glen PUD, Collier County, Florida.
Disclosures: Mr. Strain spoke with the owner about the aspects of where the variance is
needed etc.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
2
June 17, 2004
PETITIONER
Bill Clone - President of MDG Capital Corporation - George Hermason is VP of
Hole Montes and out if town. Others from Hole Montes were in attendance.
Cypress Glen Townhomes of 120 was planned for a workforce housing community and
have 77 sales to the workforce. They are now sold out. In a variance with a building
being in the wrong place is often an error on account of many. In this case it is the CAD
technician making the error. Showed map of the area on the visualizer along with the
buildings on Pine Ridge Road. Two buildings shown were in alignment. When
engineers did overlay to overlay the site plan under the existing utilities, noted back flow
preventer and had to meet the appropriate set-backs. CAD technician rotated the
buildings. Should have rotated from one of the comers, shown on the map, from one of
the comers out, but rotated instead causing one comer to become too close - 13.57 feet.
Survey crew surveyed exactly what the CAD technician had drawn. They don't look at
the drawings for the dimensional aspects but survey the lines drawn in CAD.
No one will suffer from it.
They had gone to the County Commissioners and met with staff and Mr. Schmitt. Was
their intention to go before the BCC and ask to restart work - it was an honest error.
They understand the risk while going through the variance process and the Commission
gave them the authorization subject to going through the process. Thus doing the
presentation now.
He asked, since the units are all sold, financing is in place, and are preparing to close, that
one of the conditions - if the buildings were damaged beyond 50% they would have to
demolish the buildings and start again. He is asking when approving the variance that it
be without the condition of re-building if damaged beyond 50%. The reason is the
financing is all in place and may jeopardize the financing.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - that's a provision in the Code - when
a non-conforming situation. Generally that is the case that if it is non-conforming and
damaged by a certain percent it has to be rebuilt in conformity with the Code. (50%)
Mr. Strain stated if the applicant had come in for a 12 foot separation between buildings
and was granted it, he wouldn't be there. He asked what the difference was approving it
today, than him getting the original separation as stated regardless. It is a PUD. Instead
of a variance, he asked if the applicant should have modified the PUD.
Marjorie Student discussed it is a requirement of the Code and is a PUD. Her concern
is equal protection of differentiating between this project and others that would be
different in the Code. What is unique about this one - if they can make a finding in that
regard, she would feel more comfortable? She wished the applicant or attorneys would
have discussed the issue with their office, as it is a legal issue.
If there is something unique that is different, otherwise they could.
3
June 17,2004
The buildings are town homes - bedrooms upstairs and living rooms down. Multi-family
houses with concrete block separation between units.
STAFF
Robin Meyer - Zoning and Land Development Review - all public notice was given,
the sign up and no complaints or other comments received. Staff is in support of granting
the variance.
It is a condominium association. Mr. Murray asked why the 50% rule would be a
negative. Mr. Clone responded he was not certain it to be a negative situation. It would
be a problem with the financing for the end user going back to their lenders for the
financing process again.
Marjorie Student stated this is a County wide provision in the Code and lending
institutions are familiar with it.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of VA 2004-AR-5756 with the staff
recommendations except recommendation #2. Reason being eliminating - is a PUD
zoning, which is to provide flexible development standards for design. It is an
interior separation and not affecting any exterior set-backs to the project.
Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
B. LDC Amendments, CONTINUED: An Ordinance of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Recodifying the
Collier County Land Development Code, Which includes the
Comprehensive Regulations for the Unincorporated area of Collier
County Florida, by Superceding Ordinance No. 91-102, as Amended;
providing for: Section One Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact;
Section Three, Recodification of the Unified Land Development Code,
More specifically by Creating the Following Chapters as stated and
printed in the Agenda.
Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - have reviewed the affidavit of
Publication and it correctly states the date, time and place of to day's meeting and was
turned over to the minute taker for record keeping purposes.
Changes were discussed with no official actions taken at the workshop held Friday, June
11 tho He thanked all of those attending and their input in the process. It was valuable to
the staff and him which led them to create a process balances "unintended consequences"
with ability to address appropriately.
He noted the following:
· Section 5 - in red - lays out an exception for circumstances where there are
conflicts between the UDC and the LDC recognizing the desire of the CCPC and
4
June 17,2004
hopefully the BCC, that there be no change in the substance of outcomes based
upon the revisions to the Land Development Code to create the UDC.
· There are transcription errors that will continue to surface and working to correct
them as to numbering and formatting.
· The CCPC has been provided with a "glitch" list and know they have other
questions posed to the staff. Staff is working towards addressing them and
providing answers. Questions are not necessarily going to lead to changes in the
UDC, but consider possibility if they find anything prior to final proofs to
Municipal Codes, they may want to come back to the CCPC for changes. If the
find something beyond the scope of simple scripter errors, may need to be
adjusted.
· Would do this before publishing the UDC. Intent not to keep running log of
things to be fixed in the second cycle.
· Sounds complicated, but have provided appropriate set of remedies to any
potential errors that may be injected in the process. Focusing on the best way to
do this in the earliest timeline possible for minimal amount of impact on any staff
review or projects submitted by applicants.
· Would ask to approve the Ordinance with the language changes and appropriate
findings of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend for
approval to the Board of County Commissioners for Tuesday.
Mr. Russell Webb - Principal Planner - changes and revisions will be continued to be
made based on comments at their workshop along with comments from the regulated
industry. Will get copies of any changes made subsequent to the document handed to
them today. (Attached)
Mr. Strain asked about #7 being an issue that had been discussed in the EAR discussion.
He stated the GMP requires them to have a definition for Workforce Housing. He
noticed it was taken out. He just wanted to make sure it was consistent with the GMP if
it is taken out and may want to reconsider it.
Mr. Webb spoke with Cormac Giblin and he felt it was fine to take it out. It is already
defined - it's a federally defined term.
Mr. Strain meant the GMP - says they will have a definition in their LDC.
Mr. Webb will confirm it with David Weeks to make sure it is consistent.
Mr. Schiffer noted they gave them their concerns and were not in the changes before
them. Wondered if they will show up and what if they don't.
Mr. Webb responded he is giving his commitment they will- hadn't had the opportunity
to make some of the changes as they involve a lot of analysis and has not had the staff
time and opportunity but the will receive them.
5
June 17,2004
SPEAKERS
Brian Mackenzie - Collier Development, Engineer - addressed and had reviewed
Chapters 1, 2 and the RLS standards. He felt they were good ideas and support going
forward with it. Had a few minor issues:
· New definition Chapter 1- Page 25 - Industrial Uses - request clarification - says
"industrial uses activities within land areas predominately connected with
manufacturing assembly processing and storing of products." They routinely
store crude oil and process it. Defined as not an industrial use in the definitions.
W anted something to clarify that this would not include oil and gas operations.
Patrick White stated his belief - there are a series stated for agricultural and residential
and left over in the process where they were looking to revamp significantly, the whole
use structure. Because the other types of uses are defined elsewhere, they are not
necessary to be included in the overall UDC. They are considering deleting them all
collectively rather than fit specifically where they are similar. (Industrial district) His
recommendation is to consider the UDC without the definitions of agricultural,
residential, industrial and commercial that is already stated in the definitions. It is better
off collectively.
Ray Bellows sees no harm in the change.
· SICC Codes were addressed. Pages 133 and 140 were referenced. Gas
exploration as a permitted use in conservation and not designated in rural
agricultural where it normally would be a permitted use. It is okay as long as it
says Gas Exploration permitted and permitted.
· Page 157 - Conditional Uses - similar situation.
· Page 158 - Gas production - not conditional use in Ag but in Con.
· Page 160 - Oil and Gas Field Development - correctly designated - above that
there is Oil and Gas Extraction - where it isn't designated. The terminology has
to do with SICC Code with wording itself. More direction for clarification could
perhaps be made.
Patrick White said the appropriate thing to do is work with Brian, SIC and staff to
make sure the regulatory fabric is as consistent with what the LDC provides for today
and is also in the UDC. That is the direction and objectives to achieve with Mr.
Mackenzie's help. If any unresolved issues, will be brought back to their attention.
Will be as close to correct and perfect as possible.
· Chapter 4 - Page 232 - extra space under #3
· Page 154 - Word needs changing - "habitatwhen" is all one word.
· He is supportive and hopes they move forward.
Mr. Strain wants to make sure a fresh set of eyes in comparing the SIC Codes in the
tables could be gone through one more time.
6
June 17,2004
Mr. White said as staff moves forward they will find those types ofthings and his
recommendation to the Division Administrator and Director of Zoning and Land
Development Review along with all Directors is the need to work with their staffto see
what transcription errors may arise so they can be addressed. Board needs to let them
know the direction they are going in and move into the 2nd cycle. Strategies will be
towards corrections. Would like to see the staff lead the charge rather than the regulated
industries agents. There are only so many staff people and so many hours in a day, but
are receptive to the suggestions and they will be implemented.
Mr. Strain complimented and thanked staff for the fine job they did and felt more
comfortable having the time to review it along with the workshop. He has started to use
the new UDC.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Schiffer referred to Item #12 - states they are making revisions and Recodification
of the Code ofthe LDC. He asked if they should remove the word "revisions?" Are they
allowed to make revisions?
Patrick White stated they are allowed. They are actually doing both. They are adopting
a recodified UDC. Recodification pertains to the process - the revision reflects actual
changes in the text. Changes in the text are not "substantive amendments." Both terms
need to be stated. Not changing actual uses.
Discussed the scripter errors and a class of unresolved conflicts concerning revisions to
the UDC being somehow different than what the old LDC said. Only those types of
issues in this process should be considered.
Mr. Schiffer stated his concern is someone could come to him with a problem between
the two codes and say "that was an intended consequence" therefore............
They are unknown "intended consequences." His point is there is no conflict, and if there
is, they can go through the process.
Mr. White did not want to state they are going to create a process for "intended." Did
not consider it much of a conflict.
Mr. Strain stated if they didn't resolve it at the first level it would go to the CCPC.
Mr. White said if they are not happy, they will go to the Planning Commission. Staff
would see there is a conflict and at that point they would have to concede it was
unintended. lfto argue it was an "intended consequence" that would have to be stated as
part of the determination process and the rational and support for it put on the record and
a determination made. If the CCPC decided it was an "intended consequence" - "tough
luck" applicant - there are further opportunities for review.
Mr. White asked the Commissioners to comment whether they believe the process
identified is one that is sufficient. Had a request from a private attorney to consider the
7
---
June 17,2004
notion that an additional layer of the field between CCPC and going to court be
considered. This is the Boards Land Development Code (Board of County
Commissioners) and either by discussion or vote, the Planning Commissioners should
give their opinion to the BCC.
The Board may not prefer to participate in the process.
Mr. Strain stated they felt they could take some of the burden off the BCC with their
lengthy meetings, and ifthey want it, they can have it. The CCPC is trying to help them.
He didn't care one way or the other. It is their prerogative if they want to hear it.
Mr. Abernathy stated it is an answer to the attorney - if it is presented to the BCC and
they say this is the way it is proposed and the way they want it - that is answering him.
Mr. White just wanted to make sure the Commission made an informed determination
and decision in its recommendation, and aware there is no step in-between.
It made good sense to Mr. Abernathy that they have taken the final action.
Mr. Adelstein move to approve the updated LDC revisions and forward them to the
Board of County Commissioners for their approval, and find it consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Second by Mr. Strain.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
9. Old Business - None
10. New Business - None
11. Public Comment Item - None
12. Discussion of Addenda - None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:23 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Mr. Russell Budd
8
NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Published Daily
Naples, FL 34102
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
County of Collier
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally
appeared Angela Brvant, who on oath says that they
serve as the Administrative Assistant To The PublIsher o.f the
Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, III .
ColJier Countv Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee countJes
of Florida; th~t' the attached copy of the advertising, being a
in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE
was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue
on June 1st, 2004.
-
Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper
published at Naples, in said eollier eounty, FIOlida, an~ that the said
newspaper has heretofore been continuously publish~ m ~a¡d ~olher
eounty, Florida; distributed in eollier and Lee counties of Flonda,
each day and has been entered as second class mal] matter at the post
office in Naples. in said eoHier eounty, Flonda, for a penod of I
year next preceding the first publication of the atta~hed copy of
advertisement: and affiant ful1her says that he has neIther paId nor.
promised aný person, finn or corporation any d~scount, rebate,
commission or refund for the purpose of secunng this adve111sement for
publication in the said n.ewspaper. n
*~~
( Si re of affiant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 1st day of June, 2004
ß-L~:
].
/ .-
(Signature of notary public)
;.;.~·"·:·t·, Harriett Bushong
.:?" }. .¡¢~ MY COMMISSION # DD234689 EXPIRES
..
FILE
PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
June 17, 2004
CCPC PUBLIC HEARING
INTENT TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Notice 18 hereby given that on J~:~t 2004, at 8:30 A.M., In the Board of County Commissioners' Meeting Room, 3rd
Roor, Harmon Turner Building, B_ "F," Collier County Government C~nter, 3301 East Tamlami Trail, Naples, Florida, the
Collier County Planning Colmn ~'~ 10 take under advisement for Its consideration an Ordinance pertaining ·to the
following: ~..,~'-?,i .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY cot.fMISSIONERS OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECODIFYING THE COLLIER
courm L.ANo œvaOPMENT CODE. WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPaEHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COWER COUNTY, flORIDA, BY SUPERCEDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION QNE, RECITALS; SECTION '\WO.. . FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, RECODIFICATION OF THE UNIFIED LAND
DEVE1.OPIÐtCODE, MORE SPeCIFICALLY BY CREATING THE FOllOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING
SEC. 1.01.00 1'JTLE. SEC. 1.02.00 AUTHORITt SEC. 1.03.00 RUlES OF 'CONSTRUCTION, SEC. 1.04.00 APPLICABILITY, SEC.
1.05.00 FINDINGS. PURPOSE ANDINTEN1;.SEC. 1.06.00 RULES OF INTERPRETATION, SEC. 1.07.00 LAWS ADOPTED BY
REFEAENŒ, SEC. 1.08.00 DEFINITIONS;. OHAPTER 2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SEC. 2.01.00 GENERALLY,
SEC, 2.02.00' ESTABUSHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.03.00 ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.04.00 PERMISSIBLE,
CONDITIONAl.. AND ACCESSORY USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.05.00 DENSITY STANDARDS, SEC. 2.06.00 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, SEC. 2.07.00 TABLE OF SETBACKS FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE
PROTECTION, INCI.UDING SEC. 3.01.00 GENERAU.Y, SEC. 3.02.oo·FLOODPLAlN PROTECTION, SEC. 3.03.00 COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT, SEC. 3.0.4.00 PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES, SEC. 3.05.00 VEGETATION
REMOVAl., PROTECTION. AND PRESERVA'IlON, SEC. 3.06.00 W8.LFIELD AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION; CHAPTER
4 - SITE DE8IGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEC. 4.01.00 GENERAllY, SEC. 4.02.00 SITE DESIGN
STANDARDS,SEC. 4.03.00 SUBDIVISION ~IGN AND LAYOUT, SEC. 4.04.00 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS, SEC.
4.05.00 (Iff·STÆET PARKING AND LOADING, SEC. 4.06.00 LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING,. AND VEGETATION RETENTION, SEC.
4.07.00 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PlANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, SEC. 4.08.00 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES, LIST OF TABlES IN CHAPTER 4; CHAPTER 5 - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS. INCLUDING SEC. 5.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 5.02.00 HOME OCCUPATIONS, SEC. 5.03.00 ACCESSORY USES AND
STRlICTUfIES. Sec. 5.04.00 TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES, SEC. 5.05.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC
uses, SEC. 5.08.00 SIGNS,INCLUDING AN Ne4OMENTTO SEC. 5.06.0& POLITICAL SIGNS; CHAPTER 6 -INFRASTRUCTURE
JMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDINGSEè. 6.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 6.02.00
ADEQUATE PUBuc FACUlTIES REOUlREMEHTS.SEC.8.03.00 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARD, SEC.
6.04.00 POTABI:.E WATER SYSTEMS AND IMPAOWMEHTS STANDARDS, SEC. 6.05.00 WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. SEC. 8.06.00 TRANSPORTA11ON SYSTEM STANDARDS; CHAPTER 7 - RESERVED;
CHAPTER 8 - DECISION-MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, INCLUDING SEC. 8.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 8.02.00
BOARD OF. COUN'TY COMMISSIONERS, SEC,8.03.oo PlANNING COMMISSION, SEC. 8.04.00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS,
SEC. 8.05.00 BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, SEC. 8.06.00 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL,
SEC. 8.07.00 IISTORIClARCHAEOlOG/CAl PRESERVATION BOARD. SEC. 8.08.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SEC.
8.09.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION; CHAPTER 9 - VARIATIONS FROM CODE
REOlIIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 9.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 9.02.00 DEVELOPMENT WITH VESTED RIGHTS, SEC. 9.03.00
NONCONFORMÌT!ES, SEC. 9.04.00 VARIANCES; CHAPTER 10 . APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES,
INCLUDING SEC. 10.01.00 GENERAU.Y, SEC. 10.02.00 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, SEC. 10.03.00 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS,
SEC. 10.04.00 REVIEW AND ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND PETITIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO
THE OFFICIAl. ZONING MAP, THE LOC, OR.THE GMP, SEC. 10.05.00 AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, SEC. 10.06.00
APPEALS, SEC. 10.07.00 ENFORCEMENt SEC. 10,08.00 CONDITIONAL. USES PROCEDURES, AND APPENDICES A THROUGH H,
INCLUDING A NEW APPENDIX "H" OF CROSS-REFERENCES BETWEEN THE lDC AND UDC; SECTION FOUR, REPEALER; SECTION
FIVE, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION SIX, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SEVEN. EFFECTIVE DATE.
All Interested parties are Invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ordInance are available for public inspection
In the Department of Zoning and Land Development RevIew, Community Development Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe
Drive, Naples, FIortda, between the hounI of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through FrIday. Rnal adoption of the ordinance
will be considered at the June 22, 2004, Board of County Commissioners pUblic hearing at 1 :00 P.M.
If a person decides to appeal any d«:lslOI) I1IIiIde by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the pr.oceedlngs, ànd for such purpose he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings 1$ made, which record Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
Is to be balled.
(i)
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMiSSION
COlliER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RUSSEll A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
COLUER COUNTY FLORIDA
-,I
"t.
....
.-"'!'If
.
.
II
"
II
II
b. No 119177836
June 1 2004
..
-.
..