DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Minutes 01/07/2020 (Draft) January 7, 2020
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, January 7, 2020
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee —Land Development Review Subcommittee in and for theqccs,,
of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM i i 4 fk; LAR
SESSION at the Growth Management Department Buildin:4 .•o 609/610 2800 N.
•
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the following pers r::-nt:
Chairman: . • er
oley (Excused)
ertMulhere (Excused)
eff Curl (Excused)
Mark McLean
,,s,,
KIISCLIII ' ''
ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager
Ellen Summers, Senior Planner
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Eric Johnson, Principal Planner
1
2020 Land Development
Cotter County Code Amendments
Growth Management Department
- Public Meeting -
Development Services Advisory Committee
Land Development Review Subcommittee
Tuesday, January 07, 2020
2:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL—GMD Building
Conference Room 609/610
Meeting Purpose: Agenda:
1) To obtain a 1. Call to order
recommendation 2. Approve Agenda
from the 3. Old Business
Subcommittee
regarding the a. Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD)
proposed LDC 4. New Business
amendment. 5. Public comments
6. Adjourn
For more information please contact Jeremy Frantz at(239)252-2305 or Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov
January 7, 2020
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.
1. Call to order
Chairman Brooker called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. and a quorum could not be established.
He noted the purpose of the meeting will be to continue review of the proposed amendments as
presented by Staff. No actions will be taken by the Subcommittee.
2. Approve agenda
There were no changes to the Agenda.
3. Old Business
a. Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District(GGPOD)
LDC Sections to be Amended: 1.08.01 Abbreviations DSAC-LDR -2 9
2.03.07 Overlay Zoning District
2.05.01 Density Standards an. Ilb. Types
4.02.26 Golden Gate P. it• Activity Center Overlay
(GGPACO) Building, D4-41,p nt, and Site Design Standards
4.02.37 Design Stan e P evelopment in the Golden Gate
Downtown Center m cial Overlay District (GGDCCO)
5.05.01 Businesses g Alcoholic Beverages
5.06.02 Dev o en Standards for Signs within Residential
Districts
10.03.1. ' 'c Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use
Peti •
The LDC amendment (LDCA) se -s 14` plement several policies of the recently adopted
Golden Gate Area Master Pl. • P) by creating the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District
(GGPOD). The GGPOD I •- c• prised of two new subdistricts - the Activity Center
subdistrict(GGPODAC . t P owntown subdistrict (GGPOD-DT). The GGPOD will
supersede the provis.. s o - Golden Gate Downtown Center Overlay District and the Golden
Gate Parkway Pr. " s . al Office Commercial Overlay.
Mr. Johnson pr ed he proposed amendment and distributed an updated version of the
GGPOD to th.y b .mmittee.
Chairm. :r11(.1-noted the review is a continuation from the December 17, 2019 meeting.
w
The S ' ee reviewed the proposed amendment by Section with discussion on the items:
Sectio .03.07 F.2.b—Members sought clarification on how the standards would be applied
given a property owner is allowed to utilize the property as prescribed in the underlying zoning
or the newly proposed overlay zone. After much discussion, staff clarified that the regulations
are intended to allow the uses from the underlying zoning district so as to not take away any
private property rights, but to allow the new uses proposed by the GGPOD; however, in either
instance, the new development standards proposed in LDC section 4.02.26 shall apply to all
properties within the GGPOD.
Section 2.03.07 F.5.a—The proposed GGPOD is comprised of two subdistricts an"Activity
Center" in middle of the overlay and a"Downtown subdistrict" located on the east and west ends
of the overlay. The intent is for the Activity Center is to promote uses that are more intense and
denser than those allowed in the downtown subdistricts as indicated in Table 1 of Section
2
January 7, 2020
2.03.07 F.6.—Mr. Frantz indicated that those uses, labeled employment uses, consist of several
uses that come from the State of Florida's Qualified Targeted Industries list. The Subcommittee
noted the terms "Activity Center" and "Downtown District" may want to be included in the
definitions.
Section 2.03.07 F.6—Table 1 (Business Services)— Staff to review the categories to clarify if
other business services are permitted as code number 7374 appears to be a subsection within the
identified list. Staff presented a digital version to the DSAC-LDR, showing changes to the
Table, including but not limited to the elimination of Note #5 - restrictions related to escort
services, steam baths, and Turkish bath as well as striking out the term "advanced
manufacturing," in favor of having a note at the bottom of the table referencing the "performance
standards" in LDC section 4.02.26 D. Consideration may want to be given to tin uishing the
types of services allowed in the Activity Center and Downtown subdistricts 've goals for
each area and the different existing characteristics of the subdistricts.
Section 2.05.01 A. —Staff changed the text to indicate per"the Gold a e 'ty Sub-Element
of the GGAMP."
Section 4.02.26 A.1 — Staff to change the wording "....and thes -It ons."to "... and these
design standards."
Section 4.02.26 A.2. - Staff to change the wording "...Sec 5. .02 H is exempt for properties
..."to "Section 5.03.02 H does not apply to properties .110
Section 4.02.26 B.1 —change the word "developme " to `"evelopment"
Section 4.02.26 B.1 Table—Discussion occurred on ll'o s ng 100 percent building coverage and
whether any green space should be required. a i ot:• the concept is to develop a downtown
district with zero lot lines. The developme b- subject to stormwater treatment
requirements. When questioned if it wo re appropriate for the affected/impacted
property owners to opine on the Over . DSAC-LDR gets involved, staff noted that the
ittio
advisory committee for this area h. ot - established yet; however, the County did conduct
two public outreach meetings to o• '- •ut Staff received feedback about building height and
character of development. S •ed the DSAC-LDR that the GGPOD is located within an
economic development zo .
Section 4.02.26 B.1 —F ot 2 (lines 3-4)—Re-evaluate the term "extended sidewalk" to
ensure dual sidewal re n created to serve the buildings. In these instances, planting/seating
areas or hardscap h Id be incorporated as a treatment and clarified in the Section as
necessary.
Section 4.02. Footnote #2 (line 4)—Discussion occurred on concerns for allowing a
balcony ve a g into a right of way. Staff to research the concept and provide examples for
the Su• • e's review.
Sec 14 I . 6 B.1 —Footnote#3 - Staff to reword the footnote to better clarify how the alley
will de : ate rear yard of a lot.
Section 4.02.26 B.2 —to read "Non-residential, mixed-use and multi family buildings.
Non-residential, mixed-use and multi family buildings in the GGPOD shall comply with the
following:"
Section 4.02.26 B.2.d—Discussion on the rationale for not allowing asphalt shingles on the
buildings with Staff noting the concept is to provide a certain consistent appearance to the
buildings in the overlay district.
Section 4.02.26 B.2.e— Staff to review language regarding corrugated and metal panels.
Section 4.02.26 B.2.f— Staff to review the language regarding neon tubing, LED tubing, etc. to
ensure the terms utilized meet the intended goal of the Section.
3
January 7, 2020
Section 4.02.26 B.2.h.ii — Staff to review language and consider height limitations for lighting
installed on the top levels of a parking structure.
Section 4.02.26 B.2.h.iii— Staff to review language in reference to the access points at the rear of
buildings to ensure it is clear on its intention.
4. New Business
None
5. Public comments
Felipe Arcila, SVN/Kova sought information on the costs of constructing parking structures with the
Subcommittee asking which was more expensive to construct, underground png r structured
parking. The DSAC-LDR answered that the costs associated with structured p. in ges between
$12k-$14k per parking space whereas underground ranges is breaking $55k er *.
Yaimi Reyes,Here We Grow Daycare,commented that she owns the o id .re center between
951 and Santa Barbara. The facility was built in 1985 and currently h. 'e p king spaces (with 12
employees and 90 kids). They purchased the abutting property w' • - p rpose of expanding their
parking area. Ms. Reyes approached the DSAC-LDR at this m--14: •-cause she was told that she
either had to apply for a conditional use application or wait .44 t Overlay to be approved. Ms.
Reyes informed the DSAC-LDR that she intends to expano street parking area as well as the
playground area. The area can be expanded, and if so, e Id either wait for the Overlay to be
approved or go through the conditional use process. S ommented that the GGPOD includes
proposed language regarding off-street parking,ve is r u e, and service area standards. Staff would
have to determine if the proposed expansion (or not conforms) to the standards. Staff
advised Ms. Reyes that she not make any b ecisions based on the discussion at this meeting.
The DSAC-LDR advised that she continu- 1 ing the Overlay to make sure her plan is consistent
with it and for her to keep coming totngs to voice her opinions. The DSAC-LDR advised
that she meet with staff afterwards to a i .-r with options.
6. Next meeting date
TBD 'S''S)
There being no further sin for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order
of the Chair at 4:07 P.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
These Minutes were approved by the Committee on , as presented , or as
amended .
4