Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/18/2021 5:05 mtg.November 18, 2021 Page 1 of 17 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 18, 2021 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney November 18, 2021 Page 2 of 17 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Welcome to the evening or second session of our November 18, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. All right. The only matter before us for this evening is PL20210001222. It's the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area LDCA, or second one of the day, that changes some names, adds some prohibited uses, and adds and changes certain building standards and, as a result of some of those differences from the ones earlier this afternoon, it must be -- must take place in the evening, and so that's why we're here, those of us who are here. And so without further ado, we'll turn it over to staff for the presentation, please, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner with Zoning. Before Laura comes up to give a presentation, we discussed what the name of the zoning district would be from before, for anyone who's listening. We were discussing the prospect of renaming the BMUD to the BO zoning district. I would say that staff recommends that it be renamed not BO but BZO. So it would be Bayshore Zoning Overlay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How does that sound to you, Vice Chair? Better than BO, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, so what -- on Page 3 of the -- of the packet, it says Bayshore Overlay District. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So on Page 3 of the -- actually, the Packet Page 6, instead of it being BO, Bayshore Overlay District, it would be Bayshore -- it would be BZO, Bayshore Zoning Overlay District. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How's by you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So then everything's going to change. MR. JOHNSON: And then everything else would change in this PL, this Land Development Code amendment, that's before you right now as well as any instance of the BO in the previous one that you reviewed earlier in PL -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In all the maps, because they're all different anyway? MR. JOHNSON: And I wanted to bring that up. So in the -- in Exhibit A of this November 18, 2021 Page 3 of 17 particular Land Development Code amendment, you'll find that there are a lot of maps, and so all the highlighted areas, instead of it being BO, it would be BZO, and then whatever the base zoning district is. So all those maps would change. And because we have those maps -- I wanted to kind of go over just a few changes that, you know, I wanted to read into the record. Hopefully you don't have any issues with them. They're all very minor, insubstantial, or non-substantive. On Page 3, Packet Page 6, Line 30, we would remove any reference to the map that was proposed in LDC Section 4.02.16.I. We're going to -- we're going to delete the map that's on page -- let me find it. I think it's 30 -- 50-something -- 56, starts on Page 56, capital letter I. And then on Page 57, we would not have a map. We would rely on the zoning atlas maps to identify the different zoning districts. So that's, in our opinion, something that shouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, we're proposing a correction on Page 9. On Line 15, it would read, prohibited uses. These uses are prohibited, comma, except that those existing as of effective date of ordinance, so forth and so on. So we would want to add the word "those." And on Page 11, again, on Line No. 8, we would remove the reference to the map that would have been in LDC Section 4.02.16.I. On Page 32 -- and I'll try to be very quick -- on Line No. 28, lowercase a, it calls out the minimum lot size. We already have a reference for the minimum lot size on Page 10, in Packet Page 13. So this is not needed here in this instance. If we had it here in this instance, it would apply to both the BZO as well as the GTOs, and so that wasn't the intent, so we want to remove that. On Page 34 -- and I only have two more pages to talk about -- Line 34, we would, again, remove the reference to the map at LDC Section 4.02.16.I. And, lastly, on Page 56, that was the removal of the map, and the reference to it on 56 and 57. And I was remiss in not mentioning on the previous amendment there was an instance where it said "Bayshore Development Plan." That would be known as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan, and the area is known as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area. So those are just some housekeeping measures that I wanted to just put on the record. Hopefully you don't have an issue with it. I'll be happy to answer questions regarding what I just mentioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eric, you renamed Bayshore Overlay to Bayshore Zoning Overlay, BZO. What about the Gateway Triangle; are you going to make that BTZO, or is it remaining GTO? MR. JOHNSON: We propose just keep it GTO. No change at all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That one also says district, Gateway Triangle Overlay District. MR. JOHNSON: And so the acronym -- or abbreviation would be GTO. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why is one a zoning overlay and the other one not? MR. JOHNSON: Well, they're both subdistricts within the redevelopment. I guess they're two different zoning overlays, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think what the commissioner's suggesting is maybe for consistency you might want to put the word zoning in the Gateway Triangle as well. MR. JOHNSON: All right. So BZO and GTZO. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would make it consistent at least. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Am I correct what you were asking? COMMISSIONER FRY: Completely correct. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I'm completely thankful. November 18, 2021 Page 4 of 17 All right. So I'm going to allow Ms. DeJohn to come up if there aren't any questions for me regarding what we just talked about. Great. Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you and good evening. Laura DeJohn with Johnson Engineering. I'm a certified planner, and I am here on behalf of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office. Also with me is Deborah Forester, who is the head of that office, if you have any questions for her. We are discussing a separate PL number this evening after meeting earlier today at 2:00. This evening's item is a general set of Land Development Code amendments that, again, are being instituted because the CRA is subject to a redevelopment plan. That redevelopment plan was updated in 2019 through a BCC adoption of the plan. The BCC did direct staff to go through the process of making changes to the Land Development Code as a result of that plan update. So because of that Board direction on July 9th, 2019, we are now here in front of you talking about these general Land Development Code changes. The area we're talking about is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area that extends from Davis Boulevard on the north down to the end of Bayshore Drive on the south. And just to give kind of general characteristics of where Gateway Triangle area is, it's north of Tamiami Trail towards Davis Boulevard, and then the Bayshore area that we'll be talking about is to the south of Tamiami Trail down Bayshore. This set of proposed changes has been through extensive public involvement. Again, back in July the CRA Advisory Board was apprised of these proposed changes. We engaged with stakeholders, specifically commercial property owners in October 2020, and about a year ago the CRA Advisory Board considered these amendments. There were changes they suggested. We came back in January 2021 with their changes, and this was recommended to move forward and then heard by the DSAC, Development Services Advisory Committee, as required, throughout the summer. You know, number one, we are seeking to rename the overlay zoning district names. There is limitation being proposed on heavy commercial uses in the Bayshore area. That was part of the public involvement process. We learned that the Gateway/Triangle area was not -- did not have the appetite for controlling heavy commercial uses there, so this is a proposal just -- that affects the BZO, and transitions to accommodate the relationship of any heavy commercial uses in proximity to residential uses is acknowledged through some appearance standards that are also being proposed. Mixed-use project standards have been tweaked because that's a unique process and type of project in the Bayshore area that's being updated. And single-family home architecture standards are being introduced to the area as well. Finally, allowing swale enclosures in this type of urban walkable context that is being promoted in the Bayshore area is something that we have addressed extensively through coordination with staff and updates in this code. I'm going to skip this slide. We've talked about the naming of the district. And prohibited uses being proposed. This is, again, an extension of the planning effort that occurred. And the adoption of the 2019 plan talked about the transitions going on in this Bayshore area since it was established in 2000 to now. The effort is aimed at making sure that certain types of uses that just don't belong in a walkable residential area will be limited from being established in, like, any new establishment of these uses going forward. So I'm going to tell you exactly what those are. They're uses that are allowed in underlying C-4 zoning, which are boiler repair shops; something we don't have much of in our area. And then in the C-5 district, which allows 183 different commercial uses, we're talking about prohibiting certain ones: Equipment rental and leasing of portable toilets, mobile home dealers, mini and self-storage warehousing, RV dealers, truck rental and leasing, utility trailer and November 18, 2021 Page 5 of 17 RV rental, and then again, boiler cleaning, boiler repair type uses. So those were identified after a thorough screening of all the 183 other uses allowed and identified as not consistent with the themes that are being -- you know, the Bayshore area is trying to promote as an arts district. Furthermore, there is the prohibition on any new outdoor display, outdoor sales, or outdoor storage that's, you know, of large-scale nature, manufactured products, raw or finished materials, boats or vehicles on small lots. So lots less than 30,000 square feet, which was, again, vetted based on typical lot sizes in the area. The idea here is to prohibit these new heavier, more intense uses in the Bayshore area only. Now, appearance standards are also being coupled, you know. So once we address kind of the most offensive type of uses being prohibitive, we're also putting forth some appearance standards for less offensive uses that just need to be, you know, established in a more cohesive way with the neighborhood. So already, the code establishes these -- the set of standards that applies to boat yards and marinas. They're considered kind of the bigger more, you know, active type facilities and, therefore, there were restrictions already in the code, listed on the screen, on making sure those were compatible with the neighborhood. We're applying those standards across that set of uses that I've described already, the outdoor display, outdoor sales, outdoor storage, manufactured products, raw or finished materials, boats or vehicles. So, basically, controlling how much of the site it can occupy, how much is in view along the front of the street, and locating those activities not forward of a building so that, again, walkability is being more promoted, and limits on the height of materials being displayed. The buffering is addressed in that section of the code as well. Again, same buffering standards that was typically applied to marinas and boat yards. We're just extending it to some other similar type of activities. Now, the proposed architectural standards that are proposed to apply to single-family homes, this is an evolution of some standards that have been applied already to a project within the Bayshore area. There were a number of key criteria because the code already alludes to having certain type of characteristics in the Bayshore area, like Florida vernacular architecture. So this is a way to help itemize out what it means when the code describes Florida vernacular architecture. And the system setup is quite easy to meet. I mean, there's 30 elements listed in the code. Some of them are worth two points. Some of them are worth a single point. And altogether, six points is the goal. So out of 30 elements, for example, these higher rating elements here on the screen are positioning your garage to be side loaded, you know, so you're not just facing the street with the garage. That would get two points. The remaining single point opportunities are having dormers, having awnings, measurement -- like overhangs, finished soffits, window trim. They're just guiding points for home development that most achieve already. We're just creating the standard in the code so that it can be achieved by all homes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask a question? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe you said this and I wasn't paying strict attention, and I'll apologize if that's the case. But could you identify where these criteria came from or -- MS. DeJOHN: There was a -- I don't know the name of the project but, Deborah, do you want to describe that? I'll have Deborah describe the source. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. FORESTER: Hi. Deborah Forester, CRA director. The original beginning of this list came from a settlement agreement we have with the developer in the Bayshore area. He purchased 15 lots from the county a number of years ago, and we needed to enforce the November 18, 2021 Page 6 of 17 development of those lots. And we wanted to put some design criteria to that, so we came up with a checklist. And so that began the list, and then we also -- our project manager, Tammy Scott, has an architectural background, so she also helped to add to the list. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So there was a settlement that caused you to develop these points. Did they originate in, like, a textbook or -- MS. FORESTER: Well, I think a number of these we did -- we know what's being built, and we know what the community likes, so a number of those simply apply to this list. So, you know, having decorative railing at your front porch, having a front porch. These are your typical elements that would help with walkability in the community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we go back to that list? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How did you decide on six total points? It seems -- with all those options and so many of them are so routine, it's going to sound -- it seems like you could ask for a lot more points. MS. DeJOHN: And understood. I mean, again, this was something that was vetted. There's a variety of home types and conditions within the CRA. So there's some pretty high-end homes going up who will check a lot of these boxes, and then there's some areas that aren't as affluent. So the goal was to, you know, kind of have a level playing field and -- like, as soon as you put into code what the targets are, it helps everyone. You know, it helps the ones who are maybe doing these naturally, and then it helps those who might need, you know, the help to realize that adding a decorative shutter -- windows contributes to the appearance of the home. And so the goal was to not, again, be punitive, not make a difficult bar to be living in the CRA but to have some standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: This topic of having swale enclosures really became the biggest excitement of the code-writing effort. You can see in the picture, here's one of the examples of the homes going up on Jeepers Street off of Bayshore, and this is a trend. There's a single developer who's putting up a lot of new homes in this area. And the style has really been popular. They've been very successful, and the approach to placing these homes on the lot and designing the access in the driveway has resulted in creating yard in the front where it currently swales are along these older streets. And so the design preferred by the CRA and by the developer is to enclose those swales, kind of capture that land area, and move the water through pipes instead of in open swales. And to achieve that is not a simple task when it comes to county permitting and other permitting jurisdictions. So where we ended up is a set of standards in the code that just say, upon adoption of a -- in a stormwater management plan for the vicinity through South Florida Water Management District permitting, then these can be done in the Bayshore area. And it's going to be a contributing factor because, like, stormwater is a big deal in Bayshore, so by applying Water Management District criteria, there can be not these one-by-one improvements but maybe some more coordinated improvements in the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, and then Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question on the swales. What size are they, typically? I know they vary depending on the amount of flow and everything. But I worry more about the safety of a pipe like that, that -- for animals and, you know, different things like that. Is that creating another problem that you didn't have with swales? November 18, 2021 Page 7 of 17 MS. DeJOHN: I know the design being shown here -- I mean, that's going through the engineering permitting process. So they're meeting the standards for the design of the culvert in the -- but I think, to your point, the goal of what we thought to be a simple fix, which was to be more lenient and allow enclosure of swales in the Bayshore area because of the goals we're talking about for a walkable community, instead we had to take a step back from that and work into this strategy a more holistic approach where there's going to have to be a design that accommodates, you know, what's upstream, what's downstream, and the site itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, when you enclose things, you usually can create a safety problem. I can see a two-year-old crawling in that pipe and you not knowing he's in there, and then you get a rainstorm. Just having an open-ended enclosed swale scares me. MS. DeJOHN: It's a traditional design. I mean, even the older -- like, you can see in this picture in the background there's an older driveway as well. So, again, we're solving the problem by not continuing this one-off solution because it was complicating -- it was very complicated in the permitting process to achieve this. Well, the solution has been to make it codified that an area-wide plan needs to be in place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a design detail for it that the county puts out? MS. DeJOHN: The county does have swale enclosure typicals. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Could they consider adding a grating to that, to the standard detail? MS. DeJOHN: Let me just refer you to -- so we are -- as part of this code amendment, Chapter 110 of the Code of Ordinances, which is specific to construction in public rights-of-way, refers to the standards that apply to swale/culvert design. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be fair to assume that safety's going to be addressed in the final drawings? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if it's not in the code, it won't be. In other words, that right there doesn't have any grating on it, any protection for access. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's certainly -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: And if that's the standard detail, they're all going to look like that. MS. DeJOHN: No, this is a picture. This is not -- this is not a standard. This is an illustration to show the reason that we're even talking about it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it's -- somebody designed it and built it? Did they design it and built it to the county's standard? MR. BOSI: Stormwater Management has to sign off on each one of these projects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And is safety an integral part of their considerations? MR. BOSI: They're part of general purpose (indiscernible) government, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So who approved that one right there? MR. BOSI: A member of Stormwater staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I would challenge you that it's not safe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, in fairness, we can't see whether there's grating in there. It appears there isn't, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Correct. MS. DeJOHN: And, again, we're actually elevating the conditions of the code. This is why we're talking about the situation, because this was happening. And from the pressure of the development community is let me do my design the way I want to get the house built the way I want. And the county's position has been we need a better plan orchestrated to how this all gets implemented. So I think everyone's concerns are being addressed, because there will have to be a plan in the implementation of this, and design standards go hand in hand with developing a plan. November 18, 2021 Page 8 of 17 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm just -- I don't know the county, but most communities, these have a standard detail that you would design it to for things like this that are very common. MS. DeJOHN: They are, and they're not in the Land Development Code, but we could get that for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're a little bit handicapped in an evening meeting; we can't pick up the phone and have somebody from Stormwater come over here. But it's fair to say, certainly on my part and Commissioner Shea's and others, I'm sure, we all wouldn't want to be approving something that is going to create a safety problem, and so, you know, somehow I think we'd like a strong statement. Maybe we had that from Mr. Bosi, that considerations to protect animals and small children are going to be an integral part of this, and there's not going to be an approval of something that is unsafe in any respect. MR. BOSI: Our Stormwater Department would have an obligation to take safety into consideration in terms of the signing off on any swale that would be proposed. So I'm confident to be able to say to you that safety has been incorporated as part of the review process that Stormwater will employ when reviewing these individual swale enclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That may be as much as we can do this evening. Your point is well taken, to be sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I would ultimately like to see a standard written, not just leaving -- it's still subjective. Safety comes into consideration is not the same as saying the inlet should be covered and protected. CHAIRMAN FRYER: True. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you go to the City of Philadelphia and you pull one of those out, they'll have a detail, they'll show you the bar size on the grating and everything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And there may be something like that in place in Stormwater Management. We just don't know. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, exactly. MR. BOSI: I'm pretty confident that they have a design spec towards which it has to be designed to. I just don't have that available. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm sure they do, too. I apologize. I didn't want to -- but I did want to make a point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's a point well made. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the danger that you are concerned about a result of the extended pipe length because of the covered swale, or is it simply the fact that the culverts are open on each end? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Open on each end. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I live in the Estates area. There are tens of thousands of culverts that are not barred in the Estates area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not what we wanted to hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, just in my neighborhood, 100 of them -- 200 of those in my one street, and none of them -- none of them are covered. So I think that -- now, they are shorter. They only span the driveway and then the other end of the culvert. So instead of being 50 feet, it's only 15 or 20 feet, but... COMMISSIONER SHEA: It gets compounded by the length, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: The distance? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I -- MR. FRENCH: Thank you. For the record, Jamie French. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I hope you can bring us comfort, Mr. French. November 18, 2021 Page 9 of 17 MR. FRENCH: Thank you. These -- so we follow our right-of-way handbook, and these are -- what's really important to this is that that stormwater's able to pass through that new -- that area of development. They are open on each end no matter what. So unless you've actually got a stormwater plan or design that you would take through a Site Development Plan, these subdivided neighborhoods, we all follow the right-of-way handbook, and so there would be a requirement. In this particular case, this does allow for some on-street parking or some better usage of parking that's going to allow for that water to continue to travel versus people that typically go back and they fill in the stormwater ditch or they may decide to park something there after it's been constructed and a CO. But this is just a different -- different design that would allow for that water to be able to continually flow. And it would be designed, and it would be approved through our right-of-way permitting process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you talking -- you're hitting on one of my questions which is it looks to be a semipervious parking area in the front. Are you talking about the percolation of the water from the surface to get down, or is there a continuous pipe underneath that that is sealed? MR. FRENCH: That's a continuous pipe that's open on both ends. That's what we would refer to as GO blocking. So we're -- it actually offers some soil stability to be able to park a vehicle on the grass. So it's like on-grass parking. But as you can see, it's almost like a honeycomb that -- they'll use plastics, they'll use concrete or some sort of asbestos type -- well, not asbestos, but a construction type material that allows for soil stability in that area. But that is a continuous pipe that runs from -- I don't know if you can see it -- from here that would come all the way across to this area there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does it accept water in the top through holes in the top of the pipe? Is it corrugated? MR. FRENCH: No. There would be no percolation. Not like a French drain. That's a corrugated pipe all the way through. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're losing -- that area no longer can accept any runoff? MR. FRENCH: Compared to this area here? No, it still takes the runoff. What it does is that it channels the water -- it holds it within that pipe and moves it along. COMMISSIONER FRY: It channels it to the edges? MR. FRENCH: Sure. And so, essentially, all you've done there is you've created an impervious surface area here. Rather than holding water there, it's going to simply hold it in the pipe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Are we looking at -- I mean, I guess, what if you had multiple homes that have closed off their swales like this; would you, then, not see any of these culverts if adjacent homes had the same treatment? Would you, then, not see these open culverts with the pipes? MR. FRENCH: It would depend on the engineering design. But in some of your Site Development Plans you have that already. I mean, I could point out a handful of car dealerships that it's all underwater -- it's all underground baffling that's actually pipes that are holding water under a big parking lot that you think is -- you've created so much impervious surface. They've also created storage underneath of that development. So that all goes through the design criteria that is looked at by our Engineering/Stormwater staff. It would be all of the -- all of the disciplines that would typically review these site plans, much like -- no different than a housing site. They would still go through that design, and they would have to show how they're channeling and holding their stormwater on site. And that's also a FEMA criteria is that they can't push their water off onto the neighbor. They have to mitigate their water on, you know -- and I hear Ray talking about the Estates. But same thing with any of these lots. We have to show how they're retaining their water on that site as they introduce impervious area. November 18, 2021 Page 10 of 17 COMMISSIONER FRY: But, theoretically, you could have many homes in a row where there are no visible culverts and they still have found a way -- they've engineered a way that the water runoff is managed through pipes that are underneath enclosed swales? MR. FRENCH: Or it could be an inverted runoff. It could be curb and gutter along the curb. That exists. That exists all throughout, I'm going to say, the United States. It certainly exists all throughout the county, especially in many of these Site Development Plans or these Planned Unit Developments that have come in front of this board. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in this case this home has taken advantage of the swales on either side of the culverts to collect water on their property? MR. FRENCH: Right. So it appears that there is a -- there's a pipe here -- I don't know if that's showing up -- a pipe here, and the pipe end here, and that pipes looks that it would run all the way across. So this would not only move water, but it's going to allow water to sit in there as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Continue, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. An update, again, furthering the goals of the redevelopment plan is to allowing parking lots abutting Bayshore Drive to have perimeter walls that function as pedestrian seating or public art walls. Again, just to recap. We've been through several rounds of public review here. This Planning Commission meeting leads us into two more hearings which would be the Board of County Commissioners assumed to be in January and February. And with that, we can take on any other questions that you have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The issue that Commissioner Shea raised, and I think others of us expressed some concern about, one way that we could move this along to the BCC is to call the issue out for -- and ask staff to be sure that when it's presented to the BCC, that they are able to demonstrate existing safety protection mechanisms. It may already be there, and we can pick up the phone, and if people were still at work, we'd find out. But to have that at the ready so that the BCC knows that we called it out for their consideration. And does anybody object to that being part of our -- when we get to the time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it does say on the county website that on culverts, their ends may be protected with grates to keep debris out -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: May. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- by a headwall or concrete apron to protect them from being crushed. But it's necessary to keep thatch debris from building up at the ends. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Well, I think, you know, one of our responsibilities to our public in Collier County is to flag potential safety issues like this with respect to small animals and small children and there -- we may have seized upon a serious issue that hasn't already been dealt with, although I doubt it. I think it's going to be relatively easy for staff to pull together the information that is needed to show that safety is of foremost concern and that animals and the little children will be protected. I'm just wanting, when it does come to the BCC, that they be informed that the Planning Commission asked staff to make that presentation. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. DeJOHN: I was ready to hear public input or any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay, fine. Thanks. No one is signaling yet. November 18, 2021 Page 11 of 17 I've got several comments and questions, mostly just to make a public record of things that have been considered, just like Commissioner Shea did on safety. Does anyone want to speak before? Go ahead, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Laura, one clarification. It had to do with marinas, boat display. And I saw some -- maybe we could go back to that slide. I'm sorry to make you go back. MS. DeJOHN: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just want to be clear on what is allowed. You're talking about 35 percent. I think it was the next slide talks about maximum linear frontage of property; 35 percent can have boats be visible but not forward of the building. So just in laymen's terms, what can you do or what can you not do on a marina site displaying boats? MS. DeJOHN: Well -- and I'm going to go back because it applies today. Here's what the code says today. So little letter i, boat display activities shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the property's linear frontage, and in little letter ii, all boat sale areas shall not be closer to the frontage line than the primary building they serve. So you see an image here. The frontage -- and this is an old -- I mean, this would apply to new -- new developments. So an older property where you drive by and the frontage, in this example, is entirely -- the only view is of boats. The goal of the code, as it exists today and going forward to any new type of facility, would limit how much -- so 35 percent of that frontage there would be boats, and a building would be more prominent on the site so that, again, for -- if you want to take a stroll along Bayshore, you'd be interacting with storefronts or building fronts rather than just large displays of boats. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this would not -- the photograph does not meet the code? MS. DeJOHN: Right. That's just a condition today, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I have a few. Let me just run through, and if somebody wants to cap on or if I get to an area that you recall a question that you have, feel free to jump in. My first has to do with zoned height versus actual height. And I've had this conversation multiple times with staff including last Tuesday, and I understand that actual height is a concept that the county employs with respect to PUDs, and it hasn't found its way into the statutory or ordinance language outside of the context of PUDs. But I would say this, I would submit to you this: That as a member of the public, as a potential neighbor of these areas, actual height is far more important to me than zoned height, because zoned height does not take account of things like cupolas and steeples and air conditioning equipment and, you know, various other things that can go on rooftops that get added to the zoned height, and all of a sudden you've got the potential for canyonization. So I just -- I raise that as an issue and would like to hear, Ms. DeJohn, what you might have to say about, instead of all these references to zoned height alone, also calling for limitations on actual height. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. I understand the reason you raise that point. That would be a wholesale change throughout this whole Bayshore code that was not contemplated before and, you know, the code does define the maximum exceptions allowable above, you know, the allowed height. Isn't that a 10-foot exception that's allowed? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It would vary for the type of appurtenance on top of the roof. So it could be greater than 10 feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A steeple would certainly be greater; 30, 40 feet. November 18, 2021 Page 12 of 17 MS. DeJOHN: Right, right, right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, I don't know if other members of the Planning Commission are equally concerned about this. Again, going back to what we talked about at One Naples and what I've seen many times in the City of Naples having to do with opportunities that developers take to exceed expectations, public expectations, because zoned height and actual height are different -- different concepts altogether. And in the context of PUDs in Collier County, we always call for a statement of actual height, which I think is a very good thing. And I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't want that same concept throughout our ordinances along with zoned height. So I'm asking my colleagues if I'm the only one up here who's concerned about it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd like to hear a better explanation, because I'm like you. I, immediately, when they say zoned height, say what's the actual height. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. Others? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But this is a CRA, so they do have a board, an advisory board, so they're going through all this. So there must be a reason. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I doubt that the -- presumably, the advisory board has seen this language and, for whatever reason, did not seize upon this same question that I'm raising, or they were satisfied with zoned height, but they may not think about these issues as often as we do. And, you know, my interest in it has been piqued by a lot of the deals that have come through the Planning Commission. And just as a, you know, member of the public or a neighbor, I know that zoned height is of relatively little interest to the average person who walks down the street, particularly in relation to actual height. What you see is actual height. MS. DeJOHN: I think that discussion becomes very pertinent when it is a PUD and there is a known outcome and there is a known site and an arrangement of the site and a placement of the buildings and the types of buildings that are being proposed, and then a cap, which was -- used to be called the tippy, tippy top, and how tall that would be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. DeJOHN: Here in a, you know, diverse and spread-out area that we're talking about, it's -- to me it's a slippery slope to start guessing what should be the right steeple height if a church were to locate here and try to plug in that number today. I think the variability of a redevelopment area is different than the strictness of going through the PUD process and declaring exactly what's being built and how high and what the adjacencies are and all that information. We just don't have that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think -- that's a -- that is a good point to have been made, the difference between a PUD and a redevelopment area, but for my part, I'm not -- I'm not 100 percent satisfied that this is exactly the way we should deal with it. I would still like to see actual height put in. But I think part of what you were saying is it's come this far, let's get the thing over the goal line, because if we put in actual height, we'd have to have steeple height and this height and air conditioner height and all that, and it would slow things down. So I, for one, am not going to push it, but I did want to at least make that comment just as a member of the public. To me, actual height's what's important. And if things turn out the way we hope they do in this redevelopment area and it gets to be more dense, more intense, you're going to have more people, I think, wondering why the only limitation on height is zoned height. And that's maybe not a completely accurate statement because there are other things. But why we aren't as meticulous with our height limitations in redevelopment areas as we are in PUDs. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, if you were going to offer a clarification, I think I'm thinking that zoned height really is the mass of the structure, and then the actual height is that November 18, 2021 Page 13 of 17 structure plus any appurtenances, as Ray referred to them, that go on top of that, and there are different allowances for different types of appurtenances. MR. BOSI: Correct. But -- correct, Commissioner. And I also wanted to provide that none of our commercial zoning districts or our residential zoning districts or any of our districts within our LDC have actual height. It's all zoned height. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's all in PUDs. MR. BOSI: It's only PUDs that we use actual height. Now, the bigger question, I think what the Planning Commission wants to engage upon, is should we incorporate actual height all throughout our PUD or all throughout our LDC, not trying to segment out Bayshore, but the entire LDC. That's a much bigger project. I'm not telling you it doesn't have merit, but that's a much bigger discussion than specifically trying to single out Bayshore to say, Bayshore, you incorporate actual and then we'll try to backfill everything else in the LDC. I think the better way is let's, at some point in time, talk about heights -- actual heights, how could we incorporate it into our LDC, and what type of strategy can we have to comprehensively address that issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to ask you, I know you're heavily involved in the City of Naples, and those heights are often an issue there. Is it because the appurtenances -- purtenances or appurtenances? -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Appurtenances. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- appurtenances are higher than they're supposed to be, or is it because the heights are constantly being approved at a higher level as exceptions rather than what the base zoning is? Because those are two different things. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The question you have asked is so complicated and would be so time-consuming for me to answer because of provisions in the Naples City charter with respect to height that I -- the thing that I take away -- I just want to say one more thing and then get Commissioner Vernon in -- that the way Mr. Bosi answered it is exactly how I saw it. I'm not wanting to limit this to Bayshore. I think this ought to be across the board and, because that would be a very large job, I'm not going to fall on my sword over it tonight, but I did want to be heard raising a point just on behalf of the average Joe landowner walking down the street and being concerned about canyonization creeping up because zoned height is not the actual height, and it's not the height that would necessarily appear to a bystander, someone walking on the street. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Is this -- Mike, is this within our purview, something we could take a look at in terms of -- not specific to Bayshore, but literally take a look at across the board? MR. BOSI: Oh, yes. It's one of the development standards that's common to every zoning district. The use of zoned height and the merits of incorporating actual height to each one of those zoning districts could be -- you know, it's certainly one of the purviews that's underneath the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I, you know, I said, I think maybe during the election process, that, you know, we seem to be coming together as a group, and I really like the idea of serving on a board where we're proactive and we're not just reactive. So if there's really a -- I'd say it probably takes the staff a while to put something together, but maybe sometime next year, when we have a really light meeting, to spend an hour on this and see if we want to take a look at it so that -- you're correct, you know, a lot of the first questions, well, what's the real height, whether it's the public or back here. So I think it's a good November 18, 2021 Page 14 of 17 idea for us to be proactive and look at that, but I think -- I do think it's maybe something we do in 2022. COMMISSIONER SHEA: January 6th is wide open. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, if that's enough time for staff, I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff is so short right now that we've got to be very gingerly in our asking things of staff. But I think this is -- I think we're absolutely on the right track. And I agree with you, Commissioner, that being reactive is really not enough and that we can add value as a Planning Commission by stepping forward and taking initiative on ideas like this, and this idea would be a very broad and sweeping idea. And I would suggest, then, that we ask staff to come back at some appropriate time when you're not as shorthanded and we can perhaps have a workshop and talk about this, at least get the ball rolling on the whole subject of actual height throughout the county and not just in PUDs. MR. BOSI: And we'll work on that. We'll work on something to identify all of the zoning districts, what's the zoned height, and then what are the exceptions to all of those and what you could -- you know, so you could have an evaluation as to see, is it really a problem. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Thank you very much. Good. Let me see what else I have. Not too much. Oh, yeah. On Page 24, or Packet Page 27, there is a note and it's Note 6, and it refers to Table 7, and the note says, development in the mini-triangle area of the GTO MXD subdistrict shall have a maximum setback of 20 feet. I thought we were more concerned about minimum setbacks, are we not? MR. BOSI: What I would say is what they are trying to accomplish within specifically the Gateway Triangle Overlay is creating that pedestrian feel of bringing buildings much closer to the right-of-way and not have parking and various other things that tend to have the openings of space and are less inviting from a pedestrian corridor. It would be why I would think that that would be imposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: But, yes, you are correct, normally it is minimal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, all right. Planning Commission have any issues with that? It's something -- once again, I hate to keep bringing up the City of Naples, but that's where my experience is. And on Fifth Avenue, the whole idea of -- go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I was just going to say, well, I think you're going to see a little bit of a different approach that's going to come to your City of Naples in the design district and DPZ and that charrette and what they're trying to bring with form-based code isn't bringing buildings away from the right-of-way. It's bringing buildings closer to them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's certainly -- that's created some opposition, though, among people who, for instance, like to walk down Fifth Avenue South, and there's no significant sidewalks there, and people are actually having dining on the sidewalks, but I digress. Okay. That answers the question. Let me see if I can move quickly through these. I don't have too many more, I don't think. Oh, I know. And we talked about this on Tuesday. And I'm -- this takes me to Page 40, which is -- of the free-standing material, it's Packet Page 43, and it's Subsection F of something. But in any event, it's called massing and scale. And I offered suggested rewording of that, and at the time staff didn't seem to have a problem with what I was suggesting. I don't know if you've had time to think about it. Let me -- let me state what I was offering and see what the Planning Commission thinks. Right now it says massing and scale: Houses shall relate in mass and scale to the November 18, 2021 Page 15 of 17 surrounding neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera, and I have problems with the concept of things relating to, because everything relates to everything else in some way or another. And I think what we're really trying to get at has to do with similarity and compatibility. And so what I was proposing to rewrite and would offer this to the Planning Commission with comment from staff is that it would say, "Housing shall, in mass and scale, be similar to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood," et cetera. Staff, do you want to say anything before I ask the Planning Commission what they think about that? MR. BOSI: Staff has no objection from a code perspective of that type of clarification. I would also defer to the Bayshore in terms of whether they feel that that may upset what's being proposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't it the case that what we're driving at here is compatibility, when we say "relate to massing and scale"? I mean, these are -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- words that you usually think of in terms of compatibility. MS. DeJOHN: Yes, that's agreed. And just to further your point, the end of the sentence there is descriptive in saying, by adhering to the following standards, colon. So the opening of the sentence leads to adherence to the standards below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, to me it would be in terms of compatibility. But these are all -- I mean, these are very good points that you're adding. But I just -- I have a problem with the "relate to" because I don't think it takes us anywhere logically. Other Planning Commissioners want to be heard on this subject? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. May we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I only ask that -- I mean, what Laura's saying is that after the colon they define the specifics of how they relate; is that not enough? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not for me. I just -- I want it to be clear because compatibility's an issue that we deal about every single time we meet. And I think it's what underlies these concerns, and I think it would strengthen it if we added that language along with the specific points that have been put in there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Could you repeat the language that you proposed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, yeah. The new language would read, "Massing and scale: Houses shall, in mass and scale, be similar to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood," et cetera. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I guess my only comment is I'd be deferential to what they're actually looking for. I mean, she's conveying that thought. I mean, is that something that helps you guys, or you don't really like that idea? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. Deborah made a good point right now that the -- like, this is a redevelopment area. So sometimes there's older, outdated, nonfunctional buildings with new buildings going in, and so I would recommend we do not reference "similar to." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How about if I delete that conjunctive part of the sentence so that it's just compatible, because that's -- MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's okay, then? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are other sections of the text, for example, on Page 45, numerical Page 45 where you're talking about apartments that has similar language. So you are November 18, 2021 Page 16 of 17 changing some standards, and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I only found it in one other place, and I was going to mention that. The same language would be replicated. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Are you going to change the one on Page 45, the existing text? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to change -- it's on my Page 48. Yeah -- that's 45, yeah, yeah. We're talking about the same thing. That's the only place I found it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I saw it in there as well. I did not see it in other sections. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So my suggestion is is that -- and that's Sub D on Page 45 or Packet Page 48 that I would ask that we rewrite the same way and without using the reference to "similarity," just "compatibility." Any objections? MS. DeJOHN: I'm just going to mention, the occurrence might -- because this is a broken-up document to illustrate where the changes are occurring, just if we find that occurrence in one word, little subsection -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MS. DeJOHN: -- we'll make the change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thanks. And that is all I have. And no one is signaling right now. May I infer from that that there are no questions or comments or points of discussion remaining for staff? Does staff have any further before we -- MR. BOSI: Nothing further from staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I don't know, are there any members of the public even here at this point? I think not. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I do not have any registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Youngblood. So with that, we'll close the public comment portion of this. MR. BOSI: I think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Eric Johnson, did you want to say something? MR. BOSI: -- Eric Johnson wants to give staff's position. MR. JOHNSON: Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I remember and recall what was said with respect to pulling together the information to show -- or demonstrate that animals and small children, safety, when we make our presentation to the BCC; that we recognize the BZO and GTZO; and then the third thing is the -- all instances where it says "relate," that should be changed to "compatible with," more or less. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If the context is the same. MR. JOHNSON: If the context is the same. Okay. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And with respect to the safety and the culverts and the small children and animals, I think what we're wanting to do is simply call that out for the Board of County Commissioners to be satisfied that staff has made the demonstration of what probably are already there, but just so somebody reads it into the record, that the -- that whatever -- whatever part of the government oversees this, I can't recall now, but they have sufficient safety points in place so that we needn't worry about children and small animals being stuck in these things, to their satisfaction not ours, and that way we can pass it on. Okay. Anything else to be said? We've closed the public comment portion of the hearing. And we can have a discussion, or we can entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with all the changes you just stated. November 18, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is staff comfortable that you've got them all? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the proposed changes in the LDC and we pass it on with our recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners, again, subject to those conditions and changes that we mentioned. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. DeJohn and staff, CRA, everyone, for all your work; Ms. Forester, as well, of course. And I don't believe we have any old business; we've completed that. I don't believe we have any new business, do we? Ms. DeJohn, are you -- nothing. Okay. All right. Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no public comment because there's no public, so we're at a point now where, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ________________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 17 of 17 ******** 2/17/22 ✔