Loading...
DSAC-LDR Minutes 07/29/2024Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2024 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING Naples, Florida July 29, 2024 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Mark McLean Jeffrey Curl ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Planner III Jaime Cook, Development Review Division Director Lisa Blacklidge, Planning Manager Rachel Hansen, Consultant, The Neighborhood Company Patrick Vanasse, Consultant, The Neighborhood Company Brett Rosenblum, Planning Manager Rey Torres Fuentes, Ops Support Specialist I 21 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 2 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 Community Department. 1. Call to order: Chairman - The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. Approval of agenda Motion to approve today’s Agenda passed with item 4b preceding item 4a and add architectural standards to the Estates 3. Old Business a. PL202400005299 - Major Transportation Hub (f.k.a. Major Transit Stop Definition) Comment - Johnson • We met in May and had a different iteration of this amendment. • We learned that Florida Statutes changed and signed by Governor May 16th. • Major Transit Stop was no longer a valid definition. • Last meeting Mr. Foley made a motion to accept the change to define Major Transportation Hub and the designated area along a fixed local Public Transit Route where a publicly funded bus stop to load and unload passengers. • We took that from what would have been the Major Transportation Hub and incorporated that into Transit Stop and the following are what we consider those to be. • The 3 major transit stops are 1. The Government Center transfer station 2. The Radio Road transfer station 3. Immokalee transfer station • Looking for a discussion. Comment - McLean • Do we have the authority to further define a transit stop? • i.e. Someone wanting to do a 300-unit affordable housing complex somewhere and they insert a bus stop that’s going to have 200 people a day on it; could they get the parking reduction? • I’ve not seen that materialize and don’t know if this helps achieve the goal it was after which was to incentivize reduced paring for affordable housing. • The CAT guy was supposed to get back to us regarding this. Comment - Johnson • I will investigate. 22 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 3 Comment - Brooker • My understanding is that Live Local was amended to read if you are a major transportation hub, the local government shall reduce the parking. • When you have just a transit stop, the local government can consider reduced parking, so it is not mandatory. Comment - Curl • I like where Mark was headed. Try to rectify if the CAT route existed there or not and/or the possibility of expanding the CAT route. • That is what the CAT fellow was going to get back to us on. Comment - Brook • The Bill’s definition on page 2 “Any transit station, whether bus, train, or light rail, which is served by public transit with a mix of other transportation options.” • It expressly requires a mix of other transportation options Comment - McLean • I know of a bus stop those services 12 people a day • We are looking to do a 300-unit housing complex. • We are going to need a definition like this, and I think it needs to be defined more broadly. Comment - Brooker • Motion to approve as written petition 2040005299 for the definitions of “major transportation hub” and “transit stop” as written. Additionally, we would like to recommend that the BCC allow us to explore defining parking reductions on a transit stop in the future. Mr. McLean made a motion to approve petition 2040005299 as written with the recommendation to the BCC that they allow for Staff and DSAC to explore defining “parking reduction under the term ‘Transit Stop’”. Seconded by Mr. Curl. Motion passes unanimously, 3- 0. Comment - Curl • Mark and Peter were going to get together on architectural standards. • They are blowing out a CPUD at the Randall Curve and it is another missed opportunity that is frustrating. Comment - Johnson • Last meeting Mark asked Marissa to give guidance. Comment – McLean • Staff has not reached out to discuss. 23 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 4 Comment – Johnson • Staff will reach out to you. Comment - Curl • So, at the October meeting we will have language in front of us to check out. Comment - Johnson • I think that is doable. 1. NEW BUSINESS b. PL20240008157 - Updated Approval of Residential Building Permits Richard Henderlong, Planner III Assigned planner for this LDC amendment for the Growth Management Community Department zoning division. Jaime Cook, Director and Lisa Blackridge, Planning Manager for the Development Review Division as present. This petition is being submitted. It is petition PL20248157, which the project name is update the approval of residential building permits. It’s an amendment that is being introduced to comply with the newly created 2024 Florida statute. Section 177-073 called Expedited Approval of a Residential Building Permits Before Final Plat is Recorded. This was approved by the governor on May 29th, 2024. So, this amendment in the companion administrative code for on a fast track to meet the state-mandated deadline. It requires by no later than October 1st, 2024, the county update the building permit process. So, an applicant may request up to 50% and then up to 75% or more by December 31st, 2024 of planned homes or the number of building permits that will be issued for a residential subdivision or planned community before a PLA is recorded with the clerk of before to meet this deadline, the amendment is scheduled to be heard DSAC August 7th next week, planning commission August 15th and the board in September amendment has been deemed to be consistent with a growth management plan in any fiscal impacts associated with the application will be at the expense of the applicant. In general, the LDC text changes that are before you accomplish the following. First, it renames the optional preliminary subdivision plat to Conceptual Plat with Deviations. This allows for the deviations from design standards that are not elsewhere within, within the county. And it also recognizes that PPL process is the developer's preference over a PSP process. Secondly, to rename LVC section 10 0 2 0 4 to collectively be requirements for subdivision plat rather than preliminary and final subdivision plat. Thirdly, Florida statute 177-073 refers to a preliminary plat and final plat. Since the county only 24 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 5 has one submission to the board for a final plat, it will serve as the preliminary plat and the final plat on the statute. Lastly, it allows for an applicant to identify up to 50% of plain homes or number of building permits that may be issued before a final plat is recorded. If you have any questions, staff is here to answer them. We're seeking your recommendation of approval to the textual changes and those minor changes that were submitted to you on Friday's packet July 26th. And they primarily did a textual change, minor textual change, and then some add-ons through the administrative code. Comment - Curl • The Attorney’s Office has reviewed all of this? Comment - Henderlong • Yes, we’ve had a preliminary review on it. It gets final review when it gets to the Planning Commission. Comment - Cook • We are simply renaming our PSP process as plat with deviations so that if a developer comes in and applies for the preliminary plat in accordance with the Statute, they are applying for the correct item. Comment - Brooker • If the developer either goes preliminary or conceptual with deviations, they are still entitled to do this 50% of residential permits? Comment - Cook • Not the plat with deviations. If they apply for a PPL, which will serve as both the preliminary and the final plat to meet the state statute, they will be able to apply for building permits up to the 50%. They'll just identify on the application how many they're requesting. • The plat deviation simply identifies the tracks of land. So, it's going to identify the track of road and the track where whatever the development may be, it doesn't have to specify out the lot lines. So, if they do it choose to do a plat with deviations, they're going to come back with a PPL anyway. Comment - Brooker • At that point they become eligible under the Statute. 25 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 6 Comment - Blacklidge • You don't have to use the master building permit process. They were saying you need to implement one. If you still come in for them, you'll still be allowed to use them but as part of this, if you want to just come in for individual homes, that's fine. In discussion with Fred, we're just going to put a CO hold on these permits. • There's gonna be a CO hold, update the address, and there'll be a TCO and CO hold so that the permits do not get CO’d. Comment – Cook • Part of the state statute is that you can't get TCO’s or CO’s until the plat is actually reported. Comment – Henderlong • It allows entry into sales and contracts, but you can't close until the final plat is recorded. Mr. McLean made a motion to approve petition PL20240008157 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Curl. Motion passes unanimously, 3-0. a. PL20240004278 - Immokalee Urban Area Overlay Eric Johnson, Planning Manager LDC Also present, Rachel Hansen, The Neighborhood Company, and Patrick Vanasse Company, The Neighborhood. A brief history and overview of the proposal. The Immokalee Area Master Plan, IAMP, was first adopted by the county in 1991. There have been numerous updates to the IAMP through the years. Sections changing with this amendment, 2.03.07, 4.02.27/28//29/30/31/32/33, and 5.03.02. The team worked with the community stakeholders to analyze existing regulations including subdistricts principal uses, accessory uses, bonus densities, and design standards. There are substantive changes that are proposed including but limited to the reorganization of the subdistricts and creation of new subdistricts, new architectural site design standards, and new uses in subdistricts. Overall map of Immokalee Area Urban Overlay District is presented with different colored sections. (See handout) I wanted to just point out that the comprehensive planning staff reviewed this and determined that it may be consistent with the GMP. Comment - Curl • Is there really a buy-in from the Community on this? 26 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 7 Comment - Vanasse •With the approval of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, there was a call to update the land code. So, we, we started on this over a year ago. •We had 15-20 one-on-one group meetings. •We asked the CRA to target the folks that are more involved in Immokalee and with our community representatives. And they came to the table. We also looked at all the applications that have been submitted in the last few years either building permits or PDs. We wanted to identify the friction points in the last 5 years. i.e. Looking at a PUD, what were the deviations that kept coming up? •In starting this draft, we looked at the way the Golden Gate Master Plan was structured. SEE ADDENDUM FOR CONVERSATION. 2.PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 3.Upcoming DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting Dates Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2024 4.Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 5:10 p.m. 27 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 8 ADDENDUM Patrick Vanasse The first part of our process was to analyze all that, put a white paper together and kind of explain what those themes were. What kept coming up, what we heard from the public, and to summarize everything we heard through that white paper. Using the white paper feedback, we target those areas of the land development code. So, in starting to draft this, we looked at how Bayshore Overlay and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was structured. We tried to make our LDC amendments consistent with that existing structure. The only friction point I can think of is when you have deviations sometimes in PUDs the neighbors go, oh man, you overdid, you know, buffer widths are compressed trees, shrubs, walls, whatever. So, was there any negative reaction from the community about hey, that did have deviation? So, we don't like the end product as a community. Yeah. The balance with the MAFI is making it truly a land development code that's reflecting the community. We all know MAFI is not coastal Collier here, but the CRA had certain things that they wanted to be prescriptive. So, for the downtown area, the main street, the CRA years ago, we'd come up with a design guideline, a little handbook of what they'd like to see. The CRA wasn't ready to make that regulatory and impose that on businesses. Because it's always a fear of we want redevelopment we make it to owners on them. We might stifle redevelopment, right? But if we want to get there from a design standpoint, we also have to, to recommend those guidelines. So, we looked at those guidelines and some of 'em are included now as we want this to happen. And then when it came to landscaping a lot of times was what's that balance of not necessarily being as generous as coastal Collier, but how do you keep some vegetation but maybe, you know, instead of being vegetation throughout the parking lot, you push that to the boundaries and do it through the buffers. Maybe you take that extra vegetation, you put in the buffers and have clustered landscaping so you're saving on irrigation. We still get the green space, the neighbor's okay with it, but it's a little less constant. So, we try to find that balance and we got quite a bit of comments from Mark Templeton. We need to consider, for example, shade and heat islands. And we made some adjustments. What we heard from the public was eliminating a lot more or reducing the requirement. So, it's striking that balance. 28 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 9 Comment - Curl It’s interesting you hit on parking lots, and I brought this up and I don't even know how many years I've been on this committee, but oak trees and parking islands are just within 10 years. Sometimes I'm doing tree removal. A permits constant. So, if you're, I mean this could be a good template to update the land development code proper. I mean, if it's done correctly, you can take those trees and put 'em in a periphery or as long as it's not a huge parking field, but on a smaller compact lot Yeah. Eliminate 'em. Comment - Vanasse And I think it's through the, the SIP process. Okay. When you're redeveloping a, a project throughout Colorado County, you can ask for taking some of the landscaping, putting it towards the buffers. So, we kind of model modeled ourselves after that. And, and I, I think Rachel was telling me that we did limit that you can't, you can't eliminate all the interior plantings on a big parking lot. Right. But if it's especially this is relegated to just the, the main street area. Comment - Curl Exactly. Those are tiny. Comment - Vanasse Small lots to start off. Yes. Yeah. Comment - Hansen Yeah. The, it's 25 spaces or less, you can get that relief. Anything over 25 spaces is defaults to what's existing In the LDC. Okay. And then you can ask for variance, you know, we're, we're thinking if it's more than 25 spots it might be sizable. And then hopefully they, they that the, the pocket look that they can pay for a variance that goes through that Comment - Curl Process. Yeah, that's fine. 'cause one of the big things that I've encountered when I try to go to a business right there on main is you can't find a parking spot <affirmative>. So, if you can max out those parking spaces for the businesses <affirmative>, I think that's where everybody's at. 29 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 10 Comment - Eric Johnson Just to further what Patrick said when we as a staff were given the proposed language, we put it in our LDC format. I did not take this anywhere beyond this subcommittee. I mean this is like the first public meeting that I'm personally involved with. So, I just wanted to state that for the Record. Comment - Curl I like the disclaimer. Comment - Johnson There's still ongoing discussion with staff and hammering out all the fine details. We feel, you know, Patrick team felt like, you know, we can move forward with this process if anything changes between now and say, you know, you have a vote or the DSAC votes. And I hate to bring up that word substantive because there's a lot of, you know, that's subjective. You know, what may be substantive to me may not be substantive to you, vice versa. But we are still kind of like in somewhat of an evolving text here. But the goal is to move this along to try to get your feedback, as much feedback as possible to get a vote. If there's something that changes between now and you know, in the future, hopefully you have enough trust in me to determine whether or not I think it should go back to DSAC. As long as you don't pull the three out of five of the subcommittee or incorporated. We're good brother. I have another big picture question. Been watching the Bay Shore overlay for 20 years. Yeah. However, many years it's been in existence, and I don't, I think we're starting to see success now, but it took 20 years. So, the question I have is, are we employing the lessons learned from Bayshore? If there are any That's why he's the man for this one to me. If I had to compare the two, Bayshore was a lot of the design aspects I don't think it have, that's where we've seen a lot of the amendments. I think we were looking at some process issues also in creating this a different option to PUD where you could streamline the process. And I think from a process standpoint, it was untested, and a lot of people opted to not use that streamlined process. So, I think there was some lessons learned there. If you're creating a new process and, and there's not a huge benefit, people will probably stick to the tried true PUD process. So that was an example. But the, and there's a lot of those edits that we've seen those, those few other amendments after the initial, a lot of it seem to surround around how you get through that process or how do you transfer the density like you can in Bayshore and how you deal with some of the coastal issues. I think from the MAFI standpoint, most of it is, is a bit of a reduction in, in how owners the, the 30 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 11 red tape is. And so, I think from that standpoint, it, I don't think it'll imp repeat anything, but lesson I learned in working with any CRA is that, you know, a lot of times you set the groundwork and you put the regulations in place and the, when it really hits that critical mass, it's all market driven. It's when it's, it's, it becomes a more attractive space than best versus elsewhere. And now it starts making sense. That's, that's when it's, it takes off and the best we can do is lay it around and get those regulations and be ready to embrace that develop when comes. Comment - Curl Totally agree. I mean, to me the best cornerstone of Immokalee that defies the entire land development code is that little Zocalo. I never can get the pronunciation correct, but there's no buffers on the south and the east. You look right into a hardscape plaza. So why not get a different identity for a community? So that's why I'm asking about stakeholders because if they feel like they can hit the ground running with this and really spur development through the CRA man, that's what we're here for. Comment - McLean Building off of that, Eric always mentions when we start debating text to of code that we're in, this came from here or this came from there. You mentioned Bayshore recently we did Golden Gate, we probably spent three meetings, three, you know, nine months going line by line through Golden Gate. That might have been an overkill. But I've done my first project in that overlay district and it was smooth sailing. It was exactly what we wanted to do. It was awesome. Then we did the 41 overlays, and we did the whole thing in two hours and felt like it was a little short on our time to review that. So, I, I see on here there's no DSAC time limit. You don't have, you have a TBD on here, so we're not pushing this to be on DSAC in a week. I guess the question would be what was the base overlay district that came under this thing and what type of time constraint do you want us to abide by on this? And then the last question I'll ask is, we always focus on property owners' rights. So as an architect, the first thing I always do is I go in and look at uses, permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibited uses. And I've seen a couple of these zones where we're creating a prohibited use for something that's already in the district. And that's always troublesome to me if we're gonna eliminate an existing use in a district. For example, a Main Street district has made gas stations of prohibitive use and there are several gas stations in the Main Street district. So that's, that's always problematic to us. Well the, then there's a new gas station that went in directly across the street from another gas station. So, it's like so tiny. No, I get it, but I'm just saying we always talk about landowner's rights and if I'm a landowner 31 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 12 using that as an example, if, if if there's a gas station across the street I wanna put my gas station on to be competitive, we've now eliminated that one use. I'm just using that as an example. So that, that makes me question, do we want to take the next nine months in the next three meetings and go through this line by line? And I guess I would defer back to, you know, the, the neighborhood, whether or not you guys want us to take that deep of a depth look into it or do you want us to just kind of h with this versus line for this and it doesn't end there. The other one to me would be a dollar store. I mean, my god, there's family dollar across from General Dollar and I get it, we're dealing with this whole food desert, whatever that stupid thing is where a gas station, a fueling station then becomes a Pantry. And a dollar store becomes a pantry. I think that's the stupidest thing personally around, 'cause now you get our gas stations and our stores, which then enters the moratorium on those things because otherwise that's what you're gonna have on every major corner. So, to me that's kind of a tough one to tackle. I should, I'm just setting up my position to just say how deep do you want us to dive on this and how happy are you with the way this is written? I think we'll leave it up to you what you decide, but I've been around Collier County for a long time and, and a lot of the consulting work we do tends to be for the, the development industry. And we understand most of our clients along with any property rights. And we, we also understand how Colorado County has gone above and beyond and even in the common plan, you know, consistent making, making uses consistent by policy to say, yeah, we may have changed that, but it would if it was consistent. It's more than just grandfathering. It's consistent by policy. So, so we understand that history. We, we looked at all the uses and, in our minds, we've allowed everything, and we've added uses. The only ones that were taken away, for example, the gas station is a good example. That was at the request of the, the stakeholders in this discussion with, with the CRA. Otherwise, we are not removing any uses. It was when it was specifically requested of us. Comment - Brooker If we are removing a use, are we violating the Senate bill 260? Comment - Hansen We’re not removing anything that wasn’t prohibited in the previous related table of uses. It used to be in 2 03 27, excuse me. Those used to be in the individual subdistrict, sub-districts listed, prohibited, conditional permitted uses. They were just moved into the, the table of use format. But I did do a double check on that 'cause that question of senate bill 260 did come up. And so, nothing that we've done is more prohibitive than what was previously there. Comment- Brooker But I I thought I just heard gas stations were permitted in one subdistrict main street but are no longer permitted in that subdistrict. Well Comment - Vanasse I may have misspoke, but I I know that is what we had is, is each overlay had some little 32 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 13 nuances and now we've gathered everything under one, one table and we have to look at the underlying zoning, commercial zoning versus what those districts were. So, I assume that Mr. <inaudible> was correct <laugh> Well, my memory was obviously correct. Comment - McLean I don't even go to the chart that much. I mean, I go to the, the written, you know, section D on page 13, it's literally prohibited uses in a main street overlay district. And it is, and it eliminates, you know, I just used the facilities for fuel pumps or gas stations, and I can literally, in my mind's eye think of six in that overlay district. So how did they get there? Comment - Hansen It would've predated this original overlay. Comment - McLean But that goes back to the 1980s. I know there's one in there that's less than three years old. The one across from the casinos less than three years old. The gas station. Yeah. Oh, there's a newer one right in the 29 curb. It's a big old seven eleven. But was that an existing convenience store fueled? It was an empty lot. Yeah. So how did those get there if they were, they didn’t. Had a house on it. Comment - Curl Well, I mean, did it have a smaller gas station in there and it just expanded? I'm just using a single example that, you know, just something that stands out to me that we usually discuss here as far as land user or landowner rights. Yeah. And prohibitive uses is always part of mine for me. Comment - Brooker So, so I guess that would be our ask of staff is simply to confirm that nothing that is permitted today would be not permitted if this gets adopted. Comment - Vanasse That’s a fair ask. We'll go back and do a deep dive and really the, you know, we, we've done it once, but we'll do it again. And, and the, the gas station is good with the really example Comment - Curl Dollar stores too, man. I don't mean to make light of it, but you've already got two across the street from each other. So that may not be the only, you know, I think the, the biggest nexus that you want to create in any planning exercise is you don't want repetitive uses on the same block. You wanna spread it out, give people, you know, opportunities to move and shop here, shop here, shop here, not, you know, hey, I'm hitting the dollar store. Oh well let's hit the one over there. I mean, come on man. And, and I think that that's a bit of a reflection of the market over there and you know, those are, those zoning districts allow those uses. But again, it's not all market. It's that food desert definition that it's the government level and the incentive that's there to abate the food desert. So 33 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 14 anyway, Comment - Eric Johnson Yeah, I think that was a legitimate ask, you know. For us to confirm what uses are being taken away and we'll provide that to you. We’ll look further into it and make sure that, Comment - McLean And then again just going back to stakeholders again. I mean when we did the 41 overlay district, we know we were talking about building setbacks and we were talking about sidewalk placements and we got into the whole conversation of, well now we've got a sidewalk on 41 and a sidewalk adjacent to the building. Yep. We do that again here. So, it's kind of like, if this was built off the 41-overlay district, there were things in that district that we changed that's reoccurring in, in this particular district where it's talking about building placement to the property line with a sidewalk next to the building and a sidewalk adjacent to the street. Well, if you've got a 25-foot set front setback, you've got two six-foot sidewalks in that 25 feet. It's kind of an oxymoron That's a glitch in the code that again, we found digging through the 41 code. So again, I would just ask, how deep do you want us to dive on this thing? I read through it for the most part, all of the LDC stuff came forward from the base LDC and there's not any major issues in it. There's just a couple of things that I saw. Just so you know, the US 41, we never brought that forward because of the SB 260, Comment - McLean I guess, right? So, so how would this be different? But, substantively how would this be different then if we're writing a new overlay district or we're just bending the existing overlay District? Comment - Hansen Yeah, this is just amending the existing and basically taking, 'cause it used to be in multiple places throughout the existing LDC. This is putting it all in one spot. Okay. So that 41 was a new overlay district so that violated SB two 50. This is amending and existing, so this does not violate SB 260. Comment - Johnson My silence on that is, I personally don't know. I know that our county attorney's office would ultimately warn us that if it were gonna be a violation or inconsistent with SB two 50, that they wouldn't, they would advise not moving forward. So, we're kind of moving forward thinking that everything is okay, that the growth management, the I-A-I-A-M-P was amended, so we're just trying to implement what was already approved. But certainly, if there is an issue with that, we're not gonna go anywhere. Comment - Brooker But in terms of the deep dive stuff, this is, a lot of this is architectural, which I know zero about, 34 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 15 Comment - Vanasse Let’s clarify also on the architectural. So, we got two main sections of where we brought this into the land code, these standards with all the other. So, the 2 03 0 7, that's where all the overlays are established, and the uses are in there. So, all you know, Bayshore Gateway is also under that section. And then we have the design guidelines. Design regulations, and same thing, Bayshore Gateway, Golden Gate City or under that 4 02. So, we brought that in and in some instances, for example, when it comes to architectural guidelines, that section is pretty big and we just wanted to change key areas, but we had multiple areas we wanted to change, and the idea was let's bring everything in and then make those changes. So, if someone is working Immokalee they don't have to go and check both back and forth on everything. So that's why it, it's a huge strikethrough and then a whole new underline. But most of it is standard language that existed before with, and that's why you have the different colors instead of just a, a plain spray through an underline. So, you, and, and the different colors are to signify out it, this is brand new language versus just brought over. Comment - Hansen I do just want to clarify, I just looked in the existing LDC, all of those prohibited uses in the Main Street overlay, including facilities with fuel pumps are currently, it's the exact same language. Okay. Comment - Vanasse So, they would've had to have gone through some sort of variance process that they were successful. So, we're not changing any of that. Okay. Comment - Johnson So that's another general ask. I would request that as we go through this, and I still don't know exactly how we're doing that, but as we go through this, if there are areas of substantive change between what exists today and what is being proposed, perhaps you could point those out to us. Comment - Hansen Some of that is gonna be in, so in this packet, in this page, we put together a chart. It will have where like a, because like Pat was saying, a lot of it came from 5 0 5 0 8. So, it, it will note where things were modified. It doesn't tell you specifically what was modified. So, if you do want something to that level of detail, we could probably do that. But this will tell you where it came from and what the general change was. Comment - Vanasse I have that up on the screen. Comment - Brooker 35 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 16 My thought process is not line by line, but page by page and if you have a question that might be the most efficient way of proceed. So, I am on page 3 of my packet, that the first page of 2 0 3 0 7 in everyone's packet. Page 5 I have a question, lines 16-22 This is where this involves this loop road overlay subdistrict and we talk about properties to the northeast, the northeast and the west, south and southwest. Is there a way to key that on the map? So, we're not looking at very general, is that north or is that northwest. Comment - Hansen We don't have the alignment yet of that new ruper. So that's why it says the map is forthcoming. Once the FDOT has the alignment set, then there will eventually be a map. But until, Comment - Brooker So that language will ultimately change once we get the map. So, we're not referring generically to a north versus northwestern. The idea is once we have that alignment, show it graphically. Vanasse Any other questions on page 5, 6, 7? Comment - Brooker I have a question. This would be line seven through 10. The sentence is the overlay comprises approximately 363 acres, of which a maximum 30% or approximately 109 acres shall be commercial uses as permitted in the C four and C five zoning districts. So once that maximum is reached, the next guy in line, I guess the next guy in line could do commercial uses in the C four or I guess if you're first, you're limited to C four C five until that first 109 is filled up. Is that how that works? The, the, the general question is, is is there a first come, first serve type of issue here? Comment - Vanasse Our intent was not to create a cap for the district unless it was already there. Okay. It, it was probably more informational as to how much C four and how much C five was within the district. But, but the intent is, is not to create a cap unless it was already there. Comment - Curl While you guys are looking too, I'm just lost as to where their CAT transfer station is. Which district sub-district is it in? I just didn't know if that had any impact on the subdistrict with what we're talking about now 36 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 17 with the increase in density that's potentially gonna hit that, hit that district. Comment - Vanasse Rachel's looking it up. Meanwhile, just to give you a little background on information, when it comes to these different overlays and sub-districts, we went into this wanting to reduce those if we could, if we saw overlap or it, you know, it's like if you've got seven or eight sub-districts and they're kind of saying the same thing, do we, you need seven or eight? So, we, we in the end, this one, the AG agri business farm farm market overlay, those were two, we combined those because they were essentially doing the same thing. Okay. And, and basically, they, they, they just opened up more opportunities for both of those overlays. But the intent was the same thing. Geographically. They were connected. We had to add one more, which is on the map, the yellow one, which is right by the airport. And that came from the MPI area master plan. So, the MPI area master plan, it says you sh we shall, as a county, we shall create a new zoning overlay to basically support the uses at the airport. And the idea was to have commercial uses surrounding the airport. So, if someone did want to put, you know, like a diner close to, we've got some some heavier commercial uses, but then we want some lighter commercial close by to support those airport uses. So, from, from the overlays we were looking at, I think the only two that we were able to buy is this one. The right one, which is farm market. Were they split by 29? Is that They were, yeah, they were split before, and they were just slightly different from each other. Comment - Hansen The CAT station is on 1st St. But concern is related to how it would impact residential density, none of these subdistricts apply to residential properties. Only commercial. Comment - Brooker Be so, we'll, we'll make a note that, but the intent is, is obviously no cap unless it's already there. Otherwise, it should just be informational. It would appear that people who come first are restricted to C four and C five and people who come after that have a variety, larger variety uses page eight. Any questions? I just have one comment line 7 through 12. It's an incomplete sentence, I think. Page 9 line 32 February of 2016. Comment - Hansen So, it's related to the adoption of the Michael area master, but there was an amendment done and the, it's, it literally is asking you to go to the property appraiser aerial maps and count how many mobile homes are on a given property. This language did come from the original overlay, but I did look into that. It was related to an 37 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 18 LDC amendment that was started sometime in 2015. It was adopted in 2016. Comment - Brooker So, you literally go see a property appraiser website, zoom in and count. Yes. Okay, so pages 10, 11, 12. Yes. 12 and 12 are the, is the big table. Just before we get to your comment, Jeff, just in general, those are uses that were permitted, conditional and whatever provisional, well permitted and conditional use as exists today and, and, and with some expansion. Comment - Curl Page 12. I'm looking at outdoor, where sales of agricultural products. I see fencing and lighting in, in Roman numeral four. And then in the buffer 11, they seem to be doing the same thing. So why couldn't you put slats in a fence to screen the outdoor storage and not have them put a five foot hedge in front of the fence? And all this other, it seems punitive to me Maybe fences with slats or something? Yes, exactly. Just to screen the outdoor storage. I think that works. Okay. I don't think you need hedges and come on, man. So, you want to eliminate 11 pretty much. So that's, that's this direction. He wants to eliminate a left or make 11 a a right of way buffer, not a five foot edge. I mean, this is, Patrick hit the nail on the head. This is not coastal tire with I'm just, it's an AG dispatch. Comment - Brooker I think what I see Rachel doing is changing four and leaving five in place. I'm, you see what I'm saying? We're going slats and still keeping 11 there. So, we didn't No, 11 to me goes away. Okay. So that's what we want to do. Just strike 11. Comment - Johnson All right. So, when you say strike 11, you mean lines 27 through 29? Yes Whole 11. Comment - Curl You got it. Exactly. And again, that gives the way it is. Yeah. Just strike a level. Yeah. And again, that gives a seven foot height and not a five. So, if we're allowing for flexibility, I can still high off on a five-foot-high fence. That's fine. $2 less galvanized fence. So, leave number four the way it is. Yes. No add fencing with slats or fencing with screening. Oh yeah. The fencing should function to screen the outdoor storage is where I'm heading. So same thing as a buffer without damn bushes irrigation and somebody out there trimming and fertilizing 'em and mulch and blah, blah blah. Well, there's a lot of unapproved roads there too. The mulch is just gonna wash right in the road. There's no curbing. I consider the context, my man. Anything more on page 12? No, I, that one up pretty good. Yeah. Good job. Comment - Brooker Page 13, I think it looks like 14 through those are easy. <laugh> 2014 through the first half of 28 are strike through with a prior code. So, we can go straight to 28, I think. Okay, good. Anything on the bottom of 28? Page 29. I have three comments. Line one. And there you got another date. 38 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 19 November 10th, 2004. Is this another Jamie creation or? Comment - Hansen Yeah, that existed. That was from the previous overlay. I did not because, 'cause Jamie Co didn't ask about this one. So, I did not dig back the history of this one. But it would've, yeah, Comment - Brooker Okay then lines 22 through 24. I don't know what following shall be exempt. Is it, the following is, is on these lists of exemptions, but the expanded selection of materials shall apply. What does that mean? What you, you're exempt but you, you have to abide by the colors. I'm not quite sure or materials in color. So, this one I believe, and Pat, you can correct me if I'm wrong, if, if it's just routine repair and maintenance, you don't have to come up to the new standards in 4 0 2 27. Same for the public utility ancillary systems. But I think the idea was that if you were doing routine repair inmates, if you were gonna repaint a building that you could do, you could use, we've expanded the allowable colors I think beyond the like contrast that's typically allowed in 5 0 5, 0 8, I think it's five or 5 0 8. So, if you wanted to use the benefit of having more colors to choose from, if you were repainting your whole building, you could. Comment - Curl So stupid question. I want to paint my building bright green like Cricket. Do I have to come in for approval or just get the paint? Comment - Vanasse I think what we heard from the public is they want way more colors. Comment - McLean Here's the way I understand how this works. Eric or anyone can correct me if I'm wrong. To paint a building in Collier County, it's not like the City of Naples. You need design review, board approval. Yes. In Collier County you can paint without LDC. If the neighbors start complaining and you’re not compliant with this section of code that spells out colors, you could have to repaint. Comment - Curl So, nobody pre-approves the color palette. Comment - Hansen But the color palette is listed so people can look at it. Also, the CRA does have the design guidelines. Comment - Vanasse The code is written about the hues and the saturation also. You can avoid some of those bright reds 39 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 20 and by limiting those hues or the saturation, you limit the possibility of some bright colors. So, what you're seeing is really an expansion of that saturation requirement. Comment - Brooker Back to this 21 line, 21 to 24, when I first read it, I read that second sentence as a limitation on the exemption. In other words, for example, for routine repairs you don't have to go through these architectural site design standards, but you do have to comply with the colors. But what you're explaining to me now is that's not true, so I misinterpreted that we're actually having expanded set of colors that you can choose from. Comment - Vanasse That is correct. Comment - Brooker Line 49-50, same page. The committee used the word encouraged at the end of line 49. Comment - Curl Strike the word encouraged. Comment - Brooker Okay. Comment - Hansen It's tough with Senate Bill 250 we can't be overly prescriptive with a lot of this. I don’t know if we can or can’t. I think even in the existing LDC and Jaime (Cook), maybe you can answer this. I don't think that there are prescriptive architectural styles. Comment - Cook??? Right Comment - Brooker Page 30 anyone? Comment - McLean And this is where from an architecture vernacular, I’m fine with what I've read in here. So, my comments are more on page 31. The architecture vernacular is fairly broad. So, if that's what you're after, that's fine. Okay. Moving to page 31. Again, this all comes out of the LDC when you're talking about distances of walkways, percentages of glazing. If we're trying to be led at least restrictive, then we can start reducing these percentages. And that's where I started with the deep dive on things. These come from the LDC, and these are fine by me. I'm an architect. The more restrictive it is, the more of my competition you push out 40 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 21 of the market. So, I love restrictive architectural code. So, I don't want to dummy this down if this is what you guys want because I can design to this code all day long. Generally speaking, not a whole lot of changes, but for example, the amount of GLA administration, we might have reduced it 15% if you did these numbers. Comment - Hansen Peter did review this. Comment - McLean Then I’m fine with all these numbers. Comment - Brooker Anything else on page 31, 32, 33 Comment - Curl Page 42 The 10 shrubs per hundred feet. What is that supposed to do? Comment - Hansen We will take out the 10 ft. on center and call it 10 clustered shrubs. Comment - Curl Or planted in clusters whatever you want. Comment - Brooker On 42? Comment - Curl I like that the foundation planting is 10% back to Patrick’s because that's a lot more forgiving than the standard LBC. Same comment as we just had online. 41. Yeah. Clusters. Yeah. Thank you. <affirmative>. I probably saying the obvious but page 43. Yeah, on 43, does this have the crazy, again, back to our normal land development code, we've got that gigantic buffer and then an ungodly amount of bushes and trees. Are we following that or is this different? Comment - Vanasse The fuel pump? Comment - Curl They call for a meandering buffer is my point. I don't see as referred to 44 buffer and landscape requirements. I see it. Got it. Thank you. Comment - Brooker 44, 45 Comment - Curl Back to 44 on lighting line 18 where is it? Line 34. 41 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 22 Comment - Brooker 45, 46, 47, 48 Comment - Curl It’s all per hundred linear feet and we will add a cluster right? Comment - unknown? Yes Comment - Brooker 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 Comment - Curl So, if there's a way in line 31, foundation planting area shall be located adjacent to add a comma and with the exception of trees. That would add clarity. Comment - Brooker 56, 57 Comment - McLean? What I don't understand is the 25% . You’re saying with a parking lot that has four parking if you've got four parking spaces or more, you can substitute one for a bike rack. The 25% throws me. If I've got a hundred parking spaces, can I do 10 bike racks and substitute 10 parking spaces? Comment - Hansen We can talk about this, but maybe it needs to have a maximum threshold added to that. Comment - Brooker 58, 59 Okay. So, are we recommending line 30 that this language be changed to full cutoff or dark sky? Comment - unknown Yes sir. Comment - Vanasse I think we will bring up, but my understanding is the CRA does want to take a look at a proposed development, provide some feedback, some advice perhaps. But when it comes to regulatory issues where you've got code enforcement, they kind of say, well maybe it's better that we don't enter flying? things that keep it separate. 42 Rev. September 19, 2024 July 29, 2024 23 Comment - Brooker 60-69 Comment - Hansen If we look at line 42, 43 and, and I can't really speak to comparing it to the other one, but just in this case I know that we wanted to be cognizant of if it's a blend residential. Comment - Curl I'm pointing out an inconsistency within the land development on shrub height of 4 ft. at time of planting. Comment - Vanasse Change 4 ft. to five ft. of planting and keep the six feet within one year. Comment - Curl Yeah, if you want to save money, go back to the tree spacing. 25 to 30. Page 69, line 5. One tree per 40 linear feet? Comment - Hansen This applies to four small parcels. Because this only applies when it has a total building square footage of less than or able to 5,000 square feet. Comment - Brooker 70-75 Page 76 Section J. These are deviation regulations. Comment - Hanse This came from the original. Comment - Brooker So, the definitions of being substantial are identical of what exists today? Okay. Top of page 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 are all strikethroughs. Page 86 was discussed, and it was agreed to be okay. Comment - Hansen His proposal was to make a very small amendment to 2 0 6 0 1, which is that affordable housing chapter. And it would be just be under the review and recommendation section. So, it basically says instead of having to go to the planning commission and BCC, that the zoning division director designee can approve it. So, it would be a staff approval. 43 Comment - Brooker Was Bob bringing that up bccause it would be reflected in the proposed amendment. we are reading today part somewhere. It would be injected into it. Comment - Vanasse Yeah. Instead of him doing a privately initiated amendment, it'll probably be quicker if we just incorporate it. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMf,NT Rf,VIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Clay B , Chairman Rev. Scptcmber 19, 2024 July 29,2024 on /t/"v '/, |ol-sThese minutes were approved by the subcommittee/chairman (check one) as presented -( , or as amended -. 24 44 ,/ih,/32 L