DSAC Subcommittee Minutes 11/14/2011 ` November 14,2011
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida
November 14, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee
of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference
Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office,
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Clay C. Brooker
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
STAFF PRESENT:
Jamie French, Director— Operations & Regulatory Management
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manger
Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner—LDC Coordinator
Christopher Scott, Senior Planner
Fred Reischl, Senior Planner
John Podczerwinsky, Manager—Development Review Project
John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plan Reviewer
1
November 14,2011
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 PM by Staff.
A quorum was established; three members were present.
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN:
Robert Mulhere nominated Reed Jarvi to serve as Chairman. Second by Clay Brooker.
Carried unanimously, 3—0.
(Reed Jarvi arrived at 1:08 PM)
Robert Mulhere nominated Clay Brooker to serve as Vice Chair. Second by
Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 3—0. (Mr. Brooker abstained from voting.)
Mr. Jarvi accepted Chairmanship of the Subcommittee.
III. MEETING SCHEDULE:
• Meetings will be held in Conference Room#609/610
o November 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM
o December 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM(prior to regular DSAC Meeting)
o December 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM
IV. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS—GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION:
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2011—CYCLE 1
A. Proposed Amendments:
1. Section 10.08.02—Definitions
Purpose: Revise the definition of"kenneling" to omit specific numbers, age,
and zoning districts.
Reason: The issue is not necessarily a zoning issue and is not regulated by the
LDC. It will be regulated by the Domestic Animal Services Department.
Suggested Change:
(1) Change the word "kenneling"to "kennel."
Discussion ensued concerning the benefit of removing the limitation on the
number of animals.
• Amanda Townsend will be asked to attend the next Subcommittee meeting
to explain current policy, clarify the proposed changes and related issues.
Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next
Subcommittee meeting.
2
November 14,2011
2. Section 1.08.02—Definitions
Purpose: Re-insert the definition of"Rural Subdivision"which was
inadvertently omitted.
Suggested Changes—Page 1:
(1) Change heading to "Subdivision, Rural"to remain consistent with LDC.
(2) First sentence: Change to "a"to "as" (i.e., "within the area defined as. . .")
(3) Line 7: The sentence shall read: "The following prior or future division of
lands shall constitute a Rural Subdivision, except ..."
(4) Line 13: Add a semicolon after the word"way"
(5) Line 13: Add the word"or"after the semicolon
Page 2:
(1) Line 1: Change "past"to "prior"
(2) Line 1: Remove the phrase "and other areas of Collier County" from the first
sentence
(3) Line 1 shall read: "Any other prior or future divisions of land within the
area defined as Rural/Agricultural on the Collier County Future Land
Use Map not meeting the above . . . "
Consensus: Accepted
3. Section 10.02.03 (B)(1)(j -k)—Submittal Requirements for Site Development
Plans
Purpose: Stipulate that Collier County and F-DOT Right-of-Way permits
may be submitted following SDP approval and at/or prior to the pre-
construction meeting with the County.
John Podczerwinsky stated the LDC requires an approved Right-of-Way Permit
is in place before an SDP can be approved. Practically, it is more efficient to
approve an SDP before obtaining an ROW Permit. He noted the definition should
also be listed in the Right-of-Way Handbook.
Consensus: Accepted
4. Section 4.02.03—Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and
Structures
Purpose: To add specific Standards for Agricultural and Estates Zoned
properties.
Reason: To eliminate confusion regarding the use of personal storage containers.
3
November 14,2011
Ray Bellows stated the LDC is silent on the use and placement of personal
storage containers and how to treat them—as a permanent or temporary structure.
The containers will not be allowed in residentially-zoned area and are required
to be tied down, which changes the classification to a"structure."
(David Dunnavant arrived at 1:40 PM)
Jamie French noted some of the storage containers are so large and heavy that
they are not required to be tied down. The application will go through the
Building Permit process.
Clay Brooker requested background information on the issue.
Ray Bellows responded the containers had not been permitted previously as a
permanent structure. The containers had been allowed on site under a"Temporary
Use Permit"as a temporary structure during construction or remodeling .
Bob Mulhere concurred there had not been a clear-cut policy.
Suggested Changes:
(1) Page 1, Remove capitalization from"personal storage containers"from the
Section as appropriate
(2) Page 4, Line 24, Add"and other similar products" following PODSTM within
the parenthesis
Consensus: Accepted
5. Section 10.02.03 (B)(4)(b)—Submittal Requirements for Site Development
Plans
Purpose: Revise extension dates for approved Site Development Plans from
one to two years.
Reason: Additional time is needed to complete improvements due to current
economic conditions.
Clay Brooker noted that, technically, the Amendment grants an unlimited number
of two-year extensions and the Code could very likely change during that time
period.
Suggested Change:
(1) Page 2, Line 7: Add "for good cause shown" at the end of the first sentence.
Consensus: Accepted
6. Section 10.02.05 (B)—Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
Purpose: Revise extension dates for approved Construction Plans and Plats
from one to two years.
4
November 14,2011
Reason: Additional time is needed to complete improvements due to current
economic conditions, and to be consistent with State of Florida policy.
Suggested Change:
(1) Page 2, Line 6: Remove "Additional extensions" at the beginning of the
last sentence.
(2) Page 2, Line 5: Remove period from the final sentence and add the phrase,
"and may be granted at the discretion of the County Manager or designee."
Consensus: Accepted
(2:00 PM—Bob Mulhere left.)
7. Section 10.02.05 (G)—Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (new
section)
Purpose: To clarify the Construction Plan ("CONSTR") application process
Reason: To codify the process to allow an applicant to submit construction plans
which are not associated with a Plat or an SDP.
John Podczerwinsky noted construction plans are required when a roadway is to
be built within a platted development.
Caroline Cilek confirmed the Section will also be included in the Administrative
Code.
Clay Brooker asked if"construction plans"was defined anywhere in the Code.
John Podczerwinsky stated there is a dual submittal for Plats and Construction
Plans. The process outlined in the Amendment would eliminate the necessity of
submitting for Plat approval, i.e., for a developer to access his development. No
structures would be developed on the roadway.
Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next
Subcommittee meeting. John Houldsworth will be present to explain/clarify issues.
8. Appendix "A:" Update of form—Letter of Credit
Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next
Subcommittee meeting. John Houldsworth will be present to explain/clarify issues.
B. Corrections/Errors:
1. Section 2.03.01 —Agricultural Zoning Districts
Purpose: To restore a passage to the LDC which had been inadvertently
omitted during re-codification.
5
November 14,2011
Passage:
"Side yard: 30 feet, except for legal nonconforming lots of record which are
nonconforming due to an inadequate lot width, in which case, it shall be
computed at the rate of ten(10)percent of the width of the lot, not to exceed a
maximum requirement of 30 feet."
Clay Brooker asked why the phrase "not to exceed a maximum requirement of
30 feet"was included. He noted the largest nonconforming lot is 149 feet in
width.
John Podczerwinsky agreed the language was confusing.
Mr. Brooker referred to Subparagraph(d) at Lines 16 and 17 on Page 3, stating it
was not mathematically possible.
Suggested Change:
(1) Remove phrase "not to exceed a maximum requirement of 30 feet" from the
Section as appropriate on Page 1 and Page 3.
Consensus: Accepted
(2:20 PM-John Houldsworth arrived.)
A. Proposed Amendments:
8. Section 10.02.05 (G)—Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (new
section)
Chairman Jarvi asked Mr. Houldsworth for clarification of Section 10.02.05 (G)
—Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans and outlined his reservations
concerning the proposed new process.
John Houldsworth stated the process has been in effect. There is an application
for Construction Plans when a Plat is not involved.
John Podczerwinsky noted when a Developer submits a PPL (Plat and Plans),
the plans submitted are construction plans.
Chairman Jarvi asked if an SIP would also cover this requirement. He was
concerned that a new process would need to be incorporated in the SDP process
and other connections in the LDC.
Caroline Cilek stated the Amendment formalized the process that has been in
place by reducing it to a"writing."
Chairman Jarvi reiterated his concern was the application of the new process to
the LDC.
Caroline Cilek noted the Section will be included in the Administrative Code and
could be efficiently changed if necessary.
John Podczerwinsky suggested limiting the Section to infrastructure and right-
of-way, both public and private.
Chairman Jarvi concurred.
6
• ' ' November 14,2011
David Dunnavant asked if a document was issued at the conclusion of the process,
i.e., a Certificate..
It was noted a final inspection of the project would be required and the fees were
noted in the Section.
It was agreed that the SDP process was significantly more involved that the
process outlined in the Section.
Clay Brooker stated the Amendment memorializes the existing process which
allows a easy way to accomplish something under a unique set of circumstances.
He asked if cross-referencing another Section that defined"construction plans"
would be sufficient.
Chairman Jarvi asked if a pre-construction or pre-application meeting was
required as part of the process.
Clay Brooker asked if there was be a chapter in the LDC that discussed
"construction plans,"when they could be applied for, what should be submitted
for approval.
Consensus: The Section will be revised for clarification concerning connections
to the LDC and returned to the Subcommittee for review.
8. Appendix "A:" Update of form—Letter of Credit
Mr. Houldsworth stated the only change was the addition of an address.
Consensus: Accepted
B. Corrections/Errors:
2. Section 2.03.08—Rural Fringe Zoning District
Purpose: To correct a Scrivener's Error by adding the word "from" to
Paragraph (B)(1) (Line 7,Page 1).
Consensus: Accepted
3. Section 4.02.01 —Dimensional Standards
4. Section 4.02.04—Standards for Cluster Residential Design
Purpose: To correct spelling error, i.e., "principle"with "principal."
Consensus: Accepted
5. Section 5.03.02—Fences and Walls,Excluding Sound Walls
Purpose: To remove a reference to an illustration which does not exist.
Consensus: Accepted
7
November 14,2011
6. Section 5.06.00—Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classifications
Purpose: For clarification and insertion of language omitted during rewrite.
Clay Brooker noted a Court case successfully challenged the previous Sign Code
and asked if the rewrites complied with the Court's decision.
Chairman Jarvi questioned the defmition.
Marco Espinar referenced Line 27 on Page 4, and asked why the height
requirement was specified.
Michele Arnold reminded the Subcommittee there were specific regulations
regarding the posting of"No Trespass" signs, including spacing requirements.
Caroline Cliek will research the issue.
Public Speaker:
Dick Dahl asked if a Builder's name is on a flag, it is considered to be a
"commercial message?" If yes, is the"flag"then to be considered a"sign" which
requires a permit?
Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next
Subcommittee meeting. Diana Compagnone will be present to explain/clarify the
issues.
7. Section 5.06.05—Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classifications
Purpose: For clarification and insertion of language omitted during rewrite.
Discussion ensued.
David Dunnavant stated a goal of the codification process was the make the
Code more "user friendly" and it has not happened. He objected to the color
limitations in general and specifically concerning canopies. He asked if the Sign
Code has always been correct.
Clay Brooker stated more information concerning the Court decision was needed
to determine if the rewrite complied with it.
Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next
Subcommittee meeting. Diana Compagnone will be present to explain/clarify the
issues.
8. Section 3.05.02—Exemptions from Requirements of Vegetation Protections
and Preservation
Purpose: To correct a Scrivener's Error.
(Not discussed.)
8
November 14,2011
Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee recommend to DSAC to approve the
Amendments as previously discussed and accepted by the Subcommittee with the
exception of the tabled Amendments. Second by Marco Espinar.
Carried unanimously, 4—0.
NEXT MEETING DATES:
November 28,2011 at 1:30 PM
December 7,2011 at 1:00 PM (prior to regular DSAC Meeting)
December 14,2011 at 1:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Vice Chairman at 2:50 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE
//
Reed J,rvi, •air#nan
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , 2011
"as presented" [X1 OR "as amended" [ 1.
9