DSAC Subcommittee Minutes 11/28/2011 November 28,2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida
November 28, 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 1:30 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:
Chairman: Reed Jarvi
Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker
James Boughton (Absent)
David Dunnavant (Absent)
Marco Espinar (Absent)
George Hermanson (Absent)
Robert Mulhere
STAFF PRESENT:
Jamie French, Director— Operations & Regulatory Management
Amanda Townsend, Director—Domestic Animal Services
Ray Smith, Director—Pollution Control
Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner—LDC Coordinator
Fred Reischl, Senior Planner—Land Development Services
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager
Jean Jordan, Project Manager—Bayshore CRA
Carolina Valera, Principal Planner— Comprehensive Planning
Diana Compagnone, Sign Review
November 28, 2011
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM.
A quorum was established;three members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairman Jarvi suggested changing the order as follows:
• Signs, Water/Wells fields, CRAs, and Kennel
Robert Mulhere moved to approve Agenda as amended. Second by Clay Brooker.
Carried unanimously, 3—0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Jarvi stated deferred approval until the next Subcommittee meeting.
IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS:
(Will be heard after Item is discussed.)
V. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012—CYCLE 1
Review of previously tabled Amendments:
1. Section 5.06.00—Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification
Caroline Cilek recapped, i.e., the definition of a flag was questioned by the
Subcommittee at the previous meeting.
Diana Compagnone stated flutter flags and banners that display advertising such as
"Grand Opening," "Now Open," "Sale,""Open House," "Welcome," "Model Home,"
or the name of a developer are categorized as signs. A Temporary Use Permit is
required to display"wind-driven floating material"that contains an advertisement.
Guideline: If the banner or flutter flag attracts the attention of the public and is
different from the American flag, a POW flag, a City, State or County flag, it is a
sign.
A Temporary Use Permit allows floating material signs to be displayed from one to
thirty days. Longer durations are allowed for model home signs.
Suggested Changes:
• On Page 1, Line 7: Change the language from commercial "messages"to
commercial "content."
• On Page 3, under 1 (d.), Line 18: Add a comma and the phrase where
applicable, following the word"and."
Consensus: Approved
2
f
: November 28,2011
2. Section 5.06.05—Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification
(Automobile Service Stations)
Carolina Valera,Principal Planner—Comprehensive Planning, Architectural Review,
stated the BCC requested Staff to propose limitations for automobile service stations to
remain as unobtrusive as possible. Both the Code and the Architectural Standards
Manual address acceptable colors for use throughout the County. Brochures are
available for the public. No color has been prohibited, although some are restricted to
no more than 10%use.
Diana Compagnone stated the Amendment will be withdrawn.
3. Section 1.08.02—Definitions ("Kennels/Kenneling")
Amanda Townsend,Director—Domestic Animal Services, stated:
• DAS Advisory Committee recently formed a Subcommittee to examine
changes to the Animal Control Ordinance
• Proposal: Create a permitting process within the Animal Control Ordinance
for residences and/or commercial entities to allow housing of multiple,
unsterilized animals
• Focus: Over-population issue and nuisance complaints
It was noted the Subcommittee had previously suggested changing the term
"kenneling"to "kennel."
Bob Mulhere noted the previous Code stated the keeping of more than three dogs,
six months of age or older, was not allowed in residential areas. He asked if the
limitation on the number dogs is removed,how can it be enforced and it is regulated
else. He also noted there was no restriction on the number of cats that can be housed.
Ms. Townsend stated the mission of DAS is to educate the public and not create
homeless animals. She explained there was a specific case where a DAS Code
Enforcement Officer found an owner with six neutered, licensed animals at the
residence. While there was no health issue, the owner was in violation of the Land
Development Code limit. She stated DAS had never been called to the location
previously but a number of Code complaint calls had been received from one
neighbor.
Bob Mulhere stated if the limitation is removed, a burden will be placed on DAS
because the Code will no longer indicate a Zoning violation and DAS will make the
determination if there is a health or nuisance issue.
Ms. Townsend confirmed appropriate animal care is a concern for DAS -- having a
limit on the number of animals allowed DAS to educate the public concerning
sanitary issues and barking. She stated the Advisory Committee is interested in
exploring shifting the burden of enforcement to DAS in order to control over-
population.
She stated a permitting process is in place for commercial entities, i.e.,pet shops,
groomers, stables, rodeos. She noted an older Resolution(#79-93) regulates the
standards to be met. She will propose to the Subcommittee to extend the permitting
3
November 28, 2011
process to the residential housing of multiple, unsterilized animals. A permit fee will
be charged to offset the Departmental costs for inspection.
Clay Brooker noted the statement under"Reason:"
"This issue is not necessarily considered a zoning issue and
is, therefore, not regulated by the LDC. "
He asked why a definition was necessary if the word"kennel" or"kenneling"was not
in the Land Development Code.
Bob Mulhere stated it was necessary to create an opportunity for enforcement. He
stated if you are a"kennel" in a residential area, by definition, the use is not permitted
by zoning.
Clay Brooker clarified"kennels" are a permitted use under certain zoning categories
in the Land Development Code. It is a zoning issue and the "Reason" statement is
not correct. The use is either permitted or not permitted depending upon the zoning
category for the property.
Amanda Townsend stated it is usually not a zoning issue in residential areas.
Bob Mulhere stated the Amendment could acknowledge a"kennel" is a permitted
use in C-4, C-5, and Industrial but is not allowed anywhere else. The definition acts
as a trigger for enforcement.
Clay Brooker stated DAS may request an amendment to the Animal Control
Ordinance. He suggested tabling a decision until DAS has had time to explore its
options before formulating a definition to ensure consistency in the LDC and the
Animal Control Ordinance.
Bob Mulhere concurred.
Consensus: A decision will be deferred until Domestic Animal Services makes a
presentation to the Board in January 2012,but no later than Cycle 2.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Section 1.08.02—Definitions ("Hazardous Product or Waste")
Ray Smith, Director—Pollution Control, stated the Amendment has been deferred to
the next Subcommittee meeting in order to divide the definition into two categories.
Clay Brooker suggesting referring to the applicable definitions in the State
Administrative Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. Smith concurred, stating the goal is to remain consistent and eliminate confusion
if there are changes in the future.
Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting.
2. Sections 3.06.06 (A) through (H)—Regulated Wellfields
Chairman Jarvi asked if the Amendments contained any substantive changes
beyond changes to the shape of the wellfields.
Ray Smith stated the utilities were contacted for each wellfield and a model was
entered into based on the data obtained, in writing, from the utilities. Eight wellfields
4
November 28, 2011
were remodeled due installation of a new well, changes to the pump rates, or the
abandoning of a well.
Section 3.06.06 (I)—Regulated Wellfields (Port of the Islands)
Ray Smith stated the Port of the Islands was added as a new water supply wellfield
serving the community of the Port of the Islands. It as modeled because three wells
fell within the surficial aquifer system. Since the water is recharged at the surface,
there is a potential for a pollutant to be released at the surface.
He continued the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection allow surficial aquifer systems because it
provide"fresher"water with less salinity. The water from the Hawthorne system is
brackish and costs more money to treat.
Mr. Smith noted two proposed language changes:
• Section 3.06.07—Unregulated Wellfields
Removing references to the Port of the Islands Wellfield from Unregulated
Wellfields
• Section 3.06.12—Regulated Development
Correction of a Scrivener's Error.
Clay Brooker suggested removing the Amendment from the Land Development
Code for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances to avoid the necessity of an LDC
Amendment for every change.
Consensus: Approved
3. Section 2.03.07—Overlay Zoning Districts (Immokalee CRA)
Section 4.02.27—Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-State Road 29A
Commercial Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.28 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Jefferson Avenue
Commercial Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.29 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Farm Market
Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.30 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Agribusiness
Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.31 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Central Business
Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.32 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Main Street
Overlay Subdistrict
Section 4.02.33 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Mobile Home
Park Overlay Subdistrict
Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on this Amendment due to a conflict
5
November 28,2011
of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere &Associates. He suggested
deferring a vote until more Subcommittee members were present. He stated he would
contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations,
as necessary.
Bob Mulhere summarized:
• An interim Immokalee Zoning Overlay provides for relief from some of the
standards that apply to the Coastal Urban areas and were not appropriate for
Immokalee
• The overlay was designed to change the Land Development Code in areas as
proposed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan("IAMP") and to include some
updates. The IAMP has not been adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners. It will be presented in December.
• It was also intended to simplify the overlays which overlapped each other.
• It was also intended to incorporate the other desires of the Community which
were not addressed in the Interim Zoning Overlay or were not sufficiently
addressed in the document or were not specifically part of the IAMP. Some
examples: reduction in landscaping requirements or parking standards.
Standards were relaxed to meet the specific needs of the Immokalee
community.
• Old sections were struck through and new sections were adopted.
Clay Brooker asked if there was a hearing process and public input.
Bob Mulhere stated there were discussions during the 2+year Growth Management
Plan process. Drafts of the CRA Amendments were completed and approximately
four public meetings were held with the CRA Advisory Board. Two meetings held
recently (in October and early November)to answer additional questions.
Clay Brooker referred to the "Use Type"table. He noted certain uses did not have
SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes and asked if that was because the SIC
Codes were not applicable. He also questioned how an item could be classified as
"P" and"CU" ("permitted" and"conditional use") at the same time.
Bob Mulhere explained live-work units are allowed in the Central Business sub-
district, subject to approved conditions.
Suggested Changes:
1. Page 5, under"6. Density Standards"—
• Fifth line: Insert the word"in"following the word"provided"
• Fifth line: Remove the period following "A"
2. Parking Lot Placement(Illustration)—
• Reference to a street and/or alley should be shown at the bottom of the
graphic
3. "L. Nonconforming Provisions" —
• Second line: Insert the word"lots," following the word"nonconforming"
6
• November 28, 2011
Discussion ensued concerning the first sentence in"1. (b)—Nonconforming Lots."
Clay Brooker stated if the paragraph changes existing law [Chapter 9—LDC] by
changing an owner's rights, it was a problem.
Bob Mulhere acknowledged the paragraph could be deleted, but would first research
why it was included.
Clay Brooker referred to "3. (d) (iii)—Nonconforming Structures" on the same page
and stated it was confusing. He asked why not rebuild the structure as it was.
Bob Mulhere explained to rebuild a nonconforming structure, you would be required
to observe the current Building Code unless a variance was obtained.
Under Subparagraph(iv.), Mr. Brooker objected to the word"sufficient" at the end of
the second line.
Bob Mulhere agreed to remove the word.
Clay Brooker asked why there was a reference to Section 4.02.27—E which was the
Central Business District. The subject of the subparagraph was parking at a
nonconforming non-residential structure.
Patrick Vanasse, RWA, stated the Central Business District's landscaping and
buffering restrictions were less restrictive than other areas. He will research the issue.
Bob Mulhere stated he will make a general presentation to the Subcommittee at the
next meeting.
Chairman Jarvi requested that Mr. Mulhere also verify the information requested as
well as incorporate the suggested changes.
Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting.
4. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions (Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
Section 2.03.07 I.— Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay
Section 2.03.07 N.—N. Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay
Section 4.02.16—Design Standards for the BMUD—Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistricts
Section 4.02.17—Design Standards for the BMUD—Waterfront Subdistrict
Section 4.02.18—Design Standards for the BMUD—Residential Subdistrict(R1)
Section 4.02.19—Design Standards for the BMUD—Residential Subdistrict(R2)
Section 4.02.20—Design Standards for the BMUD—Residential Subdistrict(R3)
Section 4.02.21 —Design Standards for the BMUD—Residential Subdistrict(R4)
Section 4.02.35—Design Standards for the GTMUD—Mixed Use Subdistrict(MXD)
Section 4.02.36—Design Standards for the GTMUD—Residential Subdistrict(R)
Section 10.02.00—Application Requirements
Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on this Amendment due to a conflict
of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere&Associates. He suggested
deferring a vote until more Subcommittee members were present. He stated he would
7
November 28, 2011 '
contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations,
as necessary.
Bob Mulhere summarized:
• Staff was experienced with CRA but the there were problems with the existing
Code which presented stumbling blocks to redevelopment
• The Mixed-Use process was convoluted, difficult, expensive, and time-consuming
Jean Jordan stated there were also formatting issues with the Code
It was noted Section 4.02.Q16 is referenced throughout the document and the correct
number should be 4.02.16. [Example: Page 9—last sentence under c) ].
Clay Brooker noted the phrase"human-scale commercial" appeared on Page 17 and
asked for the meaning.
Bob Mulhere suggested substituting the phrase "pedestrian oriented"throughout the
document.
Mr. Brooker noted:
• On Page 24,the table referenced Maximum Building Height
• He asked if it was zoned height and not actual height since the LDC measures
zoned height and not actual height unless stated otherwise.
• Robert Mulhere suggested adding (zoned) in parenthesis.
• On Page 52, under(h.), second sentence:
o Delete the phrase "consideration shall be given to"
o Delete"which would" and substitute "where it has been demonstrated
that such contribution sufficiently..."
o Add an"s"to mitigate
o End the sentence after open space—add a period.
o Third sentence begins: "This mitigation may also be in the form of a
cash or ...."
• On Page 92,:
o "10.02.15 —Mixed Use Project Procedures"—Add in parenthesis (within
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA)
o "2. MUPs requiring Public Hearing"—Under Paragraph A: Delete
subsections i, ii, and iii.
Chairman Jarvi asked Mr. Mulhere to give a presentation at the next Subcommittee
meeting, incorporating the suggested changes.
Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting.
8
November 28, 2011
5. Section 4.06.03—Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use areas and
Rights-of Way
It was suggested to co-author the Amendment with CBIA and the Naples Chamber
of Commerce. Consideration will be given to flexibility and consistency in time
frames, i.e, one year.
Consensus: This Amendment was tabled.
6. Section 10.02.07 C—Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy
Amy Patterson stated the Board of County Commissioners directed a change to
the payment schedule. An applicant was required to pay 20%of the estimated
Transportation Impact Fees, secured with a Letter of Credit or in cash. Payments
of 20% are made each year for five years. The temporary Certificate is issued
until the final payment is made.
The Board directed to change the schedule to allow a one time, 33%payment to
be made which will secure the Certificate in perpetuity.
Consensus: Accepted
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:
• Kennels/Kenneling which is deferred;
• Hazardous Product or Waste which is tabled;
• Landscaping Regulations which is tabled;
• the Immokalee and Bayshore/Gateway CRAB for which Mr. Mulhere has
recused himself.
Second by Chairman Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 3—0.
NEXT MEETING DATES:
December 6,2011 at 1:30 PM (Note: Date was changed)
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 Chairman at 3:17 PM.
9
November 28,2011 '
•
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTE . LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
SUBCOMM 1 i TEE
R•ed Ja i, Chairman
J
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , 2011
"as presented" [ 1 OR "as amended" [X1.
10