DSAC Subcommittee Minutes 12/06/2011 •
December 6, 2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida
December 6, 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:
Chairman: Reed Jarvi
Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker
James Boughton (Absent)
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
George Hermanson
Robert Mulhere
STAFF PRESENT:
Jamie French, Director— Operations & Regulatory Management
Bill Lorenz, Director—Land Development Services
Claudine Auclair, Manager—Business Center
Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner—LDC Coordinator
Fred Reischl, Senior Planner—Land Development Services
Chris Scott, Senior Planner—Land Development Services
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Jeff Perry, Interim Transportation Plan Manager
Laurie Beard, Planner—PUD Monitoring
December 6,2011
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:05 PM.
A quorum was established; five members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Marco Espinar moved to approve Agenda as submitted. Second by Clay Brooker.
Carried unanimously, S—0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Jarvi approved the minutes for the November 14, 2011 Subcommittee and
the November 28, 2011 Subcommittee meeting as submitted.
(Note: The Subcommittee members may request a copy of the minutes from Caroline
Cilek.)
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. Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
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 the Immokalee CRA Amendment
due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere &Associates.
He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information
and explanations, as necessary.
Chris Scott summarized the changes:
• Line numbers were added to the text;
2
December 6,2011
• Page 35, Item"5. Parking"—Figure: A street reference was included for
properties with frontage along Main Street, First Street or Ninth Street;
• Page 38, Item"1. Nonconforming Lots"—The prior language was
inconsistent with Section 9.03.00 of the LDC and was removed. It was noted
nonconforming lots are subject to the provisions of the Land Development
Code.
• Page 39, Item"iv. - reconstruction"—Reference was changed to Section
4.02.27D or E, which ever is least restrictive
Consensus: Approved
2. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
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 the Bayshore Amendment due to a
conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere &Associates. He
stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information
and explanations, as necessary.
Chris Scott summarized the changes:
• Line numbers were added to the text;
• Corrections were made to "Scrivener's Errors"that referenced incorrect LDC
Sections (example: Section 4.02.016 to Section 4.02.16) and numbering
errors
• Page 18, Item"GTMUD Subdistricts"—the term"human scale"was changed
to "pedestrian-oriented" and"building patterns of traditional neighborhood
design"
Mr. Scott noted he received an email from Patrick Vanasse of RWA requesting to
include the term"transit-ready" in the language. He explained inserting the term
would indicate the CRA was open to the concept of becoming"transit-ready" in the
future, i.e., offering incentives if a development provides transit stops, shelters, and/or
bike racks, etc. He suggested including the phrase in Section 2.03.07 N.6 (a).
3
December 6,2011
Chairman Jarvi questioned where the term would be included, whether it was to be
included in the Immokalee CRA, and—if included—how it might change the text that
had been approved.
Chris Scott stated the change was not considered to be substantial and would add
another description of the CRAs' intent. He suggested using the term"transit ready
development patterns." He stated he would revise the document and return it to the
Subcommittee for review. Discussion ensued concerning potential "incentives."
Chairman Jarvi concurred the suggested revisions should be brought back before
the Subcommittee for both Immokalee and Bayshore.
Bob Mulhere suggested to continue reviewing the other changes already made to the
Amendment.
Chris Scott continued:
• Page 25, Item"Table 11 —Design Standards"—maximum building height was
clarified
• Page 52, Item"h."—the phrase"consideration shall be given"was eliminated
and the final sentence was clarified. Mr. Scott suggested inserting the "transit
ready" language here.
• Page 93, Item"I. Nonconforming Provisions"—the word"lots"was added to
the first sentence following the word"structures."
• Page 96, Item"2. MUPs Requiring Public Hearing"—the subparagraphs (i,
and iii)referring to criteria were deleted
Consensus: The revised documents (Immokalee and Bayshore) will be reviewed at
the next Subcommittee meeting.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Section 5.06.03—Dock Facilities
Fred Reischl stated if an application for a boat dock extension met the criteria or if
the criteria were not applicable, the application would be approved administratively.
This applies to single-family residential boat dock extensions. Multi-family will
remain under the Planning Commission's review.
Clay Brooker questioned when the Administrative Code would be in place and
effective.
Caroline Cilek noted if the Administrative Code has not been completed prior to the
issuance of the Amendments, references to the Administrative Code would be changed
to "Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code."
Mr. Brooker noted if the Administrative Code is not in effect in time, the language
concerning meeting criteria should be included in the LDC.
He suggested revising Paragraph "H" (Page 2) by adding subsections for
• "residential, single-family,"
• "residential, multi-family,"and
• "non-residential."
4
December 6,2011
It was noted commercial docks are handled through the Site Development Plan and
docks on lakes require a building permit.
Suggested changes:
• Page 2, Line 8 —Remove "that are" from sentence.
• Page 2, Line 8 —Change language: from"shall be considered met"to "shall
be deemed satisfied."
• Page 2, Lines 9 and 10—Remove last sentence
• Page 4, Line 15 —Remove apostrophe and"s"
• Page 4, Line 23 —Remove "d" from demonstrate
• Page 4, Lines 33 and 34—Change language: from"is considered to be met"
to "shall be deemed satisfied."
(David Dunnavant arrived at 1:35 PM)
Consensus: The Amendment will be reorganized and reviewed at the next
Subcommittee meeting.
3. Section 3.05.02 E and F—Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation
Protection and Preservation
Section 3.05.05—Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
Stephen Lenberger stated Staff received comments concerning regulated trimming
and regulated removal of mangroves. The Section was revised to remain consistent
with State law.
Clay Brooker asked if"Mangrove Trimming"was a defined term(Page 2, Line 12).
If not,he suggested removing capitalization from"Trimming."
He suggested adding a sentence to define the term: "mangrove trimming."
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, Line 12, remove the word"that" following the word"trimming"
• Page 2, Paragraph"G."—Correct spelling of"through"
• Page 2, Paragraph"G."— Spell out Florida Statutes (not F.S.)
• Page 2, Paragraph"G."—Add"Unless statutorily exempt," at beginning of
sentence and end after"Florida Statutes."
The sentence reads as follows:
Unless statutorily exempt, a DEP permit has been issued for
mangrove trimming or alteration in accordance with the
Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, Sections 403.9321
through 403.9333, Florida Statutes.
• Page 3, Line 2, strike the phrase "given a variance by the BCC" and substitute
"authorized by variance or ..." authorized to be removed, etc.
Consensus: Approved
5
December 6,2011
4. Section 3.05.02 G—Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection
and Preservation
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, Line 34, end"8." after the word"land."
• Page 2, Line 35, create "9." (Sentence begins "Vegetation removal ...")
• Page 2, Line 35, remove the word"also" from sentence.
• Page 2, duplicate last sentence and add as last sentence in"8" at line 34,
i.e., "State and Federal agency permits or approvals shall be required, where
applicable, prior to clearing."
Consensus: Approved
5. Section 3.05.02 D—Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection
and Preservation
Suggested Change:
• Page 2, Line 24, "D. Pre-existing uses"—Remove"exemptions from"and
begin sentence at"The requirements of Section 3.05.07C shall ...."
Stephen Lenberger will review the exemptions to determine if the change is
appropriate.
Consensus: Approved
6. Section 3.05.05—Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
Section 4.06.04—Trees and Vegetation Protection
Section 10.01.02—Development Orders Required
Stephen Lenberger explained the extensive reworking of the Amendment. He stated
one goal was to build more flexibility into the criteria and to make the Amendment
easier to read.
Clay Brooker asked if, due to the restructuring, any provisions were more restrictive
on the landowners.
Suggested Changes:
• Page 5, Line 37, "A. Vegetation Removal and Site Filling"—Change
beginning of sentence by adding the phrase, "With the exception of properties
located within the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, "to the beginning of the
first sentence.
• Page 5, Line 40—Remove the sentence: "The following shall not apply ..."
• Page 5, Line 41 —Add the word "Section"before 3.05.02
• Page 8, "j." (Line 5)— Remove the phrase "This approval is good .."and
substitute: "An EWA Permit is valid for 60 days ..."
6
•
December 6, 2011
• Page 8, Line 5 —Spell two (remove number) and add the word"additional"
following"two"
Consensus: Approved
7. Section 10.02.06 E—Submittal Requirements for Permits
Marco Espinar questioned Lines 5- 7 on Page 3 asking what were the "minimum
requirements of the LDC."
Mr. Lenberger responded the requirements included size, material, spacing,
coverage, etc.
Mr. Espinar suggested the paragraph(e) should be more specific.
Mr. Lenberger agreed to rewrite it.
Clay Brooker questioned the "time zero monitoring reporting"Page 6. He suggested
revising the second sentence as follows:
"Respondents shall then have the option of verifying success" by either ....
George Hermanson pointed out success was to be demonstrated at the first and
second year intervals.
Mr. Brooker noted the current wording did not allow options.
Mr. Lenberger agreed to rewrite it.
Suggested Changes:
• Page 4, Line 48—The sentence shall read: "The plan shall provide the
preparer's name, address and telephone number."
Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and reviewed at the next Subcommittee
meeting.
8. Section 10.02.06 D—Submittal Requirements for Permits
Stephen Lenberger stated there was a"Scrivener's Error"under D. (1). (Land
Clearing Permit in place of Land Clearing "Notice."
Clay Brooker pointed out inconsistencies on Page 1, Lines 9 and 13, i.e., "Land
clearing permit: and"agricultural clearing permit." He asked if the references were
the same.
It was determined the correct phrase should be "agricultural land clearing permit"and
will be corrected throughout the Amendment.
Marco Espinar questioned the use of the word"approved"on Page 4, Line 33. He
stated there was no place to obtain"approval"—he suggested removing the word
"approved."
Consensus: Approved
7
. .
December 6,2011
9. Section 10.02.07—Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy
Jeff Perry stated the Amendment removed the requirement to include an annual traffic
count report in the PUD Monitoring Report.
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, Remove Table 1 (It provides only background data).
• Page 2, Line 7, remove"b" and move to another section.
• Page 3, Line 43, add the following language at the end of the sentence, "for
each approved external access points on the County's arterial and collector
roadway network."
Clay Brooker asked how the changes would affect existing PUDs that had portions
which were built out and could qualify for a waiver. He suggested the language
implied the $500 fee would be paid when it was not required previously.
Discussed ensued.
Laurie Beard stated the old language had been stricken and the new language did not
reference "legacy" PUDs. She noted legacy PUDs that had begun construction and
made the first payment in lieu should be grandfathered.
Clay Brooker stated the Amendment should clarify that it applied to current PUDs
that had not been issued a first CIO.
Chairman Jarvi stated the legacy language and exceptions should be added. He
stated the fee appeared to be appropriate.
Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and reviewed at the next Subcommittee
meeting.
10. Section 10.02.13—PUD Monitoring(Part I)
Jeff Perry explained language was added for PUDs that were only partially built out.
Laurie Beard stated the Amendment would eliminate the annual monitoring
reporting requirement for the portions of PUDs that have been completed for years.
Consensus: Approved
11. Section 10.02.03 B—Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
Bill Lorenz stated the purpose of the Amendment was to provide in the LDC the
criteria to determine the difference between an insubstantial Site Development Plan
change and a Site Development Plan Amendment. He stated the document is still a
work in progress and welcomed input from the Subcommittee. The determination to
be made is whether to provide general language and guidance to Staff versus explicit
instructions.
8
December 6,2011
Bob Mulhere stated it was important to add flexible language to give Staff the
authority to make determinations along with enough criteria to serve as guidelines.
It was noted all submittals would be reviewed to determine compliance with Code.
Claudine Auclair stated the Amendment had been revised several times.
Bill Lorenz noted the number of Reviewers required could affect whether the
"insubstantial change"became an"amendment." Determination of the impact of the
change is important.
Chairman Jarvi suggested moving the phrase "an increase in trip generation" from
Line 12 on Page 2 to one of the criteria.
(Reed Jarvi left at 3:15 PM)
Marco Espinar stated he was concerned that the only criteria for environmental
impact was preserve configuration or percentage.
Vice Chairman Brooker stated the Amendment will be revised and returned to the
Subcommittee for review.
Vice Chairman Brooker noted the following Amendments had been discussed and
the suggested revisions were approved by consensus:
• 3.05.02 E
• 3.05.02 G
• 3.05.02—Exemptions
• 3.05.05
• 10.02.06D
• 10.92.13 F
Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee recommend to DSAC to approve the
Amendments as above-referenced. Second by George Hermanson.
Carried unanimously, 5—0.
Caroline Cilek noted the Amendments will be added to the next Subcommittee meeting
Agenda and suggested adding an additional meeting to the schedule to accommodate the
additional review items.
Consensus: Change the time of the December 14th meeting by expanding the length of
the meeting to complete the reviews.
NEXT MEETING DATE:
• December 14,2011 at 1:00 to 4:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Vice Chairman at 3:33 PM.
9
December 6, 2011 '
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
•Ree, Ja
iff
:irman
4&4' /RA/ /./
Clay Brooldii,Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , 2011
"as presented" [( 1 OR "as amended" [ 1.
10