DSAC Subcommittee Minutes 12/14/2011 December 14,2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida
December 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:
Chairman: Reed Jarvi
Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker
James Boughton (Absent)
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
George Hermanson (Excused)
Robert Mulhere
STAFF PRESENT:
Jamie French, Director— Operations & Regulatory Management
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— GMD
Jeff Perry, Interim Transportation Planning Manager
Laurie Beard, Planner—PUD Monitoring
John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager
,
December 14,2011
,
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM.
A quorum was established; three members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Changes:
• The following items will not be reviewed: 3.05.02 (E) and 3.05.05—Exemptions
• The following item will be reviewed: 3.05.05 —Criteria for Removal of Protected
Vegetation
• Amendment 10.02.03 (D)will be reviewed as the last item of business
Robert Mulhere moved to approve Agenda as amended. Second by Marco Espinar.
Carried unanimously, 3—0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Jarvi approved the minutes for the December 6, 2011 Subcommittee meeting
as submitted.
(Note: Subcommittee members may request a copy of the minutes from Caroline Cilek.)
Caroline Cilek requested:
• to schedule a meeting on Wednesday, 12/21, at 1:00 PM (A confirming email will be
sent to the members.)
• a"point person"to work with her to prepare the report to be presented to the full
DSAC Committee in January. [The members nominated Clay Brooker.]
• to break at 2:30 PM
V. PUBLIC SPEAKERS:
(Chairman Jarvi surveyed the Public Speakers who will be heard after the Item is
discussed.)
IV. CHANGE TO APPROVAL/TABLE PROCESS:
• After discussion of each Amendment,the consensus will be stated concerning
whether the Amendment was accepted or tabled.
(David Dunnavant arrived @ 1:14 PM)
VI. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012—CYCLE 1
1. Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
Section 2.03.07—Overlay Zoning Districts (Immokalee CRA):
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.
2
• December 14,2011
Chris Scott stated the Board of County Commissioners did not approve the proposed
Immokalee Area Master Plan. He noted the LDC Amendments, although a follow-up to
the Immokalee Area Master Plan, were consistent with the existing Immokalee Area
Master Plan and the CRA would like Amendments to remain in process. He stated
revisions will be made to the opening statement but the text remains consistent with the
GMP (Growth Management Plan).
He outlined the changes suggested during the December 6`"meeting:
• The phrase, "transit ready development"was inserted
o Page 16, Line 26
o Page 17, Line 12
• On Page 28, Lines 36 and 40, "MUP"("Mixed Use Project") was deleted—it
applies only to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA
Bob Mulhere noted:
• There was no conflict between most of the amendments and the existing
Immokalee Area Master Plan. The purpose of the Amendments was to
provide more flexibility in the development process.
• Amendments pertaining to the Central Business District will be reviewed to
determine whether or not they can be brought forward.
• The LDC was amended on an interim basis for the period between when the
Amendments were introduced and the adoption of the Master Plan. Since the
Master Plan was not adopted, the timeframe of the Interim Amendments could
be extended.
Mr. Mulhere acknowledged there was an element of risk in bringing the Amendments
before the Board of County Commissioners. He will contact the CRA's Executive
Director, Penny Philippi, for further direction.
Chris Scott suggested modifying the Amendment's introduction to remove references
to the "pending" or"currently adopted Master Plan" from the text and substitute the
following:
• "The Amendments are consistent with the existing(or currently adopted)
Immokalee Area Master Plan."
David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco
Espinar.
Motion carried, 3— "Yes"!"0"with one abstention (Robert Mulhere).
(Clay Brooker arrived @ 1:20 PM)
2. Section 5.03.06—Dock Facilities:
Caroline Cilek outlined the changes:
• The format of the Amendment was modified.
• Extensions for multi-family uses cannot be approved by Staff.
3
December 14,2011
•
• Commercial dock extensions are approved via an SDP.
• A threshold was inserted at Line 18 to permit staff to administratively approve
a dock extension of up to 40 additional feet for single-family residential use.
The total length of the dock(with extension) is not to exceed 60 feet.
Bob Mulhere noted there may be confusion and suggested the following change:
"not to exceed 40 additional feet(60 feet in total)
protrusion or extension into the waterway."
Caroline Cilek suggested the following language: "not to exceed 40 additional feet in
length."
Bob Mulhere suggested adding"from the water line." After discussion, he withdrew
his suggestion.
Clay Brooker suggested: "... protrusion into the width of the navigable water way."
Ms. Cilek stated Staff requested adding the threshold which was also suggested by
the Planning Commission Chairman.
There was additional discussion concerning how to measure a dock. It was suggested
to add a paragraph incorporate the State's requirements.
• The following sentence was inserted to H. 2. (a): "Applicants may appeal an
administrative decision to the Planning Commission."
Clay Brooker suggested adding "pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 250-
58, Code of Ordinances"to the end of the sentence.
• Line 27, under 2. (b): The following sentence was added: "The Planning
Commission may be able to examine conditions outside of the primary and
secondary criteria."
It was suggested to add subparagraph(c.)under Paragraph 3 which would outline
specific examples of concerns—objective versus subjective.
Chairman Jarvi stated he could not support the Planning Commission's request for
ability to "examine conditions"without some limitation or examples.
Caroline Cilek stated she would obtain feedback.
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
3. Section 10.02.07 C—Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy (PUD Monitoring)
Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco
Espinar. Carried unanimously, S—0.
4. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
Section 1.08.02—Definitions (Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
4
• December 14,2011
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:
• The phrase, "pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready" was inserted
o Page 6, Line 10
o Page 16, Line 10
o Page 18, Line 13
• Page 40, Lines 24 and 25 —add"and gallery,"
• The following sentence was inserted at end of the paragraph at the request of
the CRA:
"Non-residential uses may include ancillary retail, such as
galleries selling art work and hair salons selling hair products."
Marco Espinar moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by David
Dunnavant.
Motion carried, 4— "Yes"/"0"with one abstention (Robert Mulhere).
5. Section 4.06.03—Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas
Caroline Cilek stated the goal was to extend the time frame from 90 days to one year
for new property owners, or tenants, to occupy and bring a vacant property into
conformity with the current Code.
Bob Mulhere stated there were two issues: (1) a nonconforming use, and (2) other
uses that are nonconforming.
Chairman Jarvi noted if the rationale applied to landscaping, it should apply to the
entire building.
5
December 14,2011
•
It was noted 9.03.02 (F.) (1), entitled Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities,
was not included for review but would be added to the Amendment for review at the
next Subcommittee meeting.
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
6. Section 10.02.06 E—Submittal Requirements for Permits
Stephen Lenberger outlined the changes that had been made, i.e., on Page 3,
subparagraph"e."was added and on Page 5, at line 48, clarifying language was
added.
Suggested Change:
• Page 6, Line 2—Remove "of"and add "or"
Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco
Espinar. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
7. Section 3.05.03—Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
Suggested Changes:
• Page 8, Lines 6 and 8—Add the word"Permit" following "EWA"
Marco Espinar moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert
Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
8. Section 3.05.05—Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation (Mangrove
Trimming)
Stephen Lenberger confirmed"alter"meant anything other than trimming.
Consensus: No action was required
VII. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Section 9.05.00—Administrative Adjustment
Caroline Cilek provided background information.
Bob Mulhere suggested keeping the notification process simple. It should be at the
discretion of Staff to determine if a 30-day response period was necessary.
6
. December 14, 2011
Public Speaker:
Mike Adams,McDonald's, appeared in support of the Amendment. He noted the
Code allowed two speakers but not two Menu Boards. He stated the Adjustment
process would allow the addition of the second Menu Board which would not affect
public safety but would enhance the drive-thru traffic flow and reduce congestion.
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, Line 12—Add"Final, Local"to Development Order.
• Page 2, Line 13 —The sentence shall read: "Administrative adjustments may
be granted by the County Manager or designee subject to finding that the
following criteria have been met: ... "
• Page 2, Line 20—Add the word"substantially"before the word"meets"
• Page 2, Line 22—Remove "proposes equitable compensation" and add
"provides reasonable mitigation"
• Page 2, Line 22—Remove "diminution" and add"adjustment"
• Page 3, Line 18—Add"or technical" following the word "dimensional"
• Page 3, Line 18—Add", but not limited to,"following the word"including"
and add"to required yards" following the word"setbacks"
• Page 3, Line 23/24—Remove the sentence"Upon recommended approval ..."
• Page 3, Line 25 —Remove "recommended for denial" and add "denied"
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
BREAK: 2:35 PM
RECONVENED: 2:50 PM
2. Section 3.05.07 H (1)(e)—Preservation Standards (Archaeological or Historical
Sites)
Mike Rosen, CBIA ("Collier Building Industry Association"), stated County Manager
Leo Ochs approached CBIA in December 2009 to draft Amendments to the LDC.
Mr. Ochs requested CBIA to "delete or amend anything in the LDC that hampers
economic prosperity in Collier County."
CBIA's package was submitted to the County on November 29, 2010.
It was noted the Landscape Architecture Subcommittee was chaired by George
Hermanson's company.
Mr. Rosen noted CBIA did not comment on Chapter 10 procedures because Nick
Casalanguida is organizing a Committee specific to Chapter 10 issues.
Steve Lenberger explained the Amendment.
Marco Espinar suggested adding the following language: "Exotic vegetation shall
be removed by hand unless otherwise authorized by the Preservation Board or another
permitting agency."
David Dunnavant questioned the necessity of additional language since the State's
Permit would outline requirements concerning vegetation removal.
7
December 14, 2011 .
Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco
Espinar. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
3. Section 3.05.07 (H) (4)—Preservation Standards (Mitigation)
Steve Lenberger outlined the Amendment.
David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay
Brooker. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
4. Section 4.06.05—Alternative Landscape Design Standards Plan (New Section)
Caroline Cilek provided background information.
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, Line 9—"25%"was changed to "50%"
• Page 2, Line 12—Remove "this" and reference Section(specify)
Discussion ensued concerning determining building age—ten years old from when?
Bob Mulhere suggested adding the following language after the word"old":
"measured from the date of issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, and ..."
(remove the word"with")
David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert
Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
5. Section 4.07.02 G—Design Standards for Planned Unit Developments
Fred Reischl provided background information.
Suggested Changes:
• Remove Paragraph 1 completely and renumber remaining three paragraphs.
• Page 3, Line 17—remove "shall"and add"may"
• Page 3, Line 18—Sentence will end following the word"use." Delete"as
usable open space."
Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by David
Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
8
December 14,2011
6. Section 5.05.08—Architectural and Site Design Standards
Suggested Changes:
• Page 2, under"Fiscal & Operational Impacts,"the sentence shall read: "There
are no additional fiscal and/or operational impacts to the County."
• Page 4, Line 7— Remove"in curtain wall assembly,""but" and "may not"
• Page 4, Line 7—Add"and shall" following the word"allowed"
Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as
discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert
Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
7. Section 6.02.01 D (12)—Management and Monitoring Program (Concurrence)
8. Section 6.06.02 C (1)—Street System Requirements
Caroline Cilek stated there were several inconsistencies with the GMP ("Growth
Management Plan").
Consensus: The Amendments were tabled.
(Marco Espinar left at 4:00 PM)
9. Section 10.02.03 B—Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment and recommend
to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried
unanimously, 4—0.
9. Section 10.02.03—Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
(Conceptual—not completed.)
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
11. Section 10.02.13—Planned Unit Development("PUD") Procedures
Caroline Cilek stated the Amendment is not legal and is under review.
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
12. Section 10.08.00—Conditions and Safeguards
Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment and
recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker.
Carried unanimously, 4—0.
9
December 14, 2011 .
13. Section 10.02.03 B—Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
(Construction)
Consensus: The Amendment was tabled.
NEXT MEETING DATE:
• December 21,2011 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 Chairman at 4:23 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Reed,Jarvi+Chairm n
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on I ig , 201t
"as presented" I 41 OR "as amended" I 1.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
,/5
Clay Brooker,Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on I III , 201L.
"as presented" I?(1 OR "as amended" I 1.
10