DSAC LDR Subcommittee Minutes 01/22/2013 2013 DSAC
Land Development
Review Subcommittee
Minutes
January 22 , 2013
aot
January 22,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
1 IE
HIMERW
Naples, Florida, January 22, 2013 F E 6 11 5 101 3
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee — Land Development Review Subcommittee in and for
the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
1:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Division
Building, Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the
persons present:
lrc+�e+ce
Robert Mulhere
Clay Brooker
Stan Chrzanowski
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Blair Foley
Chris Mitchell
Fate:
-Tres:
tem :
ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner ;yO,;eS to:
Jack McKenna, County Engineer
Alison Bradford, Assistant County Engineer
Christian Andrea, ALD
Michael Ramsey, President, Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Assoc.
Ellen Summers, Planning Technician
Christopher Shucart, JCS Realty Group
Martin Miller, P.E.
January 22, 2012
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stan Chrzanowski at 8:01 A.M. and a
quorum established.
Caroline Cilek provided copies of the proposed language of the LDC amendment: LDC
section: 6:05.01 Stormwater Management System Requirements to be discussed.
2. Discussion of proposed language and justification
Chairman Stan Chrzanowski gave a brief overview of the proposals pointing out the
new language was underlined and the old language was crossed out. See Attachment 1
for proposed changes.
Jack McKenna explained the changes to the section and table, the added language and
the reversal of subsections G. and F. He explained the reorganization of the LDC was not
a change to the intent of the LDC, just a change in interpretation of the language.
Comments from the LDR subcommittee were solicited.
Stan Chrzanowski asked if the changes would benefit or affect any ongoing projects of
the DSAC members, if the changes were presently in place.
Dalas Disney commented the benefit of the new language would solve the problem in a
situation he was involved in, if it had been in effect.
Jack McKenna fielded questions regarding:
• The 4,950 sq. ft. figure determination was adjusted to bring the Impervious Area
Coverage for a lot size under 11,000 square feet up to the 45%
• Identified through comments that properties located on the Gulf of Mexico will not be
able to drain to beach and are subject to other design standards
• Driveways can be pervious or impervious (depends on material used and subsystem)
• Properties located on water bodies with a sea wall will be exempt
• The criteria for this section is based on 5 — year, 1- day storm.
• Previously there was no cap for large lots. Now there will be a cap at 25 %. However,
the allowable amount of impervious surface increase as the amount of land increases.
• Section 6.05.01 G. Lb. references that additional impervious area which does not
cause the total impervious area to exceed 25% is exempt.
• WSWT terminology, need to use "Wet Season Water Table ".
• Explanation of item 6.05.01 G.2 a. through e. Each of these subpoints will need to be
addressed when an engineer provides the necessary retention. If there is no conflict
with the impervious standards then they do not apply.
• Square footage breakpoints: Jack stated the intent is to start with 45% and ramp it
down to 25% for properties that are over 53,000 sq. ft.
• Subcommittee identified examples of incidences which will trip the percentages.
Subcommittee may choose a different percent.
Dalas Disney, noted as acreage goes up, the percent changes and 25% could be used up on
large buildings in rural areas.
January 22, 2012
00 AS,,n V4 ACR5F-
Stan Chrzanowski stated Golden Gate Estates was elasigrt -CT0 1 / ots with swales, side
and mid -lot easements, but no other overall water management pan. He pointed out lot sizes
in the Estates are uniform- there are no odd -lot sizes.
K` . N61- e*XJLM Y
Robert Mulhere suggested an exemption for agriculturally zoned properties of 5 acres or
more.
Dave Dunnavant questioned why there is no mention of all water being contained on a lot
and not impacting neighboring properties. Is it an open space or water management issue?
Stan Chrzanowski explained the water management design of /4 acre zoning in Naples
Park and the original design of 5 acre lots in Golden Gate Estates, which could be
subsequently divided into 1 1/4 acre lots, have swales and easements but no real water
management. The "egg crate" design was not meant to handle the proper flow rate. The
section of the Code of Laws that deals with not flooding your neighbor essentially states
that you shall not shed water onto your neighbor's property at a greater rate than it
historically flowed from your property was not allowed. He noted it was a water quantity
issue and the answer was to have some form of water management system in the Code.
Few lots have the entire lot impervious, but, there is no ordinance in place to stop it from
happening, especially on large lots in Golden Gate Estates.
Clay Brooker asked about the requirement for 60% of open space.
Caroline Cilek responded that the 60% open space requirement was only for the
development of residential PUDs, not existing single-family zoned properties.
Dalas Disney commented the objective should be to make the Code less onerous and
complicated to obtain building permits.
Robert Mulhere encouraged a proactive approach by having the purpose and intent stated in
this section and in the design, if it applied, at the building permit stage as well as the
engineering costs.
The subcommittee agreed on the exemption for the 5 acre or greater agricultural -zoned
properties.
Discussion was had regarding the routing by landscapers, grading, and retention design from
engineers in site plans. The subcommittee favored a user friendly code and to keep it simple.
With a few changes, they thought it was fair, as written, as long as engineers provide the
protection that neighbors would not be impacted and runoff can be accommodated.
3. LDC amendment process and timeline
Caroline Cilek explained the process would begin the same as a regular LDC amendment;
with a request for the amendments to go forward through the normal review process to the
BCC. It would go through the EAC and the Planning Commission as well. She will get
January 22, 2012
*Ack•to?ti1e subcommittee eri"exactly how they will proceed. Modifications to the language
should be expected before it reached the BCC.
Clay Brooker commented the full DSAC had requested an "out of cycle" amendment; citing
a single amendment goes through the process much faster.
Caroline Cilek responded that the LDC amendment procedure and amount of preparation
was the same. It was preferable to get everything through the preliminary process and
prepared to then include the amendment in the regular LDC amendment Cycle; rather than go
through it twice.
4. Public Comment
Michael Ramsey, President of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and a consulting
ecologist, helps residents in the Estates obtain permits from South Florida Water
Management, particularly for residents that are not within a water management plan.
Greater than one acre needing an engineer has caused issues; however, he agreed the new
wording was easier to understand. He stated the problem was not just drainage onto
neighbors, but a distinction between west and east of 951 and cited two issues to discuss.
First issue: The problem west of 951 is that there is so much impervious surface and the
drainage is so fast, that it overloads the systems. This is a drainage management issue.
There are not enough places to put water to hold it and then it all goes into the Gulf. On
the other hand, the Estates can handle more water. The problem of retaining water on site
of a single - family drainage system is that it prevents the water flowing into wetlands and
creates the danger of fire. The issue of holding water is that it will dry up the wetlands and
prevent water from flowing where it should go.
Second issue: All single - family units in the Estates are on septic and water retention might
interfere with how a septic drain field system functions if it captures too much water in one
place. He suggested looking at the ecological components.
Stan Chrzanowski responded the ordinance was not meant to stop water from leaving a
site, it was to make sure it leaves at the same rate it did historically, no more and no less.
He stated the build -out will eventually come in the eastern part of the County, creating the
same problem there, without an ordinance in place.
Mr. Ramsey had several question important to the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association:
• retention of water going against flood regulations
• drainage to a canal
• exemptions and calculations in certain instances
• need for engineer for multiple separate improvements
Jack McKenna and the subcommittee provided answers and helpful suggestions in
instances where an engineer would be needed for an improvement and clarified
exemptions and the table.
4
January 22, 2012
5. Next steps /meeting date
Discussion will continue regarding the need to address the issues. Caroline Cilek will be
in touch with everyone regarding the next meeting date /time.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting was
adjourned 9:07 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SER
ADVISORY COMI
SUBCOMMITTEE
Stan
These minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented, or as amended
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Attachment 1
Proposed language for LDC amendment - For discussion purposes only
January 18, 2013
LDC section: 6.05.01 Stormwater Management System Requirements
A complete stormwater management system shall be provided for all areas within the subdivision or
development, including lots, streets, and alleys.
A. The system design shall meet the applicable provisions of the current County codes and
ordinances,. SFWMD rules and regulations pursuant to Florida Statutes, and the Florida
Administrative Code, and any other affected state and federal agencies' rules and regulations
in effect at the time of preliminary subdivision plat submission.
B. Where stormwater runoff from outside the subdivision or development historically passes on,
over, or through areas of the subdivision or development, such runoff shall be included in the
stormwater system design. The system shall be designed for long life, low cost maintenance by
normal methods and provide for optimal on -site detention of stormwater runoff and
groundwater recharge in accordance with applicable County and SFWMD regulations.
C. Any structure with an outside wall which is closer than 10 feet from aside property line shall
install properly sized (minimum twenty -four (24)- square inch cross - section) gutters and
downspouts to direct stormwater away from neighboring properties and toward front and /or rear
swales or retention /detention areas.
D. In- ground percolation type retention systems such as rock trenches, exfiltration trenches or
beds, infiltrator type systems, gallery type systems, etc., shall not be used to achieve water
quality retention for residential subdivisions. Rear yard open retention systems shall likewise
not be designed to achieve water quality retention on projects submitted after January 1, 2002.
All retention systems for projects designed after January 1, 2002, shall be on common property
owned and maintained by a homeowners' association or similar entity.
E. Any canal which forms a part of the public water management system shall be dedicated for
care and maintenance per the requirements of the governmental agency which has jurisdiction.
Canals located entirely within the subdivision and which do not form a part of the public water
management system shall be dedicated to the public, without the responsibility for
maintenance, as a drainage easement. A maintenance easement, of a size acceptable to the
County Manager or designee or other governmental agency with maintenance responsibility,
shall be provided adjacent to the established drainage easement, or the drainage easement
created must be of a size suitable for the proposed canal and its maintenance.
F. The design of the stormwater management system (except Single- Family Dwellinq Units
Two - Family Dwelling Units and Duplexes) shall fully incorporate the requirements of the
Interim Watershed Management regulations of LDC section 3.07.00.
G. Stormwater Retention' /Detention Design for Single- Family Dwelling Units, Two - Family
Dwelling Units and Duplexes.
1. Applicability. Any application for a building permit to allow the development or
redevelopment of a single - family or two- family dwelling or duplex submitted after
July 1, 2008, except for the following conditions:
a. Any application within the boundaries of development projects that have: (1)
been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District for Surface
Water Management or Environmental Resource Protection and (2) have a
central surface water management collection, storage, treatment,, and discharge
system;
b. Any addition of impervious area which does not cause the total impervious are
to exceed 25% of the total lot area; and " ene time addition is allowed fa. ,.eq
sized heme, as set#gFth gw;
G. Any lot which is adiacent to a water body which is suitable to receive the run -off
from the subiect property. AR applicatien aeedried hby—a— StOFMwater
i�PaRagement plan, signed and sealed by a registered ReFida PFefessieRal
EngipeeF.
Table 6.05.01 G.
Lot Size
Lot Goverage
Impervious Area Coverage
Under 11,000 sq. ft.
2-5-0,46
45% 48°/tr
11,000 sq. ft. to 52,999 sq. ft.
100 fF in
2,750 ft +50% ^� °^
4,400 sq. ft. X51% of area 4.950
sg. ft. + 20% of area in excess of
11,000 sq. ft.
s^ of
o..r ess of 11,000 sq ft
and er gFeateF width
1 e#:-- X3`3-
ft. to 5�
750 f+ +20 ; i-R
4�00_�q ft +29.46 is
-1,000 s sq-�t-
,
Iran than Inn ft ;n !th
sq
excess of 1 ! nnn sq ft
� -�� of -area
exeess of 11,000 sq. ft:
and wi
53,000 sq. ft. and over
4,850 ft -204 ^f ^r^^ ;^
25% 6,500 sq-ft. 4=22A
sq
o.,,..,,-g Af G2 nnn ft
o.,,., g,; of r;
2. The maximum allowable ratio of let.Geverage and impervious area coverage to the
total lot area shall be as provided for in-Table 6.05.01 G. unless accompanied by an
engineer's analysis as specified below:
a. The site drainage analysis shall include yater quality aleu! ^, tieRs -te SFVVMD
st ^asn� water quantity calculations done to accommodate the runoff, from
area in excess of the above ratio; from a 5 -year 1 -day storm and shall include a
percolation test done by a qualified engineer or technician. If the site will use a
drainfield %'septic tank -for sewage'treatment/disposal, the wet season water table
calculations for drainage- must match that used for the drainfield design. Dry
detention area will beat least 1, above the WSWT.
b. The application site plan shall. list all required separation distances between
wells, dra infield systems, and stormwater retention /detention areas. The
calculations may be done on the site plan or may be in a separate Engineer's
_report, but must be signed and sealed by the Engineer.
G. ". The water surface area of swimming pools and- pends is r4et considered as
impervious area for the purposes of the calculations in Table 6.05.01 F.
d. An outfall from the retention area will be permitted through a 3 inch orifice.
e. Pond volume above WSWT may be used to provide storage volume.
3.
Will be lifnitGd tG 3 P8FGeRt ef the !at aFea up to a maximum of 1,000 squaFe feet
as leRg as that eRe time addition does Ret exGeed the aFea in Table 6.05.94 C
than 3 peFGent of the W ar-ea Ar e than 1,000 squaFe feet
T
the4aterim Wa-teFshed Management regulatiens of LIDG sect�a- nn
# # # # # # # # # # # # #