Agenda 07/24/2012 Item # 9A7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One,
Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the
Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 1 — General
Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter 2 — Zoning Districts and Uses,
including Section 2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning
Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three — Resource
Protection, including Section 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation
Protection and Preservation, Section 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation,
Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, Section 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields, Section
3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.12 Regulated Development; Chapter Four —
Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards
for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster
Residential Design, Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and
ACSC -ST Districts, Section 4.02.17 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Waterfront Subdistrict, Section 4.02.18 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (RI), Section 4.02.19 Design Standards for Development in the
BMUD - Residential Subdistrict (R2), Section 4.02.20 Design Standards for Development in
the BMUD - Residential Subdistrict (R3), Section 4.02.21 Design Standards for Development
in the BMUD - Residential Subdistrict (R4), Section 4.02.35 Design Standards for
Development in the GTMUD -Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD), Section 4.02.36 Design
Standards for Development in the GTMUD- Residential Subdistrict (R), Section 4.05.02
Design Standards, Section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer
Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and
Rights -of -Way, Section 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection, Section 4.07.02 Design
Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, including Section 5.03.02 Fences
and Walls, Section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, Adding Section 5.03.07 Portable Storage
Containers, Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards, Section 5.06.00 Sign
Regulation and Standards by Land Use Classification, Section 5.06.02 Development
Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, Section 5.06.03 Development Standards
for Signs for Institutional Uses, Section 5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in
Nonresidential Districts, Section 5.06.05 Exemptions from these Regulations; Chapter Six —
Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including
Section 6.02.01 Generally, Section 6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements,
Section 6.06.01 Street System Requirements, Section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and
Pathway Requirements; Chapter Nine — Variations from Code Requirements, including
Section 9.03.02 Requirements of Continuation of Non conformities, Section 9.04.02 Types of
Variances Authorized, Adding Section 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment; Chapter Ten —
Application, Review, and Decision - making Procedures, including Section 10.01.02
Development Orders Required, Section 10.02.00 Application Requirements, 10.02.03
Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans, Section 10.02.05 Submittal
Requirements for Improvements Plans, Section 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for
Page 1 of 3
Packet Page -340-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
Permits, Section 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.03.05
Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, The Planning Commission, the
Board of Zoning Appeals, the EAC, and the Historic Preservation Board, Section 10.08.00
Conditional Uses Procedures; Appendix A — Standard Performance Security Documents
for Required Improvements; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
OBJECTIVE:
To amend the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to serve the best
interest of the public.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioner approved the 2012 LDC Amendment Cycle 1 during the
summer of 2011. The LDC Amendment Cycle was requested by Staff to address several Code
matters, including:
To propose corrections or clarify "glitches" which were inadvertently omitted or
changed during the re- codification of the LDC in 2004.
2. To propose amendments which originated from the County Manager's invitation to the
Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA) in late 2009 to suggest possible
amendments to the LDC that would spur economic activity without sacrificing high
quality development in 2009. As a result, CBIA established an advisory committee made
up of professional consultants to identify areas of the LDC which they believed could be
improved upon. Recommendations were forward to Staff. Staff has reviewed and
discussed the proposed changes with CBIA and those not supported by Staff have been
removed from the cycle. Those remaining, while initiated by CBIA, are Staff supported
and considered Staff sponsored amendments coordinated with CBIA requests.
3. To propose amendments that will improve efficiency within the LDC.
4. To present LDC amendments prepared at the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners on September 27, 2011 among other dates.
Staff has worked with stakeholder groups, community members, and advisory boards, to propose
a wide array of amendments. The proposed change, the reason for the change, and pertinent
background information is identified on each individual amendment.
Beginning in the late fall of 2011, amendments were presented to, and reviewed by, the
Development Services Advisory Committee, the Environmental Advisory Council, and the
Collier County Planning Commission. Advisory board review of the amendments to be discussed
concluded in June 2012. The Summary Sheet, which describes each LDC amendment, outlines
Page 2 of 3
Packet Page -341-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
the recommendations from each of the advisory boards, and includes these bodies proposed
revisions to Staff's proposed changes.
Land Development Code Amendments are scheduled for presentation at three Board hearings,
beginning on Tuesday, July 24th and continuing through September. The majority of the
amendments scheduled for Tuesday, July 24th are not complex changes. However, several of the
amendments did not receive a unanimous Collier County Planning Commission vote. One of
these amendments, LDC amendment 3.05.07 FAA Preservation Standards also received a
significant amount of community feedback during the Planning Commission's review. Another
amendment, 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards did not receive a Planning
Commission vote for recommendation. Alternatively, with the support of the Planning
Commission, Staff will request a review of section 5.05.08 in entirety. Amendments scheduled
for September will propose further intricate and multifaceted changes to the Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As noted for each individual amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
As noted for each individual amendment.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The LDC Amendments are ready for Board consideration. A four -fifths vote is required for
approval. At the conclusion of the hearings for this LDC cycle, the BCC will adopt the
Ordinance containing these amendments. -- HFAC
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the LDC and
provide direction to the County Manager and/or County Attorney as to any modifications to the
proposed text.
PREPARED BY:
Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
Attachments: 1) Tentative LDC Amendment Agenda for July 24, 2012
2) LDC Amendment Binder, to be delivered on Tuesday, July 17, 2012.
The Binder will include the Summary Sheet.
Page 3 of 3
Packet Page -342-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.A.
Item Summary: Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04 -41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals;
Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 1— General Provisions,
including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter 2 — Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section
2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08
Rural Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three — Resource Protection, including Section 3.05.02
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation, Section 3.05.05
Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation, Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, Section
3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.12 Regulated
Development; Chapter Four — Site Design and Development Standards, including Section
4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.04
Standards for Cluster Residential Design, Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in
the ST and ACSC -ST Districts, Section 4.02.17 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Waterfront Subdistrict, Section 4.02.18 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R1), Section 4.02.19 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (112), Section 4.02.20 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R3), Section 4.02.21 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R4), Section 4.02.35 Design Standards for Development in the GTMUD-
Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD), Section 4.02.36 Design Standards for Development in the
GTMUD- Residential Subdistrict (R), Section 4.05.02 Design Standards, Section 4.05.04 Parking
Space Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping
Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights -of -Way, Section 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation
Protection, Section 4.07.02 Design Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards,
including Section 5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, Adding Section
5.03.07 Portable Storage Containers, Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards,
Section 5.06.00 Sign Regulation and Standards by Land Use Classification, Section 5.06.02
Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, Section 5.06.03 Development
Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses, Section 5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in
Nonresidential Districts, Section 5.06.05 Exemptions from these Regulations; Chapter Six —
Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including Section
6.02.01 Generally, Section 6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements, Section .40
Packet Page -343-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
6.06.01 Street System Requirements, Section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway
Requirements; Chapter Nine — Variations from Code Requirements, including Section 9.03.02
Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities, Section 9.04.02 Types of Variances
Authorized, Adding Section 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment; Chapter Ten — Application,
Review, and Decision - making Procedures, including Section 10.01.02 Development Orders
Required, Section 10.02.00 Application Requirements, 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site
Development Plans, Section 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvements Plans, Section
10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits, Section 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for
Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Procedures, Section 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, The
Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the EAC, and the Historic Preservation
Board, Section 10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures; Appendix A — Standard Performance
Security Documents for Required Improvements; Section Four, Conflict and Severability;
Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective
Date.
Meeting Date: 7/24/2012
Prepared By
Name: CilekCaroline
Title: Sr. Planner, Operations and Regulatory Management
6/27/2012 4:51:38 PM
Submitted by
Title: Sr. Planner, Operations and Regulatory Management
Name: CilekCaroline
6/27/2012 4:51:39 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 6/28/2012 4:25:43 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 6/29/2012 2:10:32 PM
Packet Page -344-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 6/29/2012 2:32:53 PM
Name: FrenchJames
Title: Manager - CDES Operations,Operations & Regulatory Management
Date: 6/29/2012 3:50:42 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 7/3/2012 11:21:16 AM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 7/13/2012 9:23:13 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 7/13/2012 10:44:18 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 7/16/2012 10:02:21 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 7/16/2012 3:37:45 PM
Packet Page -345-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Agenda for Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment review
Amendments Listed if! Revie \v Order
{... f' .',1n1'.n61tnL`iat r- t'a..dzl3tFt ?7i� -- - -�umnlar3
S17eet
Glitches and Scrilvner'S.Errors
1.08.02
Definitions Definitions - Omission of Rural Subdivision A
J. Houldsworth
2
(error of omission)
2.03.01
Agricultural Zoning Districts (error of omission)
R. Bellows
3
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
2.03.08
Fringe Zoning District (scriveners error)
R. Bellows
4
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses (spelling error)
R. Bellows
12
4.02.04
Standards for Cluster Residential Design (spelling error)
R. Bellows
14
5.03.02
Fences and Walls Excluding Sound Walls
R. Bellows
20
(scriveners error)
Appendix
Appendix A (update letter of credit form)
J. Houldsworth &
36
S. Williams
Errvir-ona��ei�tal
3 D
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
Preservation (exceptions, scriveners error)
3.05.02 E
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
0
Preservation
3.05.05
Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
(Mangrove Permit
3.05.02 G.1 -7
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
7
Preservation
3.05.05
Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
4.06.04
Trees and Vegetation Protection
10.01.02
Development Orders Required (corrections)
3.05.02 G.8
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
8
Preservation (removal permits)
4.02.14
Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC -ST
S. Lenberger
15
Districts
9.04.02
Types of Variances Authorized (clarifications)
10.02.06 D
Submittal Requirements for Permits (agricultural clearing and
S. Lenberger
30
errors
10.02.06 E
Submittal Requirements for Permits
S. Lenberger
31
(enforcement and penalties)
Board Direeh:d and Related AinendinentY
1.08.0=
Definitions - Usable Open Space gadding required yards)
R. Bellom.
1
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal uses in Base Zoning
Districts
4.07.02
Design Requirements
4.06.03
Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and
C. Cilek
19
Rights -of -Way
4.06.02
Buffer Requirements
9.03.02
Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities
(time frame extensions)
7/12/2012 12:33 PM Page 1 of 2
Packet Page -346-
7/24/2012 Item 9.A.
5.06.00
Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification
D. Compagnone
23
5.06.02
Development Standards for Signs_ within Residential Districts
5.06.03
Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses
5.06.04
Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts.
5.06.05
Exemptions from These Regulations (new provision, errors)
10.02.07• C.1 -2
Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public Facilities
N. Casalanguida
33
Adequacy (impact fee changes)
and A. Patterson
10.01.02
Development Orders Required (early construction)
J. French
26
10.02.13 F
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures (Monitoring
R. Jarvi
34
Reports, Part I
10.08.00
Conditional Uses Procedures (conditional use extension)
R. Bellows
35
G11D Staff sponsored / CBIA
3.05.07 H.Le
Preservation Standards (archeological site coverage)
S. Lenberger
9
6.02.01
Generally (clarification)
N. Casalanguida
24
6.02.03
Transportation Level of Service Requirements (removing
outdated provisions) *CCPC Voted 8 -1 to remove amendment
6.02.03 D.4
6.06.01
Street System Requirements
N. Casalanguida
25
6.06.02
Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements
(clarification)
Efficienev
4.06.02
Buffer Requirements (new alternative)
N. Casalanguida
1
10.02.03 B.1. j -k
Submittal Reqs for Site Development Plans
J. Podczerwinsky
27
10.02.05
Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
(Rights-of-Ways process)
10.02.03 B.4.b
Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
B. Lorenz and
28
(extensions)
J. Houldsworth
10.03.05
Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, the
Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The
EAC, and the Historic Preservation Board (scrivener's error)
10.02.05 B
Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (extensions)
B. Lorenz and
29
J. Houldsworth
10.02.07 C. Lb .b
Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public Facilities
R. Jarvi and
32
Adequacy (PUD Monitoring Annual Traffic Reports, Part 11)
L. Beard
Parks and Recreation Division
�.
4.05.02
1 Desien Standards
B. Williams Fl 6 -17
?.05.04
1 Parkinw, Space Reouirements (Lrass parking)
ComplexAmendments
3.05.07 F.4.d
Preservation Standards (removal of exotic vegetation)
S. Lenberger
10 -11
*CCPC - Vote 6 -3
and B. Lorenz
4.02.01 D
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
C. Scott, J.
13
Districts (AC Encroachment ) *CCPC - Vote 8 -1
French, T. Gust
5.05.08
Architectural and Site Design Standards (primary fagade and
C. Valera
21 -22
Deviations and Alternate Compliance process)
* CCPC - No Vote. Staff is requesting direction to review
section 5.05.08 in entirety. DSAC recommendation to propose
current amendment and extra recommendation.
Page 2 of 2
7/12/2012 12:33 PM
Packet Page -347-
i
4
tV
ry
r6
.0
W
a
C
ti
N
0
uJ
J
a
a
z
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBT T^ AT^1rT11-L1
July24,2012. 7/24/2012 Item 9.A
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY U01NlL4fIT =lUUNtm
NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE
LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 2012 -1
Nolice is hero oven M on Tuesdak July 24; 2012, in tre Board 0 County Conrrssoners Maejrg
Rocm, 3rd Floor; Buidmg 'F' Ce tier Cor ty Gxer ww Cer>!rr 3299 Tamemi Trail East_ Napes; Rorda
34112, iha Collier Gout Board of County Commissioners MI corsuar amerdneriN to the colliff
CaunN Land Deva4rrat Ccda. The meeting al commerce at 9 :00AAt The title of to proposed ordrrerce
is as folons
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER D441, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02
DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER TWD — ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION '
2.03.01 AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03,07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 2.03.06 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER THREE -: RESOURCE
PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.D5.02 EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR
VEGETATION PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, SECTION 3.05.0 5 CRTTIBIIA FOR REMOVAL
OF PROTECTED VEGETATION, SECTION 3,05.07 PRESERVATIDN STANDARDS, SECTION
32.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS, SECTION 3.06.07 UNREGULATED WELLAELDS, SECTION
3.06.12 REGULATED DEVELOPMENT; CHAPTER FOUR — SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES
IN BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
.DESIGN, SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR UEVELOPIdENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-
ST DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.16 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT, SECTION 4.0217 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD - WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICT, SECTION 4.0218 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD- RESIDEFtT1AL SUBDISTRICT (111), SECTION
4.02.19 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD•RESIDENTIALSUBDISTRICT
(R2), SECTION 4.02.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD- RESIDENTX
SUBDISTRICT (R3), SECTION 4.02.21 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT VT THE
BMUD - RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (RA), SECTION 4.02.35 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUDYMIXED USE SUBDISTRICT (ME), SECTION 4.0236 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD- RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT ((�, SECTION
4.05,02 DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 4.05.94 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION
4.06,02 BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4A6.03 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
VEHICULAR USE AREAS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY, SECTION 4,06.04 TREES AND VEGETATION
PROTECTION, SECTION 4,07,02 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER FIVE — SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.03.02 FENCES AND WALLS, SECTION 5.03.06 DOCK
FACILITIES, ADDING SECTION 5.03.07 PORTABLE STDRAGE CONTAINERS, SECTION 5,05,00
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 5,06.00 SIGN REGULATION AND
STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFIOATION, SECTION 5.06.02 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 06.03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR SIGNS FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES, SECTION 5.04 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR SIGNS IN NONRESIDENTIAL. DISTRICTS, SECTION 5.06.05 EXEMPTIONS FROM THESE
REGULATIONS; CHAPTER SIX — INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACOJTIES REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING SECTION 6 .02.01 GENERALLY, SECTION 6.0203
TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.01 STREET SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06,02 SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS;
CHAPTER NINE — VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 9.0102
REQUIREMENTS OF CONTINUATION OF NONCONFDRMITIES, SECTION 9.UO2 TYPES
OF VARIANCES AUTHORIZED, ADDING SECTION 9.04,08 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT;
CHAPTER TEN — APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION - MAILING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING
SECTION 10.01.02 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED, SECTION 10,02.00 APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS 10.02,03 SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS FOR .SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS,
SECTION 1002.05 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC FACILITY
ADEQUACY, SEC11ON 1012.06 SUBMITTAL REOUIREMUn FOR PERMITS, SECTION
SECTION 10.02.07 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS PLANS SECTION
10.02.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCEDURES, SECTION 10.03.05 NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORETHE BCC,THE PLANNING COMMISSION,THE
BOARD OF ZONING AP9EALS, IRE CAC, AND THE HLSSORIC PRESERVAMN DOW, SECTION
10.08.OD CONDIT IONAL USES PROCEDURES; APPENDIX A • STANDARD PERFORMANCE
SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABKITI` SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN -THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE; AND SECTION SIX EFFECTIVE DATE.
All i.1t?resteO braes are Wk to appear and be leard. Copps of ii a prcQosed amendments are avalatle for
pub,u Impecton b Ire Zowg and Land Deeedpmenf Rerewv S.Lticn, Grower Maragemeni Divis;�n, 2300
N. Flaw hoe Dix, W Florida, belm -0 Lie hags Of 6:00 P.fvt. Nrd 5:00 P.M., Monday Ingh Friday.
R a Pson deddes to appeal any decsbn rrede by ire Collier County Board of Courdy Commissioners
v,b respect to arw mate ocrtsidemd at such .werq or heating, he wll led a record of fire proceedrtt ,,
and ion mdi purpose h, my need to ens xe tat a verbatim reoord, of to proceedings is trade, which mcard
ird& the t,slimony and evidence upon which tre.appeal is to be based
If you area parsoawpadxbillty who newamacc mn• alataninorderbpar tapaleintspmraeding,you
are ailed, at no cast to you, b he provision of caab assistarm Rem corlad tie Collor Carroty Faches
ivtawrnerf Debarment, at 3335 Tamami Traii East, Store 4101, Fables, FL 34112 - 5356,1239) 252•
8390, at leas; ho days {h?or to the r.a na. Assisted listenbo deices for Ire hear ng ff0ed ae avAble in
to Baird of Car. ry rasraiss ens Office.
Co'§er Couly Board of Coo Commoners
Get, C;ur #y, Fl&ida
Tred'vY. Coyle, owirrran By: Teresa Dew
D'ATCHT E BROCK, CLERK Deprty Clorx C01.)
No 240192915 July 2012
Packet Page -348-
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Agenda for Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment review
Amendments Listedyby Review Order
Subsection
LDC Amendment Description
Author
Summary
Sheet P .
CC _
Gbt . _. } ycl'lPCncr 's Errors
1.08.02
Definitions - Omission of Rural Subdivision A
J. Houldsworth
2
error of omission)
2.03.01
Agricultural Zoning Districts (error of omission)
R. Bellows
3
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
2.03.08
Fringe Zoning District (scriveners error)
R. Bellows
4
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses (spelling error)
R. Bellows
12
4.02.04
Standards for Cluster Residential Design (spelling error)
R. Bellows
14
5.03.02
Fences and Walls Excluding Sound Walls
R. Bellows
20
(scriveners error
Appendix
Appendix A (update letter of credit form)
J. Houldsworth &
36
IN=
S. Williams
3.05.02 D
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
1
S. Lenberger
5
Preservation (exceptions, scriveners error)
3.05.02 E
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
6
Preservation
3.05.05
Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
(Mangrove Permit
3.05.02 G.1 -7
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
7
Preservation
3.05.05
Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
4.06.04
Trees and Vegetation Protection
10.01.02
Development Orders Required (corrections)
3.05.02 G.8
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
S. Lenberger
8
Preservation (removal permits)
4.02.14
Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC -ST
S. Lenberger
15
Districts
9.04.02
Types of Variances Authorized (clarifications)
10.02.06 D
Submittal Requirements for Permits (agricultural clearing and
S. Lenberger
30
errors)
10.02.06 E
Submittal Requirements for Permits
S. Lenberger
31
(enforcement and penalties)
Board Directed and Related Amendments
1.08.02
Definitions - Usable Open Space (adding required yards)
R. Bellows
1
4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal uses in Base Zoning
Districts
4.07.02
Design Requirements
4.06.03
Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and
C. Cilek
19
Rights -of -Way
4.06.02
Buffer Requirements
9.03.02
Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities
(time frame extensions)
Page 1 of 2
7/16/2012 1:46 PM
5.06.00
Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification
D. Compagnone
23
5.06.02
Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts
5.06.03
Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses
5.06.04
Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts.
5.06.05
Exemptions from These Regulations (new provision, errors)
10.02.07 C.1 -2
Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public Facilities
N. Casalanguida
33
Adequacy (impact fee changes)
and A. Patterson
10.01.02
Development Orders Required (early construction)
J. French
26
10.02.13 F
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures (Monitoring
R. Jarvi
34
Reports, Part I
10.08.00
Conditional Uses Procedures (conditional use extension)
R. Bellows
35
GMD Staff Sponsored / CBIA
3.05.07 H. Le
Preservation Standards (archeological site coverage)
S. Lenberger
9
6.02.01
Generally (clarification)
N. Casalanguida
24
6.02.03
Transportation Level of Service Requirements (removing
outdated provisions) *CCPC Voted 8 -1 to remove amendment
6 02.03 D.4
6.06.01
Street System Requirements
N. Casalanguida
25
6.06.02
Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements
(clarification)
4.06.02
Buffer Requirements (new alternative)
N. Casalanguida
18
10.02.03 B.1. j -k
Submittal Reqs for Site Development Plans
J. Podczerwinsky
27
10.02.05
Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
(Rights-of-Ways process)
10.02.03 BA.b
Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
B. Lorenz and
28
(extensions)
J. Houldsworth
10.03.05
Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, the
Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The
EAC, and the Historic Preservation Board (scrivener's error)
10.02.05 B
Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (extensions)
B. Lorenz and
29
J. Houldsworth
10.02.07 C. Lb
Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public Facilities
R. Jarvi and
32
Adequacy PUD Monitoring Annual Traffic Reports, Part II)
L. Beard
4.05.02
Design Standards
B. Williams
4.05.04
Parking Space Requirements (grass parking)
3.05.07 FAA
Preservation Standards (removal of exotic vegetation)
S. Lenberger
10 -11
*CCPC - Vote 6 -3
and B. Lorenz
4.02.01 D
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
C. Scott, J.
13
Districts AC Encroachment *CCPC - Vote 8 -1
French, T. Gust
5.05.08
Architectural and Site Design Standards (primary fagade and
C. Valera
21 -22
Deviations and Alternate Compliance process)
* CCPC - No Vote. Staff is requesting direction to review
section 5.05.08 in entirety. DSAC recommendation to propose
current amendment and extra recommendation.
Page 2 of 2
7/16/2012 1:46 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N /BD
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Collier
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Reco innlendatioits
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13.2012
BCC
Industry
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
:k n•il 25, 3012
May 3,'_012
July 24, 2012
Association/
Board Direction
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
Nlay 17, 2012
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Author: Growth
Management
g
Divisio Staff
Section: 1.08.02
Definitions
4.02.01
Standards for
Principle Uses in
To revise the Usable
Open Space
Definition to include
"required yards" and
to remove the usable
open space definitions
in sections 4.02.01
and 4.07.02, clarify
provisions
p
Approved 4/4/12
Reco: to strike
the clause
"except where
dedicated or
March, 192012
Approved 4/4/12
June 21, 2012
Category: N /BD
Origin: Collier
Building
Industry
Association/
Board Direction
Approved 12/14/12
Reco: To strike the
word usable in an
Author: Growth
Management
g
Divisio Staff
Section: 1.08.02
Definitions
4.02.01
Standards for
Principle Uses in
To revise the Usable
Open Space
Definition to include
"required yards" and
to remove the usable
open space definitions
in sections 4.02.01
and 4.07.02, clarify
provisions
p
Approved 4/4/12
Reco: to strike
the clause
"except where
dedicated or
earlier draft.
Approved 3/19/12
Reco: "Usable Open
space areas shall also
include those
portions of areas set
aside for
preservation of
native vegetation,
and lawn, yard and
Approved 4/4/12
Tabled 5/3/12
Reco: to include (previously)
struck language in the usable
open space definition.
Approved 5/17/12
for
donated or
public uses"
Base Zoning
Districts and
4.07.02 Design
Requirements
er• landscaped areas
(whether privately or
publicly owned) ..."
Page 1 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC AUnendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: O
EAC
DSAC -LDR
Subcommittee
DSAC
CCPC
Origin: Growth
Approved with
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14
Recommendations
Aril 13, 2012
p
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 20]2
'2011
Nov. 2s, 2011
. .
Jan 42012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Subdivision which
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
Nhy 17, 2012
Author: John
was inadvertently
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Houldsworth
omitted during re-
March, 19 2012 1
1
.1utic 21 2012
Category: O
Origin: Growth
Approved with
Management
To reinsert the
comments 11/14/11
Approved 4/13/12
Division
definition of Rural
Approved
Subdivision which
N/A
Reco: 1) Make
1/4/12
Reco: To remove the
Author: John
was inadvertently
consistent with other
reference to the preliminary
Houldsworth
omitted during re-
definitions. Small
subdivision plat process,
codification
grammatical
lines 16 -17.
Section: 1.08.02
changes.
Definitions
Page 2 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle I \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: O
DSAC -LDR
C,C111C
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Reco III mendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012_
B��
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
Match 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
11a 3, 2012
2 � ,,
July 24, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
}'
Author: Ray
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
N 17, 2012
Bellows
This passage,
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Section: 2.03.01
regarding side
March, 192012
June 21. 2012
Category: O
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
Approved with
comments
Author: Ray
11/14/11
Bellows
This passage,
Section: 2.03.01
regarding side
Recos: 1)
strikethrough the last
Approved 4/13/12
Ag. Zoning
setbacks for legally
clause "not to exceed
Districts
non- conforming lots,
the maximum
Approved
Recos: 1) To identify that
4.02.01,
was inadvertently
N/A
requirement of 30ft"
1/4/12
this is a "modified"
Dimensional
omitted during re-
because it is viewed
reinsertion
Standards for
codification
as an impossible
2) Correct a typo and
Principle Uses in
situation.
scrivener's error.
Base Zoning
2) Amend the top
Districts
portion to reflect this
Table 2.1- Table
change.
of Minimum
Yard Reqs.
(Setbacks) for
Base Zoning
Districts
Page 3 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25 2012
clay 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Author: Growth
Fringe Zoning District
/A
Dec. G, 2011
Approved
1/4/12
Approved
Management
Section.
on. The word
"from
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Staff
needs to be
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
Time I9, 2012
added.
March, 19 2012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
To fix a scrivener's
Division
error in the Rural
Author: Growth
Fringe Zoning District
/A
Approved
Approved
1/4/12
Approved
Management
Section.
on. The word
"from
11/14/11
4/13/12
Staff
needs to be
added.
Section: 2.03.08
Rural Fringe
Zoning District
Page 4 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Recolllnl ell dations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13,'_1112
BCC
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Noy. 2s, zoll
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
� aril 2^,, 2012
AhN 3, 2012
Ally 24, 2012
Author: Stephen
is inconsistent with
the exemption
Dec. 6, 2011
Approved
Lenberger
creating it in GMP
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Conservation and
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19.2012
Section: 3.05.02
Coastal Management
March, 192012
.rune 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
Correct a scrivener's
error. The subsection
Author: Stephen
is inconsistent with
the exemption
Approved comments
Approved
Lenberger
creating it in GMP
Approved
incorporated into
1/4/12
Approved 4/13/12
Conservation and
2/1/2012
text.
Section: 3.05.02
Coastal Management
12/6/2011
D Exemptions
Element (CCME)
from
Requirements of
Policy 6.1.6.
Vegetation
Preservation
Page 5 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13. 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb.1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
rap. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
p ,.;1,; ,11,,
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Author:
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Stephen
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Lenberger
Revised exemption
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: N
Origin: Growth
Approved with
Management
Division
recos. — See
amendment for frill
Author:
comments
Stephen
12/6/11
Lenberger
Revised exemption
1) Clarify if
and permitting
Mangrove Trimming
Approved
Section: 3.05.02
requirements for
Approved
should be capitalized
1/4/12
Approved
E Exemptions
mangroves for
2/1/2012
2) Definition/
4/13/12
from
consistency with State
explanation of
Requirements of
law.
Mangrove Trimming
Vegetation
needed?
Preservation;
3) Strikethrough of
3.05.05 Criteria
"alter "? — Not
for Removal of
consistent with rest
Protected
of amendment
Vegetation
Page 6 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; 0= 0missions; BD= Board Directed
L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Corrections to section
EAC
subcom mittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Reconuncndalions
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March %, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
;�,ri1 2;, 2012
April
�iuy 3.2012
24, 2012
`
Division
Restructure 4.06.04
Dec. 6, 2011
for clarification;
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
May 17,2012
Author: Stephen
Changes to re-
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Lenberger
vegetation regs;
Recos:
March, 19 2012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Corrections to section
Origin: Growth
citations in Section
Management
3.05.02 G 1- 7;
Division
Restructure 4.06.04
for clarification;
Tabled
Author: Stephen
Changes to re-
Return 3/7/12
Lenberger
vegetation regs;
Recos:
Remove 50 acre per
1) Look into
Section:
application, restriction
what is
3.05.02 G 1- 7
on lot prep; Eliminate
considered a
Approved
Tabled
4/13/12 Reco: To address
Exemptions from
requirements for
stock pile' and
12/6/11 with
Requirements for
removal of stockpiles
add stabilization
comments
Approved
stabilization issues,
Vegetation
after 18 months;
language to
incorporated into
1/4/12
stockpiles in section 4.06.04
Protection and
Change bond amounts
clarify Sections
text.
Preservation
for Early Work
4.06.04 A 3.d
Approved
3.05.05 Criteria
Authorizations
and 10.01.02 2.h
5/3/12
for Removal of
(EWA); Corrections
Protected
to LDC citations and
Vegetation;
scrivener's errors;
Approved
4.06.04 Trees
Amend related
3/7/2012
and Vegetation
sections as needed;
Protection;
Add exclusion for
10.01.02
Golden Gate Estates
Development
subdivision
Orders Required
Page 7 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle I \Schedules and Sunmiaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
Tabled
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
h
Recommendation
Recommendations
No�.14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13.2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. zs, zotl
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 2 >. 2012
Nlo-ty 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Division
from having to obtain
Consider
Dec. D 6, 2011
vegetation removal
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Author: Stephen
permits for
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
.lane 19, 2012
Lenberger
environmental
Management
March, 19 2012 1
1
June 21, 2012
Category: N
Tabled
2/1/12
Origin: Growth
Management
Create an exemption
Recos: 1)
Division
from having to obtain
Consider
vegetation removal
requiring a
Author: Stephen
permits for
Preserve
Approved
Approved
Lenberger
environmental
Management
12/14/11
1/4/12
Approved
restoration projects on
Plan for other
with comments
4/13/12
Section:
publically owned
types of
3.05.02 G.8
land.
publically owned
Exemption from
land.
Requirements for
Vegetation
Approved
Preservation
3/7/12
Page 8 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\ LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Collier
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
P
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
B��
Industly
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Nov.
.Ian. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 35, 2012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Association
be counted towards
�
April 4, 2012
6, 011
Dec. G, 201.1
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
May 17, 2012
the minimum native
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
lane 19, 2012
Author: Stephen
vegetation retention
2/1/2012
March, 19 2012
,line 21. 2012
Category: N
Origin: Collier
Building
Allow archaeological
Industly
or historical sites to
Association
be counted towards
Approved
Approved
the minimum native
Approved
Approved
1/4/12
5/3/12
Author: Stephen
vegetation retention
2/1/2012
12/14/2011
Reco: To remove HAPB
Lenberger
requirement for the
references
Section: 3.05.07
County.
H. Le
Preservation
Standards
Page 9 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Pro osed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Building
Amendment
Peb.1,2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
Nl:ty 3, 2012
Jul }' 24, 2013
Industry
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Association
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4. 2012
June 19, 2012
amendment and
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: N
Tabled
5/3/12
Origin: Collier
Reco: 1.) Reorganize and
Building
correct the errors. 2.)
Industry
Reco: The BCC
Research history of when the
Association
not adopt the
restriction was first placed in
amendment and
the LDC. 3.) Have County
Author:
Staff return the
Attorney opine on the extent
Stephen
proposal in the
of changes that can be made
Lenberger
To permit the removal
next LDCA
Approved
to an LDC amendment once
of
of exotic plants in
cycle with a
Approved
1/4/12
it is voted on by the CCPC.
Section: 9.05.07
Lands as
provision for
12/14/2011
4.) Solicit input from
H-4-9
mitigation
utilizing criteria
stakeholders on when it
Pfeseizvatien
to analyze a
might be useful to allow
Staadafds
projects required
exotic vegetation removal to
Renamed
mitigation on a
count as mitigation for
3.05.07 FAA
"case by case"
impacts to jurisdictional
Wetland
basis.
wetlands in the RFMUD. It
preservation and
was suggested inserting the
conservation
word "unless" at the end of
Continued on
the sentence in 3.05.07 FAA.
Next Page
Page 10 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle ASchedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Continued from
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Previous Page
r
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
P
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Wetland
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov.
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1 2012
April ?;, 2012
Dray 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
preservation and
6, 011
Dec. 6, 2011
>
6/21/12
conservation
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17.2012
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
Junc 19, 2012
March, 19 2012
June 21. 2012
Continued from
Tabled
Previous Page
6/19/12
3.05.07 FAA
VOTE 4 -3 to include the
Wetland
language and bring back on
preservation and
6/21/12
conservation
Reco: to amend the section to
read: Exotic vegetation
Vegetation Removal. exetie
Exotic vegetation removal
shall not constitute mitigation
unless the mitigation is for
secondary impacts (not
dredge and fill ) and it is
reconciled with the State and
Federal permits.
Approved
6/21/12
VOTE 6 -3
Reco: to approve the
amendment as staff proposed.
Page 11 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
EAC
DSAC -LDR
Subcommittee
DSAC
CCPC
Origin: Growth
Recoinmendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 201.2
Nov. 28, 2011
.Tan. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
,� , ,
April -" O1_
Nlac 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Author: Ray
"principle" with
"principal."
April 4, 2012
Dec. G, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Bellows
May 2, 2012
Dee. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Section: 4.02.01
March, 192012
1 1
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
Correct the word
Approved
Author: Ray
"principle" with
"principal."
N/A
Approved 11/14/11
1/4/12
Approved 4/25/12
Bellows
Section: 4.02.01
Dimensional
Standards
Page 12 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
To allow air
/-rr
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Recontmcudations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommeudations
Nov 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb, 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Nov. 11
lam 4 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 2. 2012
Nlay 3, 2012
July 24, 201
elevated in order to
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6 6, , 20011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
1iay 17.22012
Author: Chris
meet flood elevation
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Scott, Jalnie
requirements to
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
To allow air
Management
conditioning (A /C)
Division
units that must be
elevated in order to
Author: Chris
meet flood elevation
Approved
Scott, Jalnie
requirements to
3/19/12
French, Tatiana
encroach into any
N/A
with continents
Approved
Approved
Gust
yard provided that
incorporated into text
4/4/12
4/13/12
minimum building
Section: 4.02.01
separations are
Dimensional
maintained, consistent
Standards for
with Staff
Principle Uses in
Clarification
Base Zoning
SC 07 -01.
Districts
Page 13 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Teb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 2s, 2011
Jan. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 2 >, 2012
D1ny 3.2012
July 24, 2012
Correct the word
Dec. 6, 201]
Author: Ray
"principle" with
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
NIny 17.2012
Bellows
"principal."
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
.]line 19, 2012
Section: 4.02.04
March, 192012
.tune 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
Correct the word
Author: Ray
"principle" with
N/A
Approved
Approved
1prov
Approved
Bellows
"principal."
11/14/11
4/13/12
Section: 4.02.04
Standards for
Cluster
Residential
Design
Page 14 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle I for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
Clearly identify in
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
4.02.14, the regs
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 2s, 2012
Nlav 3.2012
, , 2
1 u l � ..4, ..01..
s
Division
those which apply to
April 4, 2012
Dec. G, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
MaN 17, 2012
ACSC -ST
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Author: Stephen
include specific
Marcb, 192012
.tune 21.2012
Category: C
Clearly identify in
4.02.14, the regs
Origin: Growth
which apply to the ST
Management
Overlay District and
Approved with
Division
those which apply to
comments.
ACSC -ST
Reco: 1) To
Author: Stephen
include specific
Lenberger
Clarify in 4.02.14 D,
plant species in
the separate review
4.02.14 CA in
Approved
Section: 4.02.14
and approval process
place of current
4/4/12
Design Standards
for Copeland and
language "all
Approved
with comments.
Tabled
for Development
Plantation Island sites
wetland plants"
3/19/12
Reco: 1) to
4/13/12
in the ST and
located within the
2) To amend
with comments
include specific
Reco: 1) To gather historical
ACSC -ST
Urban Designated
section H.1.c to
"No
incorporated into
plant species in
materials on TDR program
Districts and
Area
read:
4.02.14 CA
9.04.02 Types of
pollutants will be
text .
rather than the
Approved
Variances
Allow variations from
discharged from
current language
5/17/12
Authorized
site alteration criteria
the area that will
"all wetland
for Plantation Island
further degrade
plants"
(unrecorded)
the air, water, or
subdivision, pursuant
soil below the
to the §380.032(3) to
levels existing at
be reviewed and
the time of
approved
application."
administratively.
Bring Section 4.02 14
up to date
Page 15 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle i \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle I for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
and Recreation
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan 4 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25 2012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
subsection
Dec. 6, 2011
Reco: 1) Change `similar
Author: Barry
The proposed
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17.2012
Williams and
amendment seeks to
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
.tune 19, 2012
Tony Ruberto
allow public parks
50% to 80%
March, 192012
1
1 June 21, 2012
Category: N
DSAC reviewed an
Origin: Parks
Tabled 2/1/12
earlier draft.
and Recreation
Reco: 1) Change
Tabled 4/13/12
subsection
Approved with
Reco: 1) Change `similar
Author: Barry
The proposed
4.05.04 D.2 to is
comments
community uses' to "similar
Williams and
amendment seeks to
modified from
incorporated
private recreational facilities
Tony Ruberto
allow public parks
50% to 80%
into text.
in residential developments"
and similar
2) 4.0 5.04 D.1
12/21/11
2) Reorganize the section
Section: 4.05.02
community uses to
to read:
Recom 1) to provide
3) Remove the sentence
Design
have up to 70% grass
"Developers
grass parking `in
"Applicants may consider all
Requirements
parking.
providing
accordance with the
grass parking spaces
&
parking lots in
South Florida Water
Approved 1/4/12
impervious in the water
4.05.04 Parking
Consolidates all grass
excess of 200
Mgmt. District
management calculations."
S ace
parking p rovisions by
parking spaces
regulations;' 2) add
4) Change "similar
Requirements
relocating the existing
may surface up
'similar community
community uses" to "similar
language in Section
to forty (40 %)
uses' to have the
private recreational facilities
Continued on
4.05.04 to section
percent of the
same opportunity for
in residential developments"
Next Page
4.05.02.
required off
grass parking as
in subsection 4.05.02
street parking
public parks, 3.)
B.l.a.i.d
spaces in grass.
Increase the grass
parking percentage
to 50 %;
Page 16 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Continued from
Said grass
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Previous Page
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Section:
Feb. 1, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
,�i I n•ii 25, 201.7.
July 24, 2012
4.05.02 Design
Amendment
March 7, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Feb. 1, 2012
llay 3, ^_012
Requirements
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
& 4.05.04
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Parking Space
community uses"
March, 192012
.tune 21, 2012
Continued from
Said grass
Previous Page
parking spaces
shall be located
Section:
in a suitable on
4.05.02 Design
site location."
Requirements
3) Define
& 4.05.04
"similar
Parking Space
community uses"
Requirements
Tabled 5/3/12
Approved
4) Include a citation
Reco: 1) Flip B. La with
3/7/2012
for houses of
B. Ia. i 2) Add that grass
Reco: 1) for
worship and schools.
should be durable "and
section
5) Consolidation of
maintained" 3) Add
4.05.02.B.1a to
the subsections
"Driveways, handicapped
read "Up to
4.05.02 B and
spaces and access aisles shall
seventy (70 %)
4.05.05 D.
paved" l.
be aved to section B.a.i 3
percent of the
parking spaces
Approved 5/17/12
for public parks,
house of worship
and schools..."
2) For section
4.05.004 D to be
as currently
exists.
Page 17 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
The proposed
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
amendment allows
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendalions
kpril 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
fan. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
:April 25. 2012
Mai 3, 2012
duly 24.2012
Division
commercial
April 4, 2012
Dec. G, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
Nta, 17, 2012
outparcels within a
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
dune 19, 2012
Author: Nick
shopping center,
March, 19 2012
dnne 21, 2012
Category: N
The proposed
amendment allows
Origin: Growth
abutting commercial/
Management
industrial parcels,
Approved 3/19/12
Division
commercial
with comments
outparcels within a
incorporated into the
Author: Nick
shopping center,
text
Casalanguida
commercial parcels
1) Amend Table 2.4
within a Business
exception 3 to read:
Tabled 5/17/12 Reco: To
Section:
Park and
Buffer areas between
review the acreage limitation.
4.06.02 Buffer
commercial /industrial
commercial
Requirements
parcels with the same
outparcels located
Approved 6/19/2
zoning designation,
N/A
within a shopping
Approved 4/4/12
Language change "One
which meet specified
center, Business
outparcel shall be no greater
criteria, to remove a
Park, or similar
than 3 acres and the
shared buffer in order
commercial
combined parcel acreage
to share parking or
development may
shall not exceed 5 acres"
other infrastructure
have a shared buffer
facilities. The
1 10 feet wide with
landscape material
each adjacent
and buffer square
property contributing
footage must
75 5 feet.
reallocated on the
joint parcel.
Page 18 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: BD/N
Change 4.06.03 from
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
90 days to 1 year
EAC
Subcomittee
m
DSAC
RecoiIniendatlons
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
4, 2012
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
must be brought into
Feb. 1, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan.
April 25, 3012
1
lul , 24, 2012
Division
Amendment
March %, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Feb. 1, 2012
n1a. 3.3012
Brings related buffer
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
11ay 17, 2012
Author: Growth
requirements into
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
.tune 19, 2012
Management
consistency, change
March, 19 2012
,Tune ' -1. 1-012
Category: BD/N
Change 4.06.03 from
90 days to 1 year
Origin: Growth
before site features
Management
must be brought into
Division
conformity.
Brings related buffer
Author: Growth
requirements into
Tabled 11/28/2011;
Management
consistency, change
12/14/2011
Staff
60 days to 1 year.
Changes non-
1) Make consistent
Tabled 5/17/12
Section: 4.06.03
conformity section.
with Nonconforming
Reco: To solicit input from
Landscaping
Currently, when a
section code
NABOR to identify if the
Requirements for
non - conforming use
ethe
Amend the
Approved
time frame proposed is
Vehicular Use
ceases for more than
N/A
o
no
nonconforming
1/4/12
sufficient.
Areas and
180 days then the
section to reflect 1
Rights -of -Way;
subsequent use shall
Approved 6/21/12
4.06.02 Buffer
be a pennitted use.
year
NABOR confirmed 1 year
Requirements;
Proposes 1 year
Approved with
was appropriate.
9.03.02 Reqs. of
replaces 180 daytime
comments
Continuation of
frame. Currently, if
12/21/11
Non-
the nonconfoming use
conformities
ceases for 90 days,
then the site features
trust be brought up to
conformity. Proposes
1 year to replace 90
days.
Page 19 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC. docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14,2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan 4 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
,_ , ,
:\pril _, _III_
11ay 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
an illustration that
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
Nlay 17, 2012
Author: Ray
does not exist. It is
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
Jane 19, 2012
Bellows
proposed that the
March, 19 2012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
This clause references
an illustration that
Approved
Author: Ray
does not exist. It is
N/A
Approved 11/1411
1/4/12
Approved 4/13/12
Bellows
proposed that the
reference be removed.
Section: 5.03.02
Fences and
Walls, Excluding
Sound Walls
Page 20 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1- Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
subcommittee
7�
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Reconuncndations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Building
Feb. 1, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
. -k n•il 2S, 2012
l
J u I ' 24, 2012
Industry
Amendment
March 7, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Feb. 1, 2012
>lay 3, 2012
Association
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
A lay 17, 2012
To modify allow
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Author:
buildings to have a
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: N
(DSAC approved
previous version.
Origin: Collier
See notes on next
Building
page.)
Industry
Approved with
Association
comments
To modify allow
12/14/11
Tabled 5/3/12
Author:
buildings to have a
1) Comments
Note: The Planning
Carolina Valera
one, interior facing,
relating to permitting
Commission did not review
"second and
Spandrel window
Approved
the LDC Amendment.
Section:
f to allow buildi ngs
und"
N/A
glazing. To include it
1/4/12
5.05.08
wi thin a PUD apply
toward the maximum
Reco: To reconvene the 2004
Architectural and
for the Architectural
glazing required
Architectural Review
Site Design
Deviation Process
Committee to review
Standards
Update 6/6/12 to
proposed amendments.
recommend the
amendment and
spandrel glass
provision be
Continued on
presented to BCC for
next page
consideration.
Page 21 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle ASummary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Continued from
5.05.08 Notes: DSAC approved the following changes in December 14, 2012:
previous page
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Section:
gross area of the existing structures, the existing building(s) and the site improvements must conform with the standards of 5.05.08.
5.05.08
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
the primary elevation of the proposed building at a minimum of 1/8" scale, a color rendering or elevation, eeler paint ehips -color rending of the
LDC Section
Pro osed
P
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
arcades, a minimum of eight feet clear in width, iv. Sculptured artwork, v. Cornice minimum two feet high with 12 inch projection, vi. Peaked or
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Emphasized building base, minimum of three feet high, with a minimum projection from the wall of two inches, xiii. Additional roof articulation
Dee. 6, 2011
structural elements, xix. Additional glazing at a minimum of 15% beyond the code minimum requirement, xx. Solar shading devises (excluding
awnings) that cover a minimum of 50% of the building facade, xxi. Translucent glazing at a minimum of 15% beyond the code minimum glazing
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
materials that make up the remainder of the glazing. Spandrel panels in are allowed b*t and shall may no be included in the
minimum glazing required for primary facade.
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
and shall allowed bt1t may-net be applicable toward ins the minimum percent of glazing fegtlired for the affected primary facade.
March, 19 2012 1
1
June 21, 2012
Continued from
5.05.08 Notes: DSAC approved the following changes in December 14, 2012:
previous page
1.) 5.05.08.B.3.ii: An addition or renovation to, or redevelopment of, an existing building or project, where the cost of such addition, renovation, or
redevelopment exceeds -58 75 percent of the assessed value of the existing structure(s), or would exceed 2-5 50 percent of the square footage of the
Section:
gross area of the existing structures, the existing building(s) and the site improvements must conform with the standards of 5.05.08.
5.05.08
2.) 5.05.08 C.5.a: An applicant must submit architectural drawings and a site development plan or site improvement plan according to Section 10.02.03 Site
Architectural and
Development Plans of this Code to comply with this Section 5.05.08. This includes: floor plan(s) of each proposed building, all elev &ns of eft^h
Site Design
the primary elevation of the proposed building at a minimum of 1/8" scale, a color rendering or elevation, eeler paint ehips -color rending of the
Standards
buildin , and roof color paint chip(s) or sample.
3.) 5.05.08 C.5.c: Building design treatments. Each building f^eade must ha- e a4 least fouf rte The following building design treatments may be
appropriate: i. Canopies, porticos, or porte- cocheres, integrated with the massing and style, ii. Overhangs, minimum of three feet, iii. Colonnades or
arcades, a minimum of eight feet clear in width, iv. Sculptured artwork, v. Cornice minimum two feet high with 12 inch projection, vi. Peaked or
curved roof forms, vii. Arches with a minimum 12 -inch recess depth, viii. Display windows, ix. Ornamental and structural architectural details, other
than cornices, which are integrated into the building structure and overall design, x. Clock or bell tower, or other such roof treatment (i.e. dormers,
belvederes, and cupolas), xi. Projected and covered entry, with minimum dimension of eight feet and the minimum area of 100 square feet, xii.
Emphasized building base, minimum of three feet high, with a minimum projection from the wall of two inches, xiii. Additional roof articulation
above the minimum standards, xiv. Curved walls, xv. Columns, xvi. Pilasters, or xvii. Metal or the roof material, xviii. Expressed or exposed
structural elements, xix. Additional glazing at a minimum of 15% beyond the code minimum requirement, xx. Solar shading devises (excluding
awnings) that cover a minimum of 50% of the building facade, xxi. Translucent glazing at a minimum of 15% beyond the code minimum glazing
requirement, xxii. Glass block at a minimum of 15% beyond the code minimum glazing requirement.
4.) 5.05.08.C.6 Window standards. Windows must net be false or- applie t be appropriate to a buildings use. False windows may be composed of the same
materials that make up the remainder of the glazing. Spandrel panels in are allowed b*t and shall may no be included in the
minimum glazing required for primary facade.
DSAC Recommendation on 6/6/12:
1) 5.05.08 C.6: Window standards. Windows must not be false or applied. Spandrel panels are not considered false and in are permitted
and shall allowed bt1t may-net be applicable toward ins the minimum percent of glazing fegtlired for the affected primary facade.
Page 22 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category:
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
C /O /BD
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Recolii111C11datiolis
LDC Section
Proposed
P
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
Jan. 4, , ,
April 13. 2012
,_ ,
BCC
Review &
Feb. 1, 2012
Nov. 2s, 2011
�01_
2
April _a. _01_
� �
July -4, 201_
Permitting
Amendment
March 7, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Feb. 1, 2012
May 3, 2012
Author: Diana
omissions from 2009
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Compagnone
rewrite.
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4. 2012
June 19, 2012
Section: 5.06.00
Amend conflicts
March, 19 2012
lone 21. 2012
Category:
C /O /BD
Origin: Building
Review &
Tabled 11/14/11
Permitting
Clarifications and
Author: Diana
omissions from 2009
1) Examine flag
Compagnone
rewrite.
definition and
Tabled 4/13/12
Section: 5.06.00
Amend conflicts
commercial message
Reco: 1) Bring previous sign
Sign Regulations
between sections.
2) 5.06.05 A. l
code to compare the change.
and Stds by Land
Examine Eft height
2 ) a provision rovision to the
Use Class.;
Codify standard
requirement
A loved
pp'
sidewalk sign standard to
g
5.06.02
N/A
1/4/12
bring in the signs when the
Development
practices.
Approved
business is closed. 3)
Stds for Signs
Addition of sidewalk
11/28/2011
Reexamine the Flag
within Res. Dist;
sign regulations, per
3) Consider the
definition
5.06.03
Development
Board direction.
wording
"commercial
Approved 5/17/12
Stds for Signs for
content" rather than
Institutional
messages for section
Uses; 5.06.04
5.06.00
Development
Stds for Signs in
Nonres. Dist;
5.06.05 Exlnpts
from these Regs
Page 23 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC .Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle i for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Collier
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Reconunenclations
,kpri1 13, 2012
BCC
Industry
Amendment
Feb. 1 2012
'
March 7, 2012
Nov. 2s, 2011
Jan' 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
25 , ,
April _,, _II L
flay 3.2012
July 24, 2012
Association
Dec. 6,2011
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
xlay 17, 2012
Author: Nick
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
Jute 19.2012
Casalan uida &
g
To clarify what
March, 192012
version which
included
June 21, 2012
Category: N
Origin: Collier
Approved
Building
with comments
Industry
1/4/12
Association
DSAC approved
Author: Nick
a previous
Casalan uida &
g
To clarify what
version which
included
Approved 5/17/12 —with the
Reed Jarvi
projects require "real
Tabled
amending
removal of Section 6.02.03
Section: 6.02.01
time" concurrency
12/14/11
subsection
D.4 which added a third year
to the work schedule for the
Generally;
.
review02M
N/A
Forwarded for
6.02. . which
FDOT 5 year work program
6.02.03
Remove LDC
review
requires that the
threshold for
and the Collier County
Transportation
provisions that are
by DSAC on
significance tests
fi
Schedule of Capital
Level of Service
outdated.
01/04/2011
is 2 percent. The
Improvements. See notes on
Requirements
q
prior draft
LDC Amendment.
proposed
changing the
threshold to 5
percent, or at a
minimum, 3
percent.
Page 24 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Collier
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
i0
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Industry
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov.28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2072
Feb. 1, 2012
April ^_ >,'_0►2
i
May 3, 2012
Jul 24 2012
�� '
Association
subsection that
Dec, 6, 2011
requires a marginal
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
Ma% 17, 2012
Author: Nick
access street to be
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Casalanguida &
provided by the
March, 19 2012
1 1
.ltnte 21, 2012
Category: N
Tabled 12/14/11
Origin: Collier
Forwarded for
Building
review
Industry
Removes the
by DSAC on 1/04/11
Association
subsection that
requires a marginal
1/4/12 draft
Tabled 5/17/12 Reco: To
Author: Nick
access street to be
included: l)
amend the sidewalk thickness
Casalanguida &
provided by the
Requiring an
language in section 6.06.02.
Reed Jarvi
developer in certain
engineering
situations; clarifies
evaluations for
Approved
Tabled 6/19/12 Reco: To add
Section: 6.06.01
the proportionate
median closings and
with recos
"per manufacture
Street System
share provision for
when creating
included in the
specifications" to subsection
Requirements;
traffic control
N/A
frontage roads
amendment
6.06.02 F. Ix
6.06.02
devices; clarifies
2) To limit site
1/4/12
Sidewalks, Bike
sidewalk and pathway
related
Approved 6/21/12
Lane and
construction
improvements to
Clarified section and
Pathway
standards, removes
project entrances,
removed the option of "4
Requirements
construction standard
adding "if needed" to
inch thick concrete with a 4
details and unused
the ROW
inch thick limerock base"
sidewalk construction
option.
compensation
provision 3)
Changing the
sidewalks widths
from 6 ft to 5ft;
Page 25 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N /BD
DSAC -LDR
Approved
CCPC
EAC
Subcommittee
D SAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Pro osed
h
Recommendation
Recommendations
ov. 1a, 2011
Reconunendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. Pb 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
Ail 25 2
pr, (112
May 120 12
Jul 24, 2012
y
Division
Dec, 6, 2011
"development
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17.2012
Author: Jamie
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
French
March, 192012
a SDP. 2) Note
June 21, 2012
Category: N /BD
Approved
4/4/12
Origin: Growth
Management
Recos: 1) C.l.g
Division
"development
order or zoning
Author: Jamie
approval" means
French
a SDP. 2) Note
To establish an Early
that the bond
Section: 10.01.02
Construction
Requested Review
will be released
Tabled
Development
Authorization Permit
by County Attorney
following the
4/13/12 Reco: Bring back
Orders Required
that allows limited
Approved
Office. Forwarded to
approval of the
ff
with Staff rrections
- Early
and specified
4/4/12
frill DSAC for
SDP.
Construction
construction prior to
review.
3) Note that the
Approved
Authorization
full SDP approval.
phased building
5/17/12
Permit
permits may also
be approved to
continue the
project. 4) Add
"application to
C.3.a: "The ECA
permit
application shall
be reviewed..."
Page 26 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Reco ill men da Lions
Section
Pro d
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Nov. 2s, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1. 2012
April 2;,'_01'_
flay 3, 2012
July _4, 2012
County and FDOT
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
May 17.2012
Author: John
Right -Of -Way Pen-nit
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Podczerwinslcy
process. Permits may
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Division
To adjust the Collier
County and FDOT
Author: John
Right -Of -Way Pen-nit
Podczerwinslcy
process. Permits may
Section:
be submitted
following SDP
N/A
Approved
Approved
Approved
10.02.03 B 1 j -k
approval and at/or
11/14/11
1/4/12
4/13/12
Submittal
before the County
Requirements for
pre - construction
SDPs and
meeting.
10.02.05
Submittal
Requirements for
Improvement
Plans
Page 27 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
14,
Recommendations
kpril 13.2012
BCC
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 2011
Jan. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
1pril 3,, 2012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Author: Bill
April 4, 2012
Dec. G, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
flay 17, 2012
Lorenz and John
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Houldsworth
March, 192012 1
1 June 21, 2012
Category: N
Origin: Growth
Management
Approved
Author: Bill
11/14/11
Lorenz and John
DSAC reviewed an
Houldsworth
earlier draft. Reco: 1)
change 10.02.03
Approved 4/13/12
Section:
To amend the Site
BA.b.i to: "Two
Reco: To remove the added
10.02.03 BA.b
Development Plan
year extensions of
language "and the extension
Submittal
extension provision
the three -year limit
is reviewed for LDC
Requirements for
and allow for
of the approved SDP
Approved
compliance. A written
Site
approved SDPs to
N/A
or the approved SDP
1/4/12
request shall be submitted to
Development
apply for two (2) two-
amendment may be
and approved by the County
Plans;
year extensions in
granted for good
Manager or their designee
10.03.05 Notice
place of the one (1),
cause shown."
prior to the expiration of the
Requirements for
one year extension.
2) Modified
then effective approval
Public Hearings
language in 10.01.05
term."
Before the BCC,
B.11 (extensions
the CCPC, the
mgy be granted at the
Board of Zoning
discretion of the
Appeals, The
County Manager)
EAC, and the
Historic
Preservation
Board
Page 28 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle I \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recomu,endations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Feb. 1, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
April 2 >, 2012
July 24, 2012
Amendment
March 7, 2012
Dec. 6,2011
Peb. 1, 2 O1_
�t::y 3, _01_ 2
Author: Bill
Improvement Plan
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
11av 17, 2012
Lorenz and John
(SIP) extension
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Houldsworth
provision and allow
March, 192012
1
1 .tune 21. 2012
Category: N
Approved 11/14/11
Recos: 1) Modified
Approved 4/13/12
Origin: Growth
10.01.03 B.4.b.i "two
Recos: 1) to remove the
Management
year extensions...
added language "...before a
To amend the Site
may be granted fora
site development plan
Author: Bill
Improvement Plan
good cause shown."
amendment is required and
Lorenz and John
(SIP) extension
2) Modified last
the extension is reviewed for
Houldsworth
provision and allow
sentence to read:
"Each
Approved
pp
LDC compliance."
p
Section:
for two (2), two -year
N/A
request should
provide written
1/4/12
2) To remove DSAC's added
"and
10.02.05 B
extensions in place of
justification for the
language mU be
Submittal
the one (1), one year
extension. ^ �'�
n
granted at the discretion of
Requirements for
extension.
o +� s ,
ins and may
the County Manager or
Improvement
be granted at the
designee."
3) Remove last sentence
Plans
discretion of the
altogether.
County Manager or
designee."
Page 29 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4.2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
p
May 3, 2012
duly 24, 2012
Author: Stephen
Remove incorrect
citations;
Approved
Dv, 6, 2011
Approved
Approved
Lenberger
Grammatical and
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Section:
other corrections
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
tune 19, 2012
10.02.06 D
March, 19 2012 1
1
June 21, 2012
Category: C
Origin: Growth
Management
Correct scriveners'
Division
error in 10.02.06 D.1;
Author: Stephen
Remove incorrect
citations;
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Lenberger
Grammatical and
2/1/2012
12/14/11
1/4/12
4/13/12
Section:
other corrections
10.02.06 D
Submittal
Requirements for
Permits
Page 30 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
Comments:
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Recotntnen(lations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, toll
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Management
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Ian. 4, 2012
Feb. 1.2012
April 2;, 2012
� �
11ay 3, 2012
, 2 2
July _4, 2012
Division
requirements for
residential areas.
Dec. 6, 2011
replacement of
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7. 2012
Map 17.2012
Author: Stephen
vegetation which has
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
,tune 19, 2012
Lenberger
been cleared illegally.
2/1/12
March, 192012
1/4/12
,tuiie 21, 2012
Category: C
Comments:
Include a
Tabled 12/6/11
Origin: Growth
Update and identify
grandfathering
Management
minimum
provision for
Approved
Division
requirements for
residential areas.
12/14/11
replacement of
with comments
Author: Stephen
vegetation which has
Approved
Approved
Approved
Lenberger
been cleared illegally.
2/1/12
1) Modified
1/4/12
4/13/12
Cross reference
language regarding
Section:
applicable sections of
Revised and
the 'Monitoring and
10.02.06 E
LDC for minimum
brought back.
replanting" section
Submittal
standards to apply.
Approved
for clarity
Requirements for
3/7/2012
Permits
Page 31 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Growth
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13. 2012
BCC
Division
Amendment
Feb. 1,2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April ,5, 2x,12
clay 3, 2012
.luIv 24, 2012
Dec. G, 2011
Author:
Reed Jarvi and
In place of a PUD
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Laurie Beard
annual monitoring
May 2, 2012
Dee. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
tune 19, 2012
report, a onetime fee
N/A
March, 19 2012
1/4/12
,Lune 21, 2012
Category: N
Origin: Growth
Management
Tabled
Division
12/6/11
Author:
Reed Jarvi and
In place of a PUD
Approved
Laurie Beard
annual monitoring
12/14/11
Approved
Approved
report, a onetime fee
N/A
with comments
1/4/12
4/13/12
Section:
for traffic counts
10.02.07 C.1.b
would be applied.
1) New language
Submittal
added to clarify
Requirements for
existing PUD
Certificates of
commitments
Public Facility
Adequacy
(Part II)
Page 32 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: BD
DSAC -LDR
CCPC.
Origin:
Removing references
EAC
subcommittee
DSAC
Reco ill ill e n d ati oils
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 201'_
BCC
Administration
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25.3012
May 3, 2012
July 24, 2012
Transportation Impact
April 4, 2012
Dec, 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
NlaN 17, 2012
Author: Amy
Fees required to be
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19.2012
Patterson &
paid to obtain a
N/A
March, 192012
1
1 .tune 21. 2012
Category: BD
Origin:
Removing references
Impact Fee
to amount of
Administration
estimated
Transportation Impact
Author: Amy
Fees required to be
Patterson &
paid to obtain a
N/A
Approved
Approved
Approved
Nick
certificate of public
11/28/11
1/4/12
5/3/12
Casalanguida
facility adequacy due
to duplication and
Section:
potential conflict with
10.02.07 C.1 -2
Board Directed
Certificate of
changes.
Public Facility
Adequacy
Page 33 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle ASummary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: BD
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Code
To allow property
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov.14, 2011
Recommendations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Amendment
Peb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 28, 2011
Ian. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25.2012
May 3. 2012
.fitly 24, 2012
Author:
the portions of the
Dec. 6, 2011
Reed Jarvi, and
PUD which are not
built -out. Property
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17, 2012
Laurie Beard
owners who own
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Section:
portions of the PUD
March, 19 2012
1 1
June 21, 2012
Category: BD
Origin: Code
To allow property
Enforcement
owner(s) to file a
PUD report for only
Author:
the portions of the
Approved with
Reed Jarvi, and
PUD which are not
built -out. Property
N/A
comments
incorporated into
Approved
Approved
Laurie Beard
owners who own
amendment 12/6/11
1/4/12
4/13/12
Section:
portions of the PUD
10.02.13 F
Which are built -out
PUD Monitoring
will not file an annual
(Part I)
report
Page 34 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
I TDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.docx
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: N /BD
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
Origin: Collier
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Reco in in endations
LDC Section
Proposed
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14'2011
Recommendations
April 13, 3012
BCC
Industry
Amendment
Feb. 1, 2012
March 7 2012
Nov 28, 2011
Jan. 4, 2012
Feb. 1. 2012
�,ril 2i, 2u12
Olay 3, 2013
Jul`" 34, 3012
Association
from 3 years to 5
April 4, 2012
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
nlay 17.2012
years and the
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
.1unc 19.2012
Author: Growth
extension from 1 year
N/A
March, 19 2012
1/4/12
Jime 21. 3012
Category: N /BD
Origin: Collier
Building
To change a
Approved
Industry
conditional use permit
12/14/11
Approved
Association
from 3 years to 5
DSAC reviewed an
5/17/12
years and the
earlier draft that
Approved
Reco: to remove the added
Author: Growth
extension from 1 year
N/A
proposed one change
1/4/12
language "showing a good
Management
to 2 years, if by that
which was to allow
faith effort to commence the
Division Staff
date the use has not
conditional uses to
been commenced.
apply for continual 1
use."
Section:
year extensions.
10.08.00
Conditional Use
Procedures
Page 35 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle I \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet\Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle I for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
2012 LDC Amendments Cycle 1 - Summary Sheet
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Category: C
DSAC -LDR
CCPC
References need to be
EAC
Subcommittee
DSAC
Recommendations
LDC Section
Proposed
p
Recommendation
Recommendations
Nov. 14, 2011
Reconimemlations
April 13, 2012
BCC
Attorney Office
Amendment
P'eb. 1, 2012
March 7, 2012
Nov. 2s, 2011
Tan. 4. 2012
Feb. 1, 2012
April 25, 2012
flay 3, zolz
July 24, 2012
drafts to be presented
Dec. G, 2011
Author: John
within the State of
April 4, 2012
Dec. 14, 2011
March 7, 2012
May 17. 2012
Houldsworth and
Florida for letters of
May 2, 2012
Dec. 21, 2011
April 4, 2012
June 19, 2012
Steve Williams
credit which have
March, 192012
June 21, 2012
Category: C
References need to be
Origin: County
updated and a clause
Attorney Office
added, regarding
drafts to be presented
Author: John
within the State of
N/A
Approved
Approved
Approved
Houldsworth and
Florida for letters of
11/14/11
1/4/12
4/13/12
Steve Williams
credit which have
been issued by out of
Section:
state banks.
Appendix A
Page 36 of 36
Category Abbreviations: N= New; C= Corrections /Clarifications; O= Omissions; BD= Board Directed
L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Schedules and Summaries 2012 Cycle 1 \Summary Sheet \Board Recomend Summary Sheet 2012 Cycle 1 for BCC 072412 (071612) PUBLIC.doex
7/16/2012 1:36 PM
Co Ter Cou.-� -ity
Growth Management Division
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str'Lethrough is ent text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHORS: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans Reviewer, Land Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02 Definitions
CHANGE: To reinsert a modified definition of Rural Subdivision. The modification corrects
scrivener's errors and removes a regulatory provision requiring rural subdivisions to complete
the preliminary subdivision plat (PSP) process. This regulation is addressed in the Code
subsections noted below.
REASON: The definition was inadvertently omitted during re-codification.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: N/A
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Section 4.03.03 I and 10.02.02 B.10.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: N/A
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land
Development Services, on October 12, 2011, Edited March 22, 2012, July 12, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 1.08.02 Definitions
2
3 Rural Subdivision: The division of a parcel of land within the area defined as
4 Rural/Agricultural on the Collier County Future Land Use Map, whether improved or
5 unimproved, into three or more contiguous parcels of land each of which is five acres or
6 greater, and not including any change in a public street, rights -of -way, or access
7 easement. The following prior or future divisions of land shall constitute Rural
8 Subdivision, except as defined as a Rural Village:
9 a. Lots or parcels within the rural area that are a lot(s) of record as defined herein
10 and identified on the tax roll as of December 31, 1993: or
11 b. Lots or parcels five acres or greater that are created after December 31, 1993
12 and prior to July 15, 1998 that gain access through a grant of a private access
13 easement or private right -of -way: or
14 C. Lots or parcels five acres or greater which are created after July 15, 1998 that
15 -gain access through a grant of a private access easement or private right -of -way,
16 Any other prior or future divisions of land defined as Rural /Agricultural on the Collier
17 County Future Land Use Map not meeting the above definition shall not qualify as rural
18 subdivisions. See Section 4.03.031 for rural subdivision regulations.
19 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \1 08 02 Definitions—Rural Subdivision A_ omission
071212.docx 7/12/2012 8:42 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text t 't th ..h is ..t text to be .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): LDC Ordinance 91 -102, Ordinance prior to re- codification: Section
2.2.3.4.3.2
LDC Ordinance 04 -41, Ordinance re- codified: Section 2.03.01.13
Section 4.02.01- Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning
Districts, Table 2.1- Table of Minimum Yard Requirements (Setbacks) for
Base Zoning Districts
CHANGE: Prior to re- codification of the LDC in 2004, Ordinance 91 -102 included a provision
in Section 2.2.3.4.2 regarding side yard setbacks for nonconforming lots in the Estates (E)
Zoning District. During the re- codification of the LDC this passage was inadvertently omitted.
The amendment proposes to codify a modified version of the original provision. The
modifications are noted below:
"Side ar- 3feet, exeept for - Legal nonconforming lots of record, which are
nonconforming due to inadequate lot width, in which case it shall be computed at the rate
of ten (10) percent of the width of the lot net to a a mwii ment e f 30
feet."
Correct typos and errors within adjacent subsections.
REASON: The proposed amendment corrects an error of omission made during the re-
codification of the LDC. The modified provision removes the clause "not to exceed a maximum
requirement of 30 feet" because it is viewed as an impossible situation. Conforming lots of
record are required to have a side yard of 30 feet.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: In accordance with LDC Ordinance 04 -41 the
provision has remained a current regulation: "WHEREAS, the revisions to, and re- codification
of, the LDC does not substantively alter in any way the prior existing LDC text and the
substantive provisions of this Ordinance are hereby determined by this Board to be consistent
with and to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan as required by Subsections
163.3194 (1) and 163.3202 (3), F.S.1;"
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The GMP does not address setback
requirements.
1
I:\l_DC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions\2 03 01 Agricultural Zoning Districts_error of omission
062612.docx \7/9/2012 1:15 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added
TPA nF: keth 1. is • text 1 be l
Bold text indicates a defined term
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land
Development Services, October 6, 2011, March 14, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning Districts
2
3 B. Estate District (E).
4 F F
5 2. Minimum yard Requirements. See subsection 4.02.01 A. Table 2.1 for the
6 general requirements. The following are exceptions to those requirements:
7 a. Conforming Corner lots. Conforming corner lots, in which only one full
8 depth setback shall be required along the shorter lot 4en line along the
9 street. The setback along the longer lot lien may be reduced to 37.5 feet,
10 so long as no right -of -way or right -of -way easement is included within
11 the reduced front yard. (See Exhibit A)
12
ESTATES: CONFORMING CORNER LOT
R.O.W
--A -- -P/L- - -- --- -- - - - -- - - - ----- - --
R.O. W
FRONT SETBACK
37.5 REDUCED BY
50
I
I
P(L P�L
180' II _ a
LOT - -- ----- ---- -- 30'
WIDTH I FULL FRONT y
* SETBACK SIDE I
SETBACK
W
I
I I
I
SIDE
L- SETBACK 3D'
-� PIL ____
dr Example - lot width
may vary, but never
R.O.W
ROW less than 150'
- SETBACKS MEASURED FROM R.O.W. LINE
- WIDTH MEASURED BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES
13 R.O.W. LINE PROPERTY LINE — - -- - --
14
15 b. Nonconforming Corner lots. Nonconforming corner lots of record, in
16 which only one full depth setback shall be required along the shorter lot
17 line along the street. The setback along the longer lot line may be
18 reduced to 15 feet, so long as no right -of -way or right -of -way easement
19 is included within the reduced front yard. (See Exhibit B)
2
I:1LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions\2 03 01 Agricultural Zoning Districts error of omission
062612.docx 17/9/2012 1:15 PM —
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text { 'L th h iS nt te)d to he .delete.)
Bold text indicates a defined term
I ESTATES: NON - CONFORMING CORNER LOT
R.O.W
- P"L R.O.W REDUCED
15 FRONT SETBACK
I I
105' 75' 10 '
LOT FULL FRONT 10% LOT
WIDTH SETBACK WIDTH
PIL 101/6 LOT
WIDTH PAL
10.5'
R.O.W
R.O.W
- SETBACKS MEASURED FROM R.O.W. LINE
- WIDTH MEASURED BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES
R.O.W. LINE PROPERTY LINE —
2
3 C. Nonconforming through lots, i.e. double frontage lots, legal nonconforming
4 lots of record with double road frontage, which are nonconforming due to
5 inadequate lot depth, in which case, the front yard along the local road portion
6 shall be computed at the rate of 15 percent of the depth of the lot, as measured
7 from edge of the right -of -way.
8 i. The nonconforming through lot utilizing the reduced frontage shall
9 establish the lot frontage along the local road only. Reduced 1=frontage
10 along a collector or arterial roadway to serve such lots is prohibited.
11 Front yards along the local road shall be developed with structures
12 having an average front yard with a variation of not more than six feet;
13 no building thereafter erected shall project beyond the average line so
14 established.
15 d. Legal Nonconforming Lots of Record, which are nonconforming due to
16 inadequate lot width in which case the required side yard shall be computed at
17 the rate of ten (10) percent of the width of the lot, not to exGeed a maximum
18 reQ sire ent of 30 ft
19 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions\2 03 01 Agricultural Zoning Districts error of omission
062612.docx \7/9/2012 10:16 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text t 'L th a gh is n rr ent te deleted.
vt to be
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
CHANGE: There is a typo in the section. The word "from" needs to be added to 2.03.08 B.1.
REASON: Scrivener's error
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services on October 27, 2011.
Edited June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
B. Natural resource protection area overlay district (NRPA).
1. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the Natural Resource Protection
Area Overlay District (NRPA) is to: protect endangered or potentially endangered
species by directing incompatible land uses away from their habitats; to identify
large, connected, intact, and relatively unfragmented habitats, which may be
important for these listed species; and to support State and Federal agencies'
efforts to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and their
habitats. NRPAs may include major wetland systems and regional flow -ways.
These lands generally should be the focus of any federal, state, County, or
private acquisition efforts. Accordingly, allowable land uses, vegetation
preservation standards, development standards, and listed species protection
criteria within NRPAs set forth herein are more restrictive than would otherwise
be permitted in the underlying zoning district and shall to be applicable in addition
to any standards that apply tin the underlying zoning district.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions\2 03 08 Fringe Zoning District—scriveners error
062612.docx 7/9/2012 11:49 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T ! • 'L th a h is nt text to he deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards
CHANGE: Correct the word "principle" with "principal"
REASON: Spelling error
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: N/A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: N/A
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Fred Reischl, Senior Planner, Planning and Zoning on October 26, 2011. Edited July
2, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts
A. The following tables describe the dimensional standards pertaining to base zoning
districts. Site design requirements apply to the principal building on each site.
Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principle Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.
Zoning District
Minimum Lot Area
(square feet)
Minimum Lot Width
(linear feet)
Maximum Building Coverage'-_
( %)
GC
None
None
None
A
217,800
165
None
E
98,010
150
None
RSF -1
43,560
150
None
RSF -2
20,000
120
None
RSF -3
10,000
Corner lot
95
Interior lot
80
None
RSF -4
7,500
75
70
None
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses—Spelling
error 070212.docx 7/9/2012 10:16 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str ,r., G. �. ,a t,
a pa-
o� a
RSF -5
6,000
70
60
-0 U LeXL uiuluaies a defined term
None
RSF -6
6,000
70
60
None
RMF -6 S.F.
Duplex
3+ units
6,500
12,000
5,500 per unit
60
80
100
None
RMF -12
43,560
150
None
RMF -16
43,560
150
None
RT
43,560
150
None
VR
S.F. /MH
Duplex
M. F.
6,000
10,000
43,560
60
100
150
None
M
6,000
60
None
TTRVC Park
site
lots
20 acres
800
Travel trailers /Park models 40
Campsites 30
None
C -1
20,000
100
None
C -2
15,000
150
None
C -3
10,000
75
None
C -4
10,000
100
None
C -5
10,000
100
None
l
20,000
100
None
BP Park
site
lots
35 acres
20,000
100
45
CON
217,800
150
None
P
None
None
None
CF
10,000
80
None
2 Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for iple Principal Uses in Base Zoning
3 Districts.
4
Zoning District
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Minimum
Distance
Between
Buildings
Minimum Floor Area of
Buildings
(square feet)
Floor Area
Ratio
M
GC
35
None
None
None
A
35
None
550
None
E
30
None
1,000
None
RSF -1
35
None
1 -story
1,500
2 -story
1,800
None
RSF -2
35
None
1,500
1,800
None
RSF -3
35
None
1,000
1,200
None
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 02 01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses spelling
error 070212.docx 7/9/2012 10:16 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
TGV4 St ikethm gh ' nV text to he deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
RSF -4
35
None
800
1,200
RSF -5
35
None
600
1,200
None
RSF -6
35
None
600
800
None
RMF -6
35
A
750
None
RMF -12
50
A
Efficiency 450
None
1 BR 600
2+ BR 750
RMF -16
75
A
Efficiency 450
None
1 BR 600
2+ BR 750
RT
10 stories, not to exceed
A
300
None
100'
(max. for hotel units =
500')
VR
S.F. 30
None
None
None
MH 30
None
Duplex 30
None
M.F. 35
B
MH
30
None
None
None
TTRVC
30
10
None
None
C -1
35
None
1,000 (ground floor)
None
C -2
35
A
1,000 (ground floor)
None
C -3
50
None
700 (ground floor)
None
C -4
75
A
700 (ground floor)
Hotels .60
Destination resort
.80
C -5
35
A
700 (ground floor)
Hotels .60
Destination resort
.80
I
50
A
1,000
None
BP
35
A
1,000
None
CON
35
None
None
None
P
C
None
None
None
CF
Towers /antennas 40
D
1,000 (ground floor)
None
Other 30
Overlay
See table of special design requirements applicable to overlay districts.
Districts
1
2 A = 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings, but not less than 15 feet.
3 B = 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings.
4 C = Buildings within 100 feet of an adjoining district are limited to the height of the most restrictive
5 of an adjoining district.
6 D = 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings, but not less than 25 feet.
7
8
9
10
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revision s\Author Revisions \4 02 01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses spelling
error 070212.docx 7/9/2012 10:16 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text striket.ro h is current t__r+ +..
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Table 2.1 - TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
2 (SETBACKS) FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
3 Note as to setback line measurement: minimum setback lines are typically measured from the
4 legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot, with the exception of
5 easements that comprise a road right -of -way where the minimum setback line is to be
6 measured from the road right -of -way easement line.
7
8
Zoning
district
Minimum
Front Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Side Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(feet)
Public School
Requirements
GC
None
None
None
Residential
25
A
50
30
50
x
E
75
30
75
x
RSF -1
50
30
50
x
RSF -2
40
20
30
x
RSF -3
30
Waterfront
10
Non - waterfront
7.5
25
x
RSF -4
25
10
7.5
25
x
RSF -5
25
10
7.5
20
x
RSF -6
25
10
7.5
20
x
RMF -6
S.F. 25
NA
7.5
20
x
Duplex 25
3 + units 30
NA
NA
10
15
20
20
RMF -12
30
a
30
x
RMF -16
b
a
b
x
RT
b
a
b
x
VR
SF. /MH 20
Duplex 35
M.F. 35
Waterfront
10
15
15
Non - waterfront
5
15
15
20
30
30
x
MH'
25
Waterfront
10
Non - waterfront
7.5
10
x
TTRVC'
10
Waterfront
10
Non - waterfront
5
Waterfront
10
Non - waterfront
8
-
C -1
25
Residential
25
Non-
residential
15
Residential
25
Non-
residential
15
x
C -2
25
25
15
25
15
x
C -33
c
25
a
25
a
x
C -44
d
25
a
25
a
x
C -54
25
25
15
25
15
x
14
25
50
a
50
15
x
4
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 Wmendment Revisions�Author Revisions \4 02 01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses_spelling
error 070212.docx 7/9/2012 10:16 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text .+r'.L .+h ...gh is . _.+ text to be deleted-
Bold
text indicates a defined term
BP
50
50
10
50
25
-
CONS
50
50
50
-
P
f
f
f
x
CF
25
Residential
25
Non-
residential
15
Residential
25
Non-
residential
15
x
Overlay
Districts
See table of special design requirements for the applicable overlay district located in the
appropriate section for that district in chapter 4.
MH District - additional yard requirements: side yard setback from a public road that is external
to the boundary of the park = 50 ft.; the minimum setback on any side from the exterior boundary
of the park = 15ft.
2 TTRVC District - additional yard requirements: setback from exterior boundary of park = 50 ft.;
setback from an external street = 50 ft., setback from an internal street = 25 ft.; setback from any
building or other structure = 10 ft.
3 C -3 District - minimum setback on any side that is waterfront = 25 ft.; setback for marinas =
none.
4 C -4, C -5 and I Districts - minimum setback on any side that is waterfront = 25 ft.;
setback for marinas = none; setback on any side adjacent to a railroad right -of -way = none
5 Any non - conforming platted lot of record in the CON District that existed before November 13,
1991 will be subject to the following standards:
Front yard: 40 feet.
Side yard: ten percent of the lot width, but no more than 20 feet on each side.
Rear Yard: 30 feet.
a = 50% of the building height, but not less than 15 feet.
b = 50% of the building height, but not less than 30 feet.
c = 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet.
d = 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet. Structures 50 feet or more in height = 25
feet plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet.
e = the total of all side yard setbacks shall equal 20% of the lot width, with a maximum of 50 feet.
No side yard shall be less than 10 feet. Alternative dimensions may be possible when approved
through a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where
the yard requirements are met for the unified site but not necessarily for each parcel within the
unified site.
f = the yard requirements shall be equal to the most restrictive adjoining district.
x = for principal structures: 50 feet from all property lines; for accessory structures: 25 feet from
all property lines.
5
l:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses—spelling
error 070212.docx 7/9/2012 10:16 AM
1
2
3
0
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d t 'L- th h is nt tevt try be deleted.
a
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: N/A
DEPARTMENT: N/A
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design
CHANGE: Correct the word "principle" with "principal"
REASON: Spelling error
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None applicable
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Not applicable
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, November 14, 2011, Edited
July 9, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design
T�hln G Tnhln of rlpcinn Sfnnri=rrlc fnr ClucfiPr nP_vP_lnnrnPnt
Design Standard
Minimum lot area per single- family unit
3,000 sq. ft.
Minimum lot width
Cul -de -sac lots
20 feet
All other lots
40 feet
Minimum setbacks
Front yard
front entry garage side entry garage
20 feet
10 feet
Side yards
zero lot line on one side
no zero lot line
10 feet remaining side
5 feet each side
Rear yard
principal structure
accessory structure
10 feet
3 feet
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design
070912.docx 7/9/2012 10:19 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text tr keth FO gh is en{ te)d to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Ray V. Bellows, Zoning Manager, Land Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls
CHANGE: This clause references an illustration that does not exist. Staff proposes the reference
is removed.
REASON: Scrivener's error
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services on October 27, 2011,
March 22, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls
G. Supplemental Standards.
1. Fences on sites with structures which are subject to section 5.05.08 Architectural
& Site Design Standards must comply with the following additional standards:
a. Chain link (including wire mesh) and wood fences are prohibited forward
of the primary facade and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from a public
right -of -way. If these types of fences face a public or private street then
they shall be screened with an irrigated hedge planted directly in front of
the fence on the street side. Plant material shall be a minimum of 3
gallons in size and planted no more than 3 feet on center at time of
installation. This plant material must be maintained at no less than three -
quarters of the height of the adjacent fence (See Illustration 5.03.02
4'
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 03 02 Fences and Walls Excluding Sound
Walls scrivener's error 062612.docx Caroline Cilek 10/1012011 2:53:09 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T xi i 'L ih gh is ent taxi to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services
Department, and County Attorney
AUTHOR: John Houldsworth, Sr. Site Plans Reviewer and Steve Williams, Assistant County
Attorney
DEPARTMENT: Engineering Review, County Attorney's Office
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): Appendix A
CHANGE: Update Letter of Credit form
REASON: References need to be updated. A clause is added to allow drafts to be presented
within the State of Florida for letters of credit which has been issued by out of state banks.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: In the event that the County must present a Draft or
Demand on a letter of credit, we will not have to travel out of state for presentation.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by John Houldsworth, Sr. Site Plans Reviewer
on October 12, 2011. Edited June 28, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
APPENDIX A — STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR
REQUIREDIMPROVEMENTS
IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO.
(insert issuer's identifying number)
ISSUER: (insert full name and street address of issuer) (hereinafter "issuer ")
PLACE OF EXPIRY: At issuer's counters.
DATE OF EXPIRY: This Credit shall be valid until (insert date of first anniversary of date of
issue), and shall thereafter be automatically renewed for successive one -year periods on the
anniversary of its issue unless at least sixty (60) days prior to any such anniversary date, the
Issuer notifies the Beneficiary in writing by registered mail that the Issuer elects not to so renew
this Credit.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \Appendix A_ Update Letter of Credit form 062812.docx
John Houldsworth 719/2012 10:20:46 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Lriket pro h' L L tP L. dplPtPeL
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 APPLICANT: (insert full name of person or entity) (hereinafter "Applicant ") (insert Applicant's
2 current business address)
3
4 BENEFICIARY: The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida (hereinafter
5 "Beneficiary") c/o Engineering Review Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL. 34104.
6
7 AMOUNT: $ (insert dollar amount) (US) up to an aggregate thereof.
8
9 CREDIT AVAILABLE WITH: Issuer.
10
11 BY: Payment against documents detailed herein and Beneficiary's drafts at sight drawn on the
12 Issuer.
13
14 DOCUMENTS REQUIRED: AVAILABLE BY BENEFICIARY'S DRAFT(S) AT SIGHT DRAWN
15 ON THE ISSUER AND ACCOMPANIED BY BENEFICIARY'S STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY
16 SIGNED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE CERTIFYING
17 THAT: "(insert name of Applicant) has failed to construct and /or maintain the improvements
18 associated with that certain plat of a subdivision known as (insert name of subdivision) or a final
19 inspection satisfactory to Collier County has been performed prior to the date of expiry, and
20 satisfactory alternate performance security has not been provided to and formally accepted by
21 the Beneficiary".
22
23 DRAFT(S) DRAWN UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT MUST BE MARKED: "Drawn under
24 (insert name of Issuer) Credit No. (insert Issuer's number identifying this Letter of Credit), dated
25 (insert original date of issue) ". The original Letter of Credit and all amendments, if any, must be
26 presented for proper endorsement. Draft(s) may be presented within the State of Florida at the
27 following address (list Florida address)
28
29 This Letter of Credit sets forth in full the terms of the Issuer's undertaking and such undertaking
30 shall not in any way be modified, amended, or amplified by reference to any document,
31 instrument, or agreement referenced to herein or in which this Letter of Credit relates, and any
32 such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any document,
33 instrument or agreement.
34
35 Issuer hereby engages with Beneficiary that Draft(s) drawn under and in compliance with the
36 terms of this Credit will be duly honored by Issuer if presented within the validity of this Credit.
37
38
39 This Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (2007
40 Revision) International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600
41
42
43 (name of issuer)
44
45 By:
46 (insert title of corporate officer - must be
47 signed by President, Vice President or
48 Chief Executive Officer)
49 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
F,
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \Appendix A_ Update Letter of Credit form 062812.docx
John Houldsworth 7/9/2012 10:20:46 AM
Co ter Co-us -�.ty
Growth Management Division
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T .rt 4 'L th h is nurre nt te.h to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements of Vegetation Protection and
Preservation
CHANGE: Correct scriveners' error in 3.05.02 D.
REASON: An error was found in subsection 3.05.02 D of the LDC. As written, the subsection is
inconsistent with the exemption creating it in GMP Conservation and Coastal Management
Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.6. CCME Policy 6.1.6 states the following:
"(II)(III)(VI) Policy 6.1.6: [re- numbered to reflect merger of Ordinance No.
2002 -32 and 2002 -541
Exemptions from the native vegetation retention requirements of CCME Policy
61.2 — The requirements of Policy 61.2 shall not apply to, affect or limit the
continuation of existing uses. Existing use shall be defined as: those uses for
which all required permits were issued prior to June 19, 2002; or, projects for
which a Conditional Use or Rezone petition was approved by the County prior to
June 19, 2002; or, land use petitions for which a completed application was
submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include
expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with, or clearly
ancillary to, the existing uses.
Hereafter, such previously approved developments shall be deemed to be
consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe
area, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved
plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent
with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Rural Fringe Area as long
as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity. On the
County owned land located in Section 25, Township 26 E, Range 49 S ( +1 -360
acres), the native vegetation retention and site preservation requirements may be
reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the property
that are contiguous to the existing landfill operations; exotic removal will be
required on the entire +/- 360 acres. "
CCME Policy 6.1.6 exempts pre- existing uses in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD),
with approved development orders or submitted applications for development orders approved or
submitted prior to June 19, 2002, from the native vegetation retention requirements for the
RFMUD. As written, the LDC subsection does not exempt these pre- existing uses, from the
1
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 D Exemptions from Regs_Native Vegetation
Exception—scriveners error 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d StFikethMugh is GUFrent text to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
native vegetation retention requirements for the RFMUD (subsection 3.05.07 Q. Miss lettering
shows them instead exempt from the following LDC sections and subsections.
3.05.07 F (Wetland preservation and conservation)
3.05.07 G (Natural reservation protection and conservation)
3.05.07 H (Preservation standards)
3.05.08 (Requirement for removal of prohibited exotic vegetation)
3.05.09 (Designation of specimen tree)
Grammatical correction
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: GMP CCME Policies 6.1.2 and 6.1.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed amendment is a correction to
implement the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.6.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created September 21, 2011. Amended December 8,
2011
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation
2
3 A. NBMO exemption. Development in NBMO Receiving Lands are exempt from the
4 provisions of this section.
5 B. Seminole and Miccosukee tribe exception. In accordance with § 581.187, F.S.,
6 vegetation removal permits shall not be required for members of either the Seminole
7 Tribe of Florida or the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida Indians, subject to the following
8 conditions. Said permit exemption shall be for the sole purpose of harvesting select
9 vegetation, including, but not limited to, palm fronds and cypress, for use in chickee but
10 construction, or for cultural or religious purposes Tribal member identification and written
11 permission from the property owner must be in possession at the time of vegetation
12 removal. This exemption shall not apply to general land clearing, or to agricultural land
13 clearing, including silviculture.
14 C. Agricultural exemption. Agricultural operations that fall within the scope of sections
15 163.3162(4) and 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, are exempt from the provisions of section
16 3.05.03 through 3.05.09, provided that any new clearing of land for agriculture outside of
17 the RLSA District shall not be converted to non - agricultural development for 25 years,
18 unless the applicable provisions set forth in section 3.05.04 through 3.05.07 G. are
19 adhered to at the time of the conversion. The percentage of native vegetation preserved
20 shall be calculated on the amount of vegetation occurring at the time of the agricultural
21 clearing, and if found to be deficient, a native plant community shall be restored to re-
22 create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers, shrubs and trees),
23 utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re- create the lost mature vegetation.
24 D. Pre - existing uses. Exemptions f om the The requirements of subsection 3.05.07F
25 through 3.05-09 3.05.07 C shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of uses
26 within the RFMUD which existed prior to June 19, 2002. No changes in location of
27 preserves shall be required for projects identified by this exemption
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 02 D Exemptions from Regs_Native vegetation
Exception—scriveners error 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T ..t ! 'L th.d.. gh is ent te.h to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 1. Such existing uses shall include: those uses for which all required permits were
2 issued prior to June 19 2002; or projects for which a conditional use or Rezone
3 petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, land use
4 petitions for which a completed application has been submitted and which have
5 been determined to be vested from the requirements of the Final Order prior to
6 June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of
7 those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the
8 existing uses.
9 2. Such previously approved development shall be deemed to be consistent with
10 the GMP Goals, Policies and Objectives for the RFMU district, and they may be
11 built out in accordance with their previously approved plans. Changes to these
12 previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the GMP Goals,
13 Objectives and Policies for the RFMU district as long as they do not result in an
14 increase in development density or intensity.
15 E. Exempt mangrove alteration projects. Mangrove alteration projects that are exempted
16 from Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit requirements by Florida
17 Administrative Code 17- 321.060 are exempt from preservation standards for the
18 mangrove trees, unless they are a part of a preserve. This exemption shall not apply to
19 mangrove alterations or removal in any preserve or in any area where the mangroves
20 have been retained in satisfaction of section 3.05.07. The Collier County Environmental
21 Advisory Council (EAC) may grant a variance to the provisions of this section if
22 compliance with the mangrove tree preservation standards of this Division would impose
23 a unique and unnecessary hardship on the owner or any other person in control of
24 affected property. Mangrove trimming or removal for a view shall not be considered a
25 hardship. Relief shall be granted only upon demonstration by the landowner or affected
26 party that such hardship is peculiar to the affected property and not self- imposed, and
27 that the grant of a variance will be consistent with the intent of this division and the
28 growth management plan.
29 F. Except for lots on undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and any project proposing to alter
30 mangrove trees, a vegetation removal permit for clearing 1 acre or less of land is not
31 required for the removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree on a parcel
32 of land zoned residential, -RSF, VR, A or E, or other nonagricultural, non - sending lands,
33 non -NRPA, noncommercial zoning districts in which single - family lots have been
34 subdivided for single - family use only, where the following conditions have been met:
35 1. A building permit has been issued for the permitted principal structure (the
36 building permit serves as the clearing permit); or
37 2. The permitted principal structure has been constructed, and the property owner
38 or authorized agent is conducting the removal, and the total area that will be
39 cleared on site does not exceed on acre.
40 3. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been obtained
41 from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits may
42 include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed species
43 protection.
44 4. Where greater vegetation protection is required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
45 District, a higher native vegetation protection requirement may not allow for the
46 full one acre of clearing.
47 G. A vegetation removal permit is not required for the following situations:
48 1. Removal of protected vegetation other than a specimen tree, when a site plan
49 and vegetation protection plans have been reviewed and approved by the County
50 Manager or designee as part of the final development order.
51 2. Removal of protected vegetation from the property of a Florida licensed tree
52 farm /nursery, where such vegetation is intended for sale in the ordinary course of
3
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 D Exemptions from Regs_Native Vegetation
Exception—scriveners error 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
�Fikethrough is GUrreRt text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
the licensee's business and was planted for the described purpose.
2
3.
Removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree, by a Florida
3
licensed land surveyor in the performance of his /her duties, provided such
4
removal is for individual trees within a swath that is less than three (3) feet in
5
width.
6
4.
Removal of protected vegetation prior to building permit issuance if the
7
conditions set forth in section 4.06.04 A.1.
8
5.
Hand removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Mechanical clearing of
9
prohibited exotic vegetation shall require a vegetation removal permit.
10
Mechanical clearing is defined as clearing that would impact or disturb the soil or
11
sub -soil layers or disturb the root systems of plants below the ground.
12
6.
After a right -of -way for an electrical transmission line or public utility distribution
13
line has been established and constructed, a local government may not require
14
any clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance, tree pruning or
15
trimming within the established and constructed right -of -way. Trimming and
16
pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the Code. All
17
needed environmental permits must be obtained from the appropriate agencies
18
and management plans must comply with agency regulations and guidelines.
19
These may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts and
20
management plans for listed species protection.
21
7.
After a publicly owned road right -of -way has been legally secured, a local
22
government may not require any clearing permits for vegetation removal,
23
maintenance, tree pruning or trimming within the established road right -of -way.
24
Trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the
25
Code. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been
26
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits
27
may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed
28
species protection.
29
(Ord. No. 05 -27, § 3.K; Ord. No. 06 -63, § 3.N)
30
# #
# # # # # # # # # # #
4
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 D Exemptions from Regs_Native Vegetation
Exception—scriveners error 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
a
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
Preservation
3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
CHANGE: Revised exemption and permitting requirements for mangroves, for consistency with
State law.
REASON: Under Section 403.9321, FS et seq, the County may not regulate trimming and
alteration per Section 403.9324, FS, unless permitting has been delegated to the County from the
State. The intent of the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act does not appear to cover
removal and destruction, unless it occurs as a result of trimming. Therefore the County can
regulate removal of mangroves.
The proposed LDC amendment was drafted with help from staff from the County Attorney
Office.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal impacts to the County as
trimming of mangroves is currently regulated by the State of Florida. The County cannot
regulate trimming of mangroves unless permitting has been delegated to the County by the State.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None affected.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed LDC amendment will have no
impact on the GMP.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:
DSAC: Recommends the following changes: 1.) Clarify if the term "Mangrove Trimming should
be capitalized. 2.) Can the term "Mangrove Trimming" be defined or a couple of sentences of
explanation? 3.) The addition of the words "remove or destroy" in the first sentences of
subsection 3.05.02 F is not consistent with the rest of the section and perhaps should be
connected to the definition of Mangrove Trimming. 4.) Amend the first sentence to read: "Unless
statutorily exempt, a DEP permit has been issued for mangrove trimming or alteration in accordance
with Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act Sections 403.9321 through 403.9333, Florida Statutes, e
the fflanffeve tfifnmiiig or- al " 5•)
Clarify the word "alteration" in the first sentence of 3.05.05 G. 6.) Amend the second sentence to
read: "Mangrove removal or destruction is prohibited in all preserves or areas used to fulfill the native
vegetation retention requirements of the County, unless authorized by variancedr tee by th-e
der authorized to be removed..."
1
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 E & 3 05 05 Exemps from Reqs for
Veg_Mangrove Permit 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Tee cfr'L. thm gh is f f d to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: November 23, 2011. Amended December 16, 2011,
March 12, 2012, June 26, 201
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation
2
3 E. Exempt rnangFeve alteration proje6ts. Mangrove alteFatien pFejeGtS that aFe exempted
4 frem FIGFida Department ef Environmental ProteGtien permit requirements by Florida
5 Administrative Gede 17 321.060 are '
F Tm n} ftern i TCtTIQQ'rdJ for the
.
6 mangrove tFees, unless they aFe a part of a preserve. This exemption shall not app"
7 rnaRgreve alteratiGRS or removal in a "-Y v.— e OF iR any area where the mangreves
8 have been Feta*ned in sat;sfaGtion of seGtien 3.05.07. The GellieF County EnviFenmental
9
10 GGFnpl*anGe with the mangrove tree pFesewatiOR-st-anddiards �_f this Division would impGse
11
12
13 haFdship. Relief shall be gFanted only UPOR dernenstFation by the landewlcler eF affected
14 party that SUGh hardship us peGuliaF to the affeGted PFOpeFty and Rot
15 '
16 gFGYAh management pi +n Mangrove Trimming that is exclusively governed by the State
17 pursuant to Section 403.9324 FS.
18 F. Except for lots on undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and any project proposing to alter
19 remove or destroy mangrove trees, a vegetation removal permit for clearing 1 acre or
20 less of land is not required for the removal of protected vegetation, other than a
21 specimen tree on a parcel of land zoned residential, -RSF, VR, A or E, or other
22 nonagricultural, non - sending lands, non -NRPA, noncommercial zoning districts in which
23 single - family lots have been subdivided for single - family use only, where the following
24 conditions have been met:
25 1. A building permit has been issued for the permitted principal structure (the
26 building permit serves as the clearing permit); or
27 2. The permitted principal structure has been constructed, and the property owner
28 or authorized agent is conducting the removal, and the total area that will be
29 cleared on site does not exceed on acre.
30 3. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been obtained
31 from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits may
32 include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed species
33 protection.
34 4. Where greater vegetation protection is required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
35 District, a higher native vegetation protection requirement may not allow for the
36 full one acre of clearing.
37 # # # # # # # # # # # #
38 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
39
40 The County Manager or designee may approve an application for vegetation removal
41 permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the layout and design
42 of the proposed development to preserve existing vegetation and to otherwise enhance the
43 aesthetic appearance of the development by the incorporation of existing vegetation in the
44 design process. Relocation or replacement of vegetation may be required as a condition to the
45 issuance of an approval in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. In addition, a
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 E & 3 05 05 Exemps from Reqs for
Veg_Mangrove Permit 062612.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text t ' th h is suFrent text to he deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
vegetation removal permit may be issued under the following conditions:
G. The proposed rnangFE)ve alt8Fatien has a DEP peffnit, OF meets the permitting standards
W n the Florida Administrative Cede. HoweveF, FnangFGVe removal er trimming shall be
prehibited in all preserves or areas used to fulfill the native vegetation preserva
requiF °meat A DEP permit has been issued for mangrove trimming or alteration in
accordance with Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act Sections 403.9321 through
403 9333 FS or the mangrove trimming or alteration is exempt from permitting under
the Mangrove Trimming Act Mangrove removal or destruction is prohibited in all
preserves or areas used to fulfill the native vegetation retention requirements of the
County, unless given a variance by the BCC or authorized to be removed for allowed
uses within preserves or for habitat restoration as part of an approved preserve
management plan pursuant to Section 3.05.07.H.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
3
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 E & 3 05 05 Exemps from Reqs for
Veg_Mangrove Permit 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te�4 F '1. th h is current te)d to be deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle I
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 G Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
Preservation
3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection
10.01.02 Development Orders Required
CHANGE: Restructuring of 4.06.04 for clarification
Changes to re- vegetation requirements
Allow Site Improvement Plans (SIPs) to qualify for Early Clearing, and Vegetation Removal and
Site Filling.
Remove 50 acre per application restriction on lot preparation.
Eliminate requirements for removal of stockpiles after 18 months.
Change bond amounts for Early Work Authorizations (EWA)
Allow more time to obtain approval of an SDP, SIP or PPL, once the EWA is issued. Also allow
applicants to request another EWA if more time is needed.
Grammatical correction
Corrections /revisions to LDC citations and scrivener's errors
Amend related sections as needed
Add exclusion for Golden Gate Estates subdivision
REASON: The Vegetation Removal and Site Fill Permit (VRSFP) subsection of the LDC
(4.06.04) is confusing and difficult to follow. It currently allows for the issuance of VRSFPs
once a subdivision is approved, with no limit on the number of VRSFPs that may be issued for a
subdivision or approved phase of a subdivision. Issuance of a VRSFP is currently based on the
amount of native vegetation to be cleared (up to 100 acres per application) and on the previous
approval for clearing and filling "nearing capacity." Currently, when native vegetation is cleared,
the area used to prepare lots may not exceed 50 acres. No limitation on clearing and filling exists
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
for previously cleared areas, or in areas without native vegetation according to the definition of
native vegetation in the LDC and GMP.
The downturn in the economy has brought a concern regarding the requirement for removal of
stockpiles in place for more than 18 months. Requirements for re- vegetation, once stockpiles are
removed, also need to be addressed. Currently the LDC requires these areas to be re- vegetated to
mimic nearby ecosystems and does not take into account whether the areas are to be developed
in the future or not. Rarely, if ever, are stockpiles placed in areas other than that for future
development. Provisions have been included in the proposed amendment to insure that stockpiles
are not placed in areas used to satisfy the native vegetation requirements of the LDC and GMP.
An exclusion for the Golden Gate Estates has been added to address concerns raised by the
community when section 4.06.04 was last amended. Although not included in the LDC at the
time the section was amended, the provisions of 4.06.04 were not meant to apply to the Golden
Gate Estates and staff has never applied the provisions of this section to this subdivision.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Allowing stockpiles to remain in place will
eliminate the added expense of removing the fill from stockpiles and having to re- vegetate areas
once the fill is removed.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Chapter 22, Article IV Excavation, Section 22
Code of Laws and Ordinances.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created November 8, 2011. Amended December 9, 2011,
December 14, 2011, January 11, 2012, January 30, 2012, February 7, 2012, April 20, 2012, April
24, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation
2
3 G. A vegetation removal permit is not required for the following situations:
4 1. Removal of protected vegetation other than a specimen tree, when a site plan
5 and vegetation protection plans have been reviewed and approved by the County
6 Manager or designee as part of the final development order.
7 2. Removal of protected vegetation from the property of a Florida licensed tree
8 farm /nursery, where such vegetation is intended for sale in the ordinary course of
9 the licensee's business and was planted for the described purpose.
10 3. Removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree, by a Florida
11 licensed land surveyor in the performance of his /her duties, provided such
12 removal is for individual trees within a swath that is less than three (3) feet in
13 width.
14 4. Removal of protected vegetation prior to building permit issuance if the
15 conditions set forth in section 4.06.04 A.4,
16 5. Hand removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Mechanical clearing of prohibited
17 exotic vegetation shall require a vegetation removal permit. Mechanical clearing
18 is defined as clearing that would impact or disturb the soil or sub -soil layers or
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1VAmendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str'Lethrough is nt text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 disturb the root systems of plants below the ground.
2 6. After a right -of -way for an electrical transmission line or public utility distribution
3 line has been established and constructed, a local government may not require
4 any clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance, tree pruning or
5 trimming within the established and constructed right -of -way. Trimming and
6 pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the Code. All
7 needed environmental permits must be obtained from the appropriate agencies
8 and management plans must comply with agency regulations and guidelines.
9 These may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts and
10 management plans for listed species protection.
11 7. After a publicly owned road right -of -way has been legally secured, a local
12 government may not require any clearing permits for vegetation removal,
13 maintenance, tree pruning or trimming within the established road right -of -way.
14 Trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the
15 Code. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been
16 obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits
17 may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed
18 species protection.
19 # # # # # # # # # # # #
20 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
21 The County Manager or designee may approve an application for vegetation removal
22 permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the layout and
23 design of the proposed development to preserve existing vegetation and to otherwise
24 enhance the aesthetic appearance of the development by the incorporation of existing
25 vegetation in the design process. Relocation or replacement of vegetation may be
26 required as a condition to the issuance of an approval in accordance with the criteria set
27 forth in this section. In addition, a vegetation removal permit may be issued under the
28 following conditions:
30 0. Eady GleaFiRg will be allowed as part E)f a final review of an SDP or PPL, after
31
32
33
34
35
36 turd thte E - atteniey's Bffln° 3\ the eRVirnnm°ntal review staff has approved
� approved
37 the Glearing of the site through the site Glearil:igipreseiwatieR plan, 4) GGpies ef all
38 appliGable Federal, State, and LeGal peFFnits must be submitted and reviewed
39
- . st the site eleaFingipreservation plan. This eady Glearing does nc)t autheFize-
40 approval feF exoavation, SpFeading foil, and gFading. That must be approved
41 �+^
10.02.04.4.f. nn +h° „ In SDR °r DPI is Rot appFayed +h°
42 —If #e�a��easo,,�„� -a erly' g- �- ,����a, ��G
43 .'! be responsible fGF Fevegetation of the site in aGGGrdanGe with
44 .
45 O Early clearing as part of a final review of an SDP SIP or PPL in accordance with
46 Sections 4.06.04 and 10.01.02. The following criteria shall apply.
47 1. Final configuration of preserves is complete.
48 2 Conservation easements are complete and have been recorded in the
49 public records.
50 3 The site clearing /preservation plan for the SDP, SIP or PPL is approved.
51 4 All applicable Federal, State, and local permits have been submitted.
52 # # # # # # # # # # # #
3
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te..F nFr kpth h is F F F M dplptp
1 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection Bold text indicates a defined term
2 A. VegetatiORRemoval and Site Filling:
3 1 Clearing of weedy vegetation Fequires a MegetatiOR Removal Perrq*t or
4
5 � ' seetion 3.05.05.
6 a. Permetted Ferneval of vegetation er site foiling with an appFeved Vegetat
7 RemEwal and Site Filling PeFM at (VRS-I=-P,), Site Development Plans (S
8
9 For ffindividual SiRgie family lots or blocks of lots 1) a GOMplet
10 building perminpp}fGation must be submitted and deemed
11 SUffiGient by Collier County, 2) all neGessaFy GUrFent state and
12 Federal— eRViFE)}'j^ ent must he ebtained. if two
13 items aFe fulf"Ied, a VRSFP must be obtained prier te removal E)
14 this vegetation
15
16 GORtigUOUS single family
17 lots,
18 be removed, if removal at a future date may be a dangeF tG lafe o .
19 p FE)perty. A VRSFP must be obtained priar to removal of this
20 Y,ege +.l +�a�;; ;.
21
22
23 eXGe ^c fill generated by lake — excayationu " v r- ithin the DUD e
24 PFGjeet where the ex6avation is taking pIaGe when the following
25 a nftwmatmen has been submitted and approved with the SDP o
26 PPL. Fill iFt may biz -mrF^- ofted en to the I
site if there is no e)(G`v- ss
27 lake mateFial genwated on site. imported fill dir-t may be used
28 towaFds the lot pFepaFation of net mere than 50
., per seotion
29 n 06 0 n 11 iii ^ '
31 of the infFaStFUGtUre, SUGh as read Fights
32 ' areas 33 site GleaFing plans within that phase of appFeved
34 Fesidentmal o I ,1
,u uvi + l Plat d + fi
,
35 Plans. G! "u)-al lobs or blocks of lets may
36 appFeved.
37
38 clearly delineated and the 39 height,
40 must appear on the dFawing referee d to the
41 GtGGkfie S!GpeT must not be steeper than a r }
42 of 4:
43 iil The type of egetatien +_�Ae reme, ed must + h
44 shown E)n the
45; - The— SGUFGee o the Geri 1 such as lake nl mher
u,� �7q GTfRTiTpri,-
46 (lake #) fbF eaGh }e^Lnile must he di + d - +L
47 (4fr'}Mring and the mel + v f + I + ..1
:LJ �
48 must justify the needtO GleaFtheff0posed area.
49 b) Site Development Plans (SDPs) and Site impFevement
50 Plans (o,
51
52
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1)Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T a n rr
4 'L h h 'r. t ent te.h to be deleted_
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
shall be appFeved en the SIDP or SIP site Glea#ng
2 plars.
ii\ Residential Crlps :Gleari for the GenstrU Gtinn of
4 the f Gt it SUGh as read rights of way, and
dr nd utility easement areas shall be
rj aTa+i =1- age— a„u— arR,rp —c caT.�, ,u
6 appFaved on SDP GleaFing plans Clearing ef
7
8
9 (PGEP): GRoe the review
10
11 fnr p!'`CD to llo ei fnr early clearing evnn�ia #inn
rvruTV�rsv- ctrrvco --ror � � , �
12 and eaFthWOFk as per the WOFk limits that are shewR
13 on the site plan All requirements of
14 seGtiGn 3.05.05.G. 1 must be me+
15 iii\ The I♦nttts of each • ••• separate Vs}e�ppiile must he
aTCtit�. Ly �.r� -nom
16 clearly deliReated and the area, height, GFG
17 :eC�i6f�� d yerl ame or f -va RCh individual sto T GLpnil
1 8 must pp on the drawing refereCnGGed fe- [
1s
19 stockpile. Slopes must not be steeper than a r
20 of 4:1.
21 V) The type of vegetatiGR to be Femeved Friust be
22 shown en the drawing.
23 ui) TheSetie of the tnateFialUGh asp e num �
24 (lake +#) for each stockpile must he indicated nn +he
25 dF}g and the amount of material evcavated
26 must justify the need to clear the proposed
27 ^^
28 lo``^^ � {+ttl desifed GenSt,TUGtienelevatiens The area used to
29 pFepare lots shall not eXGeed 50 aGres and these lots sh
30
31 and exet,seed Westation. A - sepafute VRSFD may aI
32 he oh+ fined after CP'\D or DDI appizoyal prier.
33 iv. — No VRS P wi11 be- ;sued- Without first „hmit #iRg nnpies of all
34
35
36 V. When a VpQCD �p
� �therizinn � to 100 acres of clearing and foilin�t
a r
37 is nearing e . nit permi sign to clear and fill i to an additiennea.lr
38 100 aGFes to use eXGess lake material may he applied fnr with a
39 new v RSFP applieatie .
40 i. A VRSCp will be thnrize greater than 100 acres of
41 re id C� I nr industrial lets t } eXGess fill
��^ �ei�fa�- C- 6fefC�sx� re— Srrefe-- �c�cT.� --mT
42
43 the exeavation is- taking plas , when the nrnper}„ used fnr stuiRg
44 excess fill h been r preyie y cleared sl cle er has greater than 75%
� �
45 canopy of evo+irs_
46
47 bond in the formm npeFfGF n.Ge hand letter of credit nr Garb
48
49 a) When fill is used te bring building lots to desired
50 GGRStF{a Gti0R eley tinny these lats hall immediately he
to pr # inn and exotic seed infestation
51 Jee�e���e�e�rei= os�,, -���R .
52 b) All fill areas fer lots eF stoGkpiles must h- aontrel
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment RevisionslAuthor Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
is + text to be d , +
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 silt fe.,nir,..
2 G) Any StOGkpile in plaGe - #sr-r- OM than SiX MORths must
3 sodded er by 8eded Failure to da s'e ithi 44
4 E;a!eRdar days Of ROtiftatien by the GGUnty Will result ;n--a
5 fine of
6 � '
7 gFeateF than 18
8 ' The density and
9 • eGosystems, and
must not be less than Tn trees peT -acre with asssodted
11
12 2. BGG Approved Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit PFOGedwFes.—An
13 applicant Gan seek appFGval by the Beard of County GernmissioneFs for a E3eaFd
14 appreved Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit (VRSFP) f0F a site that
15
16 graRted a Board Approved VRSFP, the appliGant must dernenstrate te the Beard-,
17
18 M a Feasenable amount E)f time se as to minimize noise, dust, blasting, traffic—,
19 and in to the Reighbelzing and-ge-neFal pub!;G. All Griteria in 20 . also 21 appFaved permit.
22 A. Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Unless exempted by Section 3.05.02, clearing and
23 filling for Site Development Plans (SDP) Site Improvement Plans (SIP) Plans and Plat
24 (PPL) and Vegetation Removal and Site Fill Permits (VRSFP) shall be in accordance
25 with Section 3.05.05 and the following criteria The following shall not apply to the
26 Golden Gate Estates subdivision.
27 1. SDP, SIP and PPL. Clearing and filling for residential commercial or industrial
28 lots or building sites where lakes are excavated within a PUD or project where
29 the SDP, SIP or PPL has been approved subject to the following_
30 a. Clearing and filling of native vegetation shall be limited to 100 acres and
31 shall be shown on the approved site plans for the SDP SIP or PPL Fill
32 dirt may be imported to the site
33 b. Clearing and filling in excess of 100 acres shall be allowed where land
34 has been previously cleared or the vegetation is not native vegetation
35 C. Lots cleared must, at minimum be filled and graded in accordance with
36 the approved plans to ensure the stormwater management system will
37 function as designed and to insure the health safety and welfare of the
38 public. Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control shall be
39 Implemented and lots cleared must be stabilized with vegetation within six
40 months. If desired by the applicant lots may be partially cleared to retain
41 existing native vegetation.
42 d. The limits of each stockpile of excavated material along with height and
43 cross - sections must be included on the approved plans for the SDP SIP
44 or PPL. Slopes shall not be steeper than a ratio of 4.1 or as otherwise
45 approved by the County Manager or designee where vegetation on the
46 stockpile does not require mowi ng or the 4:1 ratio is not pr acticable. Such
47 determination shall be based on the type of material to be excavated and
48 other Information as provided by the applicant
49 e. The limits of clearing shall be shown on site plans for the SDP SIP or
50 PPL.
51 2. VRSFP. Issuance of a VRSFP subiect to the following_
52 a. Clearing and filling of individual single family lots where a completed
6
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text sty Lethro gh is swent text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 building permit application has been submitted and deemed sufficient by
2 the County.
3 b On adjacent single - family lots where a building permit for a single - family
4 home for one of the lots has been issued. Up to five lots may be cleared
5 and filled per application.
6 c Temporary access in previously cleared areas, areas not containing
7 native vegetation or areas of future development identified in a PUD,
8 where the need and location for such temporary access has been
9 approved by the County Manager or designee.
10 d Clearing and filling of up to 100 -acres of native vegetation within a PUD
11 or project where the SDP SIP or PPL has been approved, and where
12 storage of fill from the previous development order authorizing clearing
13 and filling is nearing capacity (75 percent complete).
14 e No work may commence until State and Federal permits are obtained.
15 3. Stabilization:
16 a Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control shall be
17 implemented and areas cleared shall be stabilized within six months.
18 b Stockpiles in place for more than six months shall be stabilized.
19 Stabilization shall be with one or more of the following: vegetation,
20 watering covering of stockpiles or other methods as approved by the
21 County Manager or designee. Such determination shall be based on the
22 type of material to be excavated and other information as provided by the
23 applicant. Failure to do so within 14 calendar days of notification by the
24 County will result in a fine of $10.00 per acre, per day.
25 c Stockpiles located one half mile or more from residences are not required
26 to be stabilized unless the County or developer receive complaints of dust
27 from residents. Where valid complaints are received, stabilization shall be
28 required in accordance with 4.06.04 A.3.b (above).
29 d Stockpiles shall not be placed in areas used to satisfy the native
30 vegetation retention requirements of the LDC.
31 a For subdivisions and VRSFPs within subdivisions, excluding VRSFPs for
32 clearing and filling of 5 lots or less or for temporary access pursuant to
33 4.06.04 A.2.a b and c (above), a vegetation bond in the form of a
34 performance bond letter of credit or cash bond and in the amount of
35 $5,000.00 per acre must be posted. Bonds shall be released to the
36 applicant on a prorated basis based upon issuance of building permits or
37 stabilization of fill.
38 4 BCC approval Deviations from the thresholds contained herein may be obtained
39 from the BCC through PUD rezone or BCC approved VRSFP. The applicant
40 must demonstrate to the Board, through a schedule of development activities,
41 that the project will be completed in a reasonable amount of time so as to
42 minimize noise dust blasting, traffic, and inconvenience to the neighboring and
43 general public Except as explicitly exempted by the Board all other criteria in
44 Section 4.06.04 shall apply.
45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
46 10.01.02 Development Orders Required
47
48 A. Development Order Required. No on -site or off -site development or development
49 related activities, including site preparation or infrastructure construction, will be allowed
50 prior to approval of the otherwise required development order or development permit
51 including, but not limited to: SDP, SIP, Construction Drawings, or clearing permit SCP,
7
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
:rikethrough is GUFrent te)d to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 except where early work authorization has been approved.
2 B. Early Work Authorization (EWA).
3 1. An EWA permit may be approved by the County Manager, or designee, for 1 or
4 more of the following activities:
5 a. Vegetation removal (site clearing);
6 b. Excavations;
7 C. Site filling;
8 d. Construction of stormwater management facilities limited to ponds,
9 retention /detention areas, interconnection culverts, and swale systems;
10 and,
11 e. Off -site infrastructure.
12 f. Construction of a perimeter landscape buffer, berm, wall, or fence.
13 2. The County may issue an EWA permit for the allowed activities, subject to
14 demonstrated compliance with the following criteria, as applicable:
15 a. The proposed vegetation removal complies with Section 3.05.05-.-0-.;
16 b. County right -of -way permit has been approved;
17 C. A determination of native vegetation to be retained for landscaping which
18 would comply with Section 4.06.00;
19 d. An excavation permit has been approved;
20 e. A Soil and Erosion Control Plan demonstrating compliance with the
21 provisions of Section 10.02.02- C..;
22 f. Copies of all approved Agency permits being submitted, including, but not
23 limited to: SFWMD, ACOE, USFWS, and FFWCC;
24 g. Determination of legal sufficiency of the EWA permit by the County
25 Attorney's Office;
26 h. Foe +inn of a Qeyeget'atRion Bond of net less than $2,000.00 tor h ere than
f
28 romp n�d; A vegetation bond in the form of a performance bond letter of
29 credit, or cash bond and in the amount of $2,000.00 per acre is posted for
30 stabilization with vegetation in accordance with 4 06 04 A.3:
31 i. Assurance that all underlying zoning approvals are in place (e.g. PUD,
32 C.U., etc.);
33 j. This appre „el is good The EWA permit is valid for 60 days with the
34 possibility of 2 ea. 30 day two 60 -day extensions dependent on the
35 reason for the inability to gain proper approvals. After that time, cleared
36 areas must be graded off and hydro- seeded. Where more time is needed
37 a new EWA may be requested;
38 k. SUGh All
39 preliminary construction activities are at h1s own risk the risk of the
40 developer.
41 I Previde assuFanne that the SGh�� �ep�eRt a +i„ities created
42 a6EGrdan ^e withvcthho�VRSF� Will no t the time the EWA in
Tr' —Ti7 c ,�RT� cm'm'TGtY CC'Ztt'- �+ —crt�. L�V7�"T�fy
43 issued, a R r will - bP—` paFt of that 18 mnth tirne —frame as set feFth in
44 Sen+ien /1 na 04 n
vv. v.. .. vv.
45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
8
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 1 -7 Exps from Regs_3 05 05 Criteria for
Removal of Protd Veg_4 06 04 TreeVeg 10 01 02 Dev Orders 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text St.il.ethrn u..h is nt text to he deleted_
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and
Preservation
CHANGE: Create an exemption from having to obtain vegetation removal permits for
environmental restoration projects on publically owned land designated as parks, preserves,
forests or mitigation areas.
Cross reference in 3.05.02 G, the existing vegetation removal permit exemption in 3.05.07 H for
implementation of preserve management plans.
REASON: Eliminate the need to obtain vegetation removal permits to implement environmental
restoration projects on publically owned land designated as parks, preserves, forests or mitigation
areas, and for preserves which have land management practices for clearing identified in their
preserve management plans. This will avoid duplication of effort on the part of the County and
make it less cumbersome for natural resource managers to manage these lands.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: According to the fee schedule approved by the
BCC, fees for site clearing permits are $250.00 for the first acre or fraction of an acre and $50.00
for each additional acre or fraction of an acre, up to a $3,000.00 maximum fee for clearing.
These fees would be saved on the part of land managers in not having to apply for clearing
permits. Time would be saved on the part of staff and applicants in the processing of these
applications.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.05.07 H. Lg LDC (Preserve Management Plans)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed amendment will have no affect
on the GMP.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created October 21, 2011. Amended December 8, 2011,
February 16, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation
2
3 G. A vegetation removal permit is not required for the following situations:
4 1. Removal of protected vegetation other than a specimen tree, when a site plan
5 and vegetation protection plans have been reviewed and approved by the County
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 8 Exemptions from Regs_create an
exemption_removal permits 062512.docx
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 8 Exemptions from Reqs_create an
exemption_removal permits 062512.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
.d stF Lath h' F F L.
a t d deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
Manager or designee as part of the final development order.
2
2.
Removal of protected vegetation from the property of a Florida licensed tree
3
farm /nursery, where such vegetation is intended for sale in the ordinary course of
4
the licensee's business and was planted for the described purpose.
5
3.
Removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree, by a Florida
6
licensed land surveyor in the performance of his /her duties, provided such
7
removal 'Is'for individual trees within a swath that is less than three (3) feet in
8
width.
9
4.
Removal of protected vegetation prior to building permit issuance if the
10
conditions set forth in section 4.06.04 A.1.
11
5.
Hand removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Mechanical clearing of prohibited
12
exotic vegetation shall require a vegetation removal permit. Mechanical clearing
13
is defined as clearing that would impact or disturb the soil or sub -soil layers or
14
disturb the root systems of plants below the ground.
15
6.
After a right -of -way for an electrical transmission line or public utility distribution
16
line has been established and constructed, a local government may not require
17
any clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance, tree pruning or
18
trimming within the established and constructed right -of -way. Trimming and
19
pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the Code. All
20
needed environmental permits must be obtained from the appropriate agencies
21
and management plans must comply with agency regulations and guidelines.
22
These may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts and
23
management plans for listed species protection.
24
7.
After a publicly owned road right -of -way has been legally secured, a local
25
government may not require any clearing permits for vegetation removal,
26
maintenance, tree pruning or trimming within the established road right -of -way.
27
Trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the
28
Code. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been
29
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits
30
may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed
31
species protection.
32
8.
Vegetation removal for environmental restoration projects on publically owned
33
land designated as parks preserves forests or mitigation areas State and
34
Federal agency permits or approvals shall be required where applicable prior to
35
clearing.
36
9.
Vegetation removal to implement Preserve Management Plans and firewise
37
safety plans that specify land management practices for clearing for fuel
38
management or fire lines in accordance with normal forestry practices and which
39
have been approved as part of a Preserve Management Plan pursuant to 3 05 07
40
H. State and Federal agency permits or approvals shall be required where
41
applicable, prior to clearing_
42
# #
# # # # # # # # # # #
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 02 G 8 Exemptions from Reqs_create an
exemption_removal permits 062512.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T ..i F 'L th a ..h n n Urre deleted,
text to hdeleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTIONS: 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and
ACSC -ST Districts
9.04.02 Types of Variances Authorized
CHANGE: Clearly identify in 4.02.14, the requirements which apply to the Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay District and those which only apply to the Big Cypress Area of Critical State
Concern Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) Overlay District.
Clarify in 4.02.14 D, the separate review and approval process for Copeland and Plantation
Island mobile home sites located within the Urban Designated Area, as these are different than
for other areas of the ACSC -ST.
Allow variations from site alteration criteria for Plantation Island (unrecorded) subdivision,
pursuant to the §380.032(3) Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Florida Department of Community Affairs dated April 26, 2005, to be reviewed and approved
administratively at the time building permits are reviewed.
Bring Section 4.02 14 up to date with other provisions of the LDC and reference applicable
sections of the LDC as needed.
Grammatical and other corrections
REASON: There are additional review criteria and procedures which only apply to the ACSC -
ST Overlay District and not the ST Overlay District, and which criteria and procedures apply to
what Overlay District is not clearly identified in the LDC.
The language in 4.02.14 D is not clear as to the process of review for development in the Urban
Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island. The subsection allows development in
these areas to be reviewed and approved administratively for compliance with Big Cypress Area
of Critical State Concern Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) regulations, without having to file a
petition for site alteration or site development plan approval. Review for compliance for ACSC -
ST regulations occurs at the time building permits are submitted. Although petitions for Special
Treatment (ST) permits are not required for development within the Urban Designated Area of
Copeland and Plantation Island, an oversight occurred when the provision was included in the
LDC. The provision should have also excluded development in these areas from the ST
procedures for site alteration and site development plan approval. All applicable subsections
should have been referenced in the separate review process for Copeland and Plantation Island.
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d e.F.'Leth a h' F F F be r1 I F
Bold text indicates a defined term
In keeping with the intent of the BCC to create less of a burden to build on lots within the Urban
Designated Area of Copeland and Plantation Island, staff propose to allow the variance pursuant
to subsection 9.04.02 B.1, as authorized by the §380.032(3) Agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs dated April 26, 2005,
to be approved administratively as part of the ST review process pursuant to 4.02.14 D. The
Agreement states the following with regards to the variance approved pursuant to this
Agreement.
"Minimum Development. A development order which authorizes the following
development on a group of adjacent lots under common ownership, including on a
single lot if only one is owned, within the area described in paragraph 2 shall be
an appropriate variance under Fla. Admin. R. 28- 25.001:
Site alteration, including dredging and filling, of up to 2,500 square feet,
regardless of the pre - development vegetation."
Staff proposes that the building permit, along with review for compliance with ACSC -ST
regulations, would be the appropriate development order authorizing the variance pursuant to
this Agreement.
In some instances the provisions in 4.02.14 are outdated and in need for rewrite. Numerous
revisions to the LDC have occurred since this section was originally written.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: As building permits in Copeland and Plantation
Island are already reviewed for compliance with Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern
Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) regulations, no additional cost would be incurred by the County.
According to the fee schedule approved by the BCC, the cost of a residential variance petition is
$2,000. In addition to fees saved on the part of lot owners in these areas, time would be saved in
the processing of these variances.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: §380.032(3) Agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs dated April 26, 2005
(3608809 OR: 3788 PG: 3788)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The Agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs is referenced in the
FLUE.
Criteria for review in Goal 10 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME),
for development within the Special Treatment (ST) Overlay District are required and referenced
in CCME Policies 10.1.7 and 10.3.15. These Policies state the following.
Policy 10.1.7:
Objective 10.1 and its accompanying policies and the LDC shall serve as criteria
for the review of proposed development within the "Special Treatment" ( "ST ")
Zoning Overlay District.
2
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text StFikethFeugh is nt text to he .deleted7
Bold text indicates a defined term
Policy 10.3.15:
All new development proposed on undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall be
reviewed through the County's existing "Special Treatment" ( "ST ") zoning overlay
district. Objective 10.3 and its accompanying policies shall serve as criteria for
such review.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created March 14, 2012. Amended March 19, 2012,
April 18, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
4.02.14 - Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC -ST Districts
A. All development orders issued within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern
Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC -STZ area shall comply with the Florida Administrative
Code, as amended, Boundary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State
Concern.
B. All development orders issued for projects within the Big Cypress Area ef GFitiGal State
GenGern ACSC -ST shall be transmitted to the State of Florida, Department of
Community Affairs, for review with the potential for appeal to the administration
commission pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, development order Requirements
for Areas of Critical State Concern.
C. Site alteration within the ACSC -ST.
1. Site alteration shall be limited to ten (10) percent of the total site size, and
installation of nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of any
such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any
permitted site.
2. Any nonpermeable surface greater than 20,000 square feet shall provide for
release of surface runoff, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the
natural surface water flow regime of the area.
3. Soils exposed during site alteration shall be stabilized and retention ponds or
performance equivalent structures or system maintained in order to retain runoff
and siltation on the construction site. Restoration of vegetation to site alteration
areas shall be substantially completed within 180 days following completion of a
development. Revegetation shall be accomplished with preexisting species
except that undesirable exotic species shall not be replanted or propagated.
Exotic species included are enumerated in section 3.05.08 of this code.
4. No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise
altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include: all wetland plants
listed by the Florida DEP in the Florida Administrative Code.
5. Fill areas and related dredge or borrow ponds shall be aligned substantially in the
direction of local surface water flows and shall be separated from other fill areas
and ponds by unaltered areas of vegetation of comparable size. Dredge or
borrow ponds shall provide for the release of stormwaters as sheet flow from the
downstream end into unaltered areas of vegetation. aAccess roads to and
between fill areas shall provide for the passage of water in a manner
approximating the natural flow regime and designed to accommodate the fifty
(50) -year storm. Fill areas and related ponds shall not substantially retain or
divert the tidal flow in or to a slough or strand or significantly impede tidal action
in any portion of the estuarine zone.
3
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
'Fikethre 9h 'r t t vt to be deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 6. Manmade lakes, ponds, or other containment works shall be constructed with a
2 maximum slope of thirty (30) degrees to a depth of six (6) feet of water. When
3 mineral extraction is completed in new quarrying lakes, shoreline sloping,
4 planting of littoral shelves with nursery-grown aquatic vegetation, restoration or
5 revegetation of the property, and disposal of spoils or tailings shall be completed
6 before abandonment of the site. Existing quarrying lakes are exempt from this
7 provision, except that whenever any person carries out an activity defined in §
8 380.04, F.S. as amended, as development or applies for a development permit
9 as defined in § 380.031, F.S. as amended, to develop any existing quarrying lake
10 area, these regulations shall apply.
11 7. Finger canals shall not be constructed in the ACSC -ST area.
12 8. This rule shall not apply to site alterations undertaken in connection with the
13 agricultural use of land or for the conversion of land to agricultural use.
14 9. Drainage.
15 a. Existing drainage facilities shall not be modified so as to discharge
16 water to any coastal waters, either directly or through existing drainage
17 facilities. Existing drainage facilities shall not be expanded in capacity
18 or length except in conformance with subsection 4.02.14 C.9.b.
19 immediately following; however, modifications may be made to existing
20 facilities that will raise the groundwater table or limit saltwater intrusion.
21 b. New drainage facilities shall release water in a manner approximating
22 the natural local surface flow regime, through a spreader pond or
23 performance equivalent structure or system, either on -site or to a natural
24 retention or filtration and flow area. New drainage facilities shall also
25 maintain a groundwater level sufficient to protect wetland vegetation
26 through the use of weirs or performance equivalent structures or system.
27 Said facilities shall not retain, divert, or otherwise block or channel the
28 naturally occurring flows in a strand, slough or estuarine area.
29 C. New drainage facilities shall not discharge water into any coastal waters
30 whether directly or through existing drainage facilities.
31 d. This rule shall not apply to drainage facilities modified or constructed in
32 order to use land for agricultural purposes or to convert land to such use.
33 10. Transportation.
34 a. Transportation facilities which would retain, divert or otherwise block
35 surface water flows shall provide for the reestablishment of sheet flow
36 through the use of interceptor spreader systems or performance
37 equivalent structures and shall provide for the passage of stream,
38 strand, or slough waters through the use of bridges, culverts, piling
39 construction, or performance - equivalent structures or systems.
40 b. Transportation facilities shall be constructed parallel to the local surface
41 flow, and shall maintain a historic ground level sufficient to protect
42 wetland vegetation through the use of weirs or performance- equivalent
43 structures or systems and as feasible, the flows in such works shall be
44 released to natural retention filtration and flows areas.
45 C. Transportation facility construction sites shall provide for siltation and
46 runoff control through the use of settling ponds, soil fixing, or
47 performance- equivalent structures or systems.
48 11. Structure installation.
49 a. Placement of structures shall be accomplished in a manner that will not
50 adversely affect surface water flow or tidal action.
51 b. Minimum low floor elevation permitted for structures shall be at or above
52 the 100 -year flood level, as established by the administrator of the
4
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text F ikethro nh is n .rr ent text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 federal flood Insurance Administration. The construction of any structure
2 shall meet additional federal flood insurance land management and use
3 criteria.
4 C. This rule shall not apply to structures used or intended for use in
5 connection with the agricultural use of the land.
6 D. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island mobile home sites Port of the
7 Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island mobile home sites are developments located
8 within the UFban designated area Urban Designated Area, but are also located tstally
9 within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. A portion of the Port of the Islands
10 development was determined "vested" by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from
11 the requirements of € ch. 380, F.S. There is an existing development agreement
12 between Port of the Islands, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Community
13 Affairs, deY1artment of G„mm„nity _affairs dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses
14 at Port of the Islands. Development development within Port of the Islands shall be
15 regulated by the development agreement and the residential density and commercial
16 intensities shall not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of the GMP.
17 Development within the Urban designated aYeas Urban Designated Areas of Copeland
18 and Plantation Island mobwle home, sites shall be subjeGt t„ review and administrative
19 approval reviewed and approved administratively by the County Manager or his
20 designee for compliance with Area of Critical State Concern regulations. Development
21 will within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall not be
22 required to go through the process of filing a petition for site alteration or site
23 development plan approval, pursuant to seEtien 4.02.14 G, and not be required to
24 follow the procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval
25 pursuant to 4.02.14E 4.02.14 F.2 and 4.02.14 F.3. This does not exempt site
26 development plans required in section 10.02.03 development orders required pursuant
27 to Chapter 10 of the Code. There is also an agreement for Plantation Island, between
28 the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs, to allow
29 site alteration including dredging and filling of up to 2,500 square feet regardless of the
30 predevelopment vegetation This Agreement is recorded in the Official Records, Book
31 3788 Page 3788 in the public records of Collier County.
32 E. Site alteration plan or site development plan approval required. Prior to the clearing,
33 alteration, or development of any land designated ST or ACSC -ST, the property
34 owners or his their legally designated agent shall apply for and receive approval of a site
35 alteration plan or site development plan, as the case may be, by the BCC as provided
36 in sec +se 4.02.14 F. jbelowl.
37 F. Procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for development
38 in ST or ACSC -ST designated land.
39 1. Preapplication conference. Prior to filing a petition for site alteration or site
40 development approval of ST or ACSC -ST land, the petitioner shall request and
41 hold a preapplication conference with the planning sewiGes diFeGtOr sang
42 aPPFGPFiate GGWRty staff County Manager or designee. The preapplication
43 conference is for the purpose of guidance and information, and for ensuring
44 insofar as is possible, that the petition is in conformity with these regulations. No
45 petitiGR fel: the site alteration 9F site development approval wall be aGGepted fe
46
47 det�,^T° that II req iireddatais inGluded a minims im of 30 .Jays shall he
48 allowed fGF this phase of the Feview PFOGess. Geunty staff shall visit the site,
49 where apprenriate_
50 2. Review and recommendation by planniRg services dimeter-, planning
51 and environmental ad 4 the County Manager or designee, Planning
52 Commission and Environmental Advisory Council. The site alteration plan or site
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
cyr'Lethro h' F F d F be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 development plan shall be submitted to the planning se, lees +ire^ ± ^r County
2 Manager or designee who shall have it reviewed by the appropriate county staff.
3 The planning seFv*Ges diFe^+nr County Manager or designee shall then forward
4 the site alteration plan or site development plan and the county staff
5 recommendations to the planning commission Planninq Commission (CCPC)
6 and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)
7 for review and recommendation. Neither the planning GOrnmission neF the
8 Hearings before the CCPC and EAC are not
9 required to be legally advertised and not required to provide nar notice to the
10 abutting property owners, but shall be held in a regular meeting. The planning
11
12 Recommendations from the CCPC. EAC and staff shall be forwarded to the BCC
13 for final action.
14 3. Final action by boaFd Of GOURty Gemmissione Board of County Commissioners
15 (BCC). Final action on the site alteration plan or site development plan lies with
16 the BCC. The beard BCC shall review the proposed site alteration plan or site
17 development plan in a regular session meeting and shall act formally by
18 resolution stipulating reasons for approval, or approval with modification, or
19 denial of the site alteration plan or development plan.
20 4. Other permits required. The petitioner may at any time during the county review
21 process apply for the appropriate local, state and federal permits for the
22 alteration or development of the subject property.
23 5. Commencement of site alteration or site development. Upon obtaining all
24 required local, state and federal permits in order to alter or develop the subject
25 property, the petitioner may commence alteration or development in
26 accordance with the conditions and requirements of said permits.
27 G. Submission requirements for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for
28 development in ST or ACSC -ST designated land. The following shall be submitted in a
29 petition for site alteration or site development approval of ST or ACSC -ST land, where
30 applicable:
31 1 Submission and appFoyal E)f a site alteration plan OF site devek4mnent-pfan
32 GORtaiRiRg the fGl'0WiRg as deteFmiRed appliGable to the petition by the planning
33
34 a. vv Title of the nre• +
35
36 G. Date
37 d. North d"FeGfienal arFew.
38
39 '
40 development. Developments shall identify, preteGt, and GGRsewe Rative
41 vegetative GGMmuRities. and wildlife habitat. Habitats and theiF bounda i
42 will be Gensistent with the Florida Department of TranspeFtatiGR FIGN
43
44 rr
45 feet when - _available from the GE) nty otherwise, n SG ale f at least Vnr
46
47
48
49 Gn shorelines andler undeveloped GF developed Geastal barriers habit
50 ideRt+fiGation shall GGMpl„, with the Siting Griter is Win— aGGGrdaRGe , ,i+
51 ^hapter 10 of this P`ede
l.]
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d -t 'L- th h is ent tevt to he deleted!
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 f. Loeation of all proposed buildings and StFUCtUFes with dimensionS,
2 shGWiRg setbaGks to pFopeFty lines, Mads,
3 `trAGtures _ djaGent to the buildinv /sI
4 -
5
6 I Proposed c. 1 buffering.
ffering
7
waste-
s k. / Gress to utilities and nointc of utilities hookups
r ,
9 I 1 on tion for heenh annex re . .redd the Benoh AGGess QFddinanr__e No,
10 , .
11 ,
12
13 appFepFiate to the par-t*GU!aF item,
14 Submission requirements pursuant to 10.02.00 and 10.08.00, as applicable.
15 2.
16
17 . Locations for beach access as
18 required the Beach Access Ordinance No. 76 -20 (Code ch. 146, art. III] or its
19 successor in function.
20 3. ArGhmteGtUFal definitions for types ef buildings in the development;
21 dwelling units, sizes, and types, together with typiGal fleeF plans of eaGh type,
22 Document that the project is consistent with 3.03.00 and the Objectives and
23 Policies in Goal 10 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
24 GMP.
25 4. GGmputatien sheet inGluding the fellewing data:
26 a. Lot aFea
27 b. Total) enrlesedd area of each floor
28 n NuFnber and floor area of units by type_
29 d. LandsGaped areas to be provided including any existing aFeas of native
30 vegetatio w.
31 a DorLinrt dre�
32 f. AI, mbar of nd FkffiR r spaGes.
33 •
34 h. Plans fOF PFOviding potable and iFFigation wateF requiFements.
35 i. Storm drainage nndd sanitand sewage r nlaRS
� �
36 i Plans for signs if env
37
38
39
40 suFveyeF,
41 n�dironment l non „ It nt may he d.nnronriate to the paFtio„hr_it�_ as rr r
42 I Tr n fed of development right data required in seotion A 02 '1j_
43 M. Submission and appFE)val of aR en*Gnmental impaGt statement as
44
45 data as regueFaa by t"2LnG.
46 n The developer hall subject to ChapteF 3 �„
, treeenetatinn removal
47 f ,
48 pemit pFiep tG any land GleaF;Rg. A site Glearing plan shall be submitt
49
50 phases to GeinGide with the development SGhedule. The site GleaNng
51 plan shall indiGate the reteRtOOR ef native vegetation te the maximum
52 exteRt pFaGtmGal and how roads, buildings, lakes, paFkuRg lets, and et
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
TeA h '
Ldkpthmug
a L L d te h �c ,d .I L �.,- .czcca-
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 facilities have been GFiented to aeGemmedate this
2 goal. One GriteFiGn to
3 h G � un non F
ideation of the land A
4 SI Ik.1miecinn nrl nnrofinI of nn rw.+... ...i:..... ..I-- __ - _, ,__ _ .. — —
OFdinanGes if 5 County Gede of Laws and
6 '
7 .W
8
9 garne and fteshwatel: fish GE)FnrniSGiOR shall be
10 • An appmpFffi
11 known or likely to OGGUF iR or aFOund habitats in the developniepA-afea-.
12 F. All exetiG plants as defined in seGtiGR 1.08.02 shall be Ferneved duFing
13
14 '
15 development, pFevent 16
17 'Rtewals, shall be filed with and s6lbjeGt to appFoval by the community
18
19 Chapter 3.
20 H. Exceptions from public hearing requirements. The Winning senrir.e giro^+ County
21 Manager or designee may administratively approve a site alteration plan or site
22 development plan for land designated ST or ACSC -ST without the public hearing
23 otherwise required by this section if:
24 1. The area of the proposed alteration or development is five (5) acres or less in
25 gross area; there are no transfer of development rights involved, and the
26 following conditions, where applicable, exist:
27 a. The proposed site alteration or site development will occur on land that
28 was lawfully cleared and no more than ten percent of the cleared lands
29 have re -grown with native vegetation.
30 b. Where the proposed alteration or development involves a single - family
31 principal structure or the renovation or replacement of a single - family
32 structure and the proposed site alteration or site development plan will
33 not require any significant modification of topography, drainage, flora, or
34 fauna on the site. "Significant modification" shall mean modification
35 greater than 15 percent of the site.
36 C. No pollutants will be discharged from the area that will further degrade the
37 air, water or soil befew the levels existing at the time of _appliGatiGn.
38 d. Water management berms and structures proposed for the protection
39 and /or enhancement of the ST areas will meet the minimum dimensions
40 permitted by the South Florida Water Management District.
41 2. Temporary site alteration for oil and gas geophysical surveys and testing.
42 "Temporary site" alteration shall mean only those alterations involving and cutting
43 of vegetation for surveys and equipment entry, drill shot holes not exceeding six
44 inches in diameter and rutting associated with vehicle access. Trimming of
45 vegetation for access routes shall be kept to the minimum width necessary for
46 surveying and testing. The site shall be restored as required by federal, state and
47 county permits within 90 -days of t he start of the project.
48 3. Where a conditional use has been approved_, a ^9 h —�n n e„tal
49
, oF an exemption ffem the Fequirement fer an EIS has
50 been granted n„r uant to n ti 10 02 02 f this ,
granted .
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
TeX4 t 'L th deleted,
is ent text to he deletr
a
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 4. Site alteration or site development around existing communication towers to
2 expand or construct accessory structures associated with an already existing
3 tower, not to exceed five acres.
4 5. All other site alteration or site development plan approvals of any size shall be
5 as required to comply with the provisions in se +e;s 4.02.14 D-, E. and F., as
6 applicable.
7 I. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the requirements of sectien
8 4.02.14 E. and F.
9 1. Removal and control of exotic vegetation as defined in Chapter 3 of this Code.
10 2. Prescribed fires and associated firebreaks as approved by the Florida
11 Department of Forestry
12 3. Removal of non - native vegetation pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Code.
13 j. MedifiGation of site alteration plan or site develepment plan. Any MedifiGation of the
14 alteration plan eF site development plan as appFeved by the GOUnty, whiGh would alteF
15 the intent and puFpese of these ST er AGSG ST regulations, Fequires the pre and
16 approval as for a new petitien.
18 9.04.02 - Types of Variances Authorized
19 A variance is authorized for any dimensional development standard, including the
20 following: height, area, and size of structure; height of fence; size of yards and open spaces;
21 dimensional aspects of landscaping and buffering requirements; size, height, maximum
22 number of, and minimum setback for signs; and minimum requirements for off - street parking
23 facilities; and for site alteFations, regaFdless of predevelopment vegetatien, en lots within the
24 Plantatien island Unit One, Plantat4en island LJRit Twe and Plantatdan island Unit Three
25 _
26 A. Variances for signs. The variance procedure for signs is provided in section 5.06.00, the
27 Collier County Sign Code.
28 > within
29 the Plantation island Unit One, q
30 Pursuant tov --the § 380.032(3) — 'AgFe mont between the BeaFd of County
31 GornmossioneFs and the Department of Gemmunity AffaiFs dated ApFil 26, 2005,
32 FegaFd*ng Plantation island Subdivision within the Big GypFess Area Of GFitiGaI
33
34 Land Development Cede shall be autheFized faF site alteFations, RGluding
35 dFedging and filling, of up to 2,500 square feet, regaFdless of predevelepment
36 vegetatieR, en a greup ef adjaGent lots WRdeF GOMMOR GWRership,
37 single lot Of only GRe lot is owned, within Units One, Two and Three of the
38 Plantation island Subdivision (unreGE)Fded) IGGated in SeGtien 29, Township 63
39 South, RaRge 29 East, in GellieF County, FIOFida utilizing the PFOGedure as set
40 fo se�.on 04 03 of the Land Development Gede and where the pFonosed
ry vn rtc- �crrrcrvcv �rop��TCrr�vv�a.., a �+ N N
41
42 to have a minimum adveme irnpaGt on the GFitiGal aFea's
43 surfaGe water and estuaFiRe fisheries as authorized by Rule 28 25.011, FlGrida
44 AdmiRistFative Code.
45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
0
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 14 D and 9 04 02 B 1 - ACSC -ST 062612.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text { 'I th h is nt text to he .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
CHANGE: Correct scriveners' error in 10.02.06 D.1
Remove incorrect citations
Grammatical and other corrections
REASON: The opening paragraph to identify when agricultural clearing permits apply is
missing and has accidently been replaced with the opening paragraph for agricultural clearing
notices. The requirements outlined in subsection 10.02.06 D.l apply to agricultural clearing
permits and those in subsection 10.02.06 D.2 to agricultural clearing notices. The opening
paragraph for agricultural clearing notices currently appears twice, at the beginning of both
subsections.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None affected
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed amendment will have no
affect on the GMP.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created October 12, 2011. Amended December 8, 2011,
June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. Agricultural land clearing.
11 Land clearing 1719tiGe. No lateF than 60 days prier vegetation rerneval as part of
;ultuFal opeFat"GRS that fall within the sE;ope of seetions 163.3162(4) OF
63.14(6), Florida Statutes, the pFopeFty owneF shall PFGVide nOtiGe to t
ManageF oF designee that the Ferneval will OGGUF. Said nGtiGe shall indude the
1 Agricultural clearing permit. A permit for clearing of agriculturally zoned land for
agricultural uses that do not fall within the scope of sections 163.3162(4) or
823.14(6) Florida Statutes, shall be required for all agricultural operations except
as exempted by 10.02.06 D.11 (below).
a. Application. An application for an agricultural clearing permit shall be
1
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Permits Agricultural
Clearing—errors 062712.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added
.d nip Leahro a h t text to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
submitted in the form established by the County Manager or his designee.
Silviculture operations, as defined by this Code, shall require a
management plan prepared by a forester or a resource manager (e.g.
di isi^�TOFestFY Florida Forest Service, private or industrial) as part of
the application. An application fee in an amount to be determined by the
Board of County Commissioners shall accompany and be a part of the
application. The following conditions, as applicable, shall be addressed as
part of and attachments to the agricultural land clearing application:
i. If an ST or ACSC -ST overlay is attached to the zoning of the
property, an ST development permit has been issued by the
County Manager or his designee. The ST or ACSC -ST permit
review shall be in accordance with Collier County Land
development Code Chapter 2, section 2.03.07 and may be
simultaneously reviewed with the agricultural clearing permit
application.
ii. The application, including generalized vegetation inventory and
clearing plan as outlined in section 10.02.06 C.2.a. and site visit (if
required) confirm that the proposed use is consistent with the
requirement of the zoning district as a bona fide agricultural use
and the applicant has been informed of the rezoning restriction
which granting the permit shall place on his property.
iii. The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) consumptive water
use permit or exemption, if required by SFWMD.
iv. The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the South
Florida Water Management District surface water management
permit or exemption, if required by SFWMD.
V. The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit or exemption, if
required by the ACOE.
vi. The applicant has submitted data relating to wetland impacts and
protected wildlife species habitat subject to the Collier County
growth management plan, conservation and coastal management
element pel+G-+es 6.2T-6.2.10 and )bjeGtive 73 a nd aSSOGwated
peliGies and Collier County Land Development Code section
3. 04.80. This data will be required only when the county's on -site
inspection indicates that there are potential or actual impacts to
wetlands and to protected federally and state listed wildlife habitat.
vii. The property owner, or authorized agent, has filed an executed
agreement with the County Manager or his designee, stating that
within 2 years from the date on which the agricultural clearing
permit is approved by the County Manager or his designee, the
owner /agent will put the property into a bona fide agricultural use
and pursue such activity in a manner conducive to the successful
harvesting of its expected crops or products. The owner /agent
may elect to allow the subject property to lie fallow after
completing the bona fide agricultural use, for the remainder of the
25 -year period required by viii. below. If the clearing is expected to
occur over a period greater than 2 years, this will be stated on the
application and may be addressed as a condition on the
agricultural clearing permit if determined by staff to be appropriate.
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Permits Agricultural
Clearing_errors 062712.docx
K
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Perm its_Agricultural
Clearing_errors 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T f 'L h te)d to he
.h deleted
th is GuFFent
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
viii. The property owner, or authorized agent, has filed an executed
2
agreement with the County Manager or his designee stating that
3
the owner /agent is aware that the Collier County Board of County
4
Commissioners will not rezone the property described in the
5
agricultural clearing permit for a period of 25 years from the date
6
of approval of the agricultural clearing permit by the County
7
Manager or his designee, unless for any such conversions in less
8
than 25 years, the converted land shall be restored with native
9
vegetation to the degree required by this Code.
10
b. Determination of completeness.
11
i. After receipt of an application for an agricultural clearing permit,
12
County Manager or his designee shall determine whether the
13
application submitted is complete. All applicable conditions
14
specified in paragraph a. above must be addressed in order to
15
obtain a determination of completeness. If the application is not
16
complete, the County Manager or his designee shall notify the
17
applicant in writing of the deficiencies. No further steps to process
18
the application shall be taken until all of the deficiencies in the
19
application have been met. In addition, a determination of
20
completeness or a modified determination of completeness may
21
be made in accordance with the following:
22
ii. Where the applicant submits, as part of the application for an
23
agricultural clearing permit, a copy of the completed application for
24
a SFWMD consumptive use permit or exemption, or a SFWMD
25
surface water management permit or exemption, or an ACOE
26
permit or exemption, a modified determination of completeness
27
may be issued providing that said permits or exemptions are not
28
necessary for further County review and providing that all other
29
deficiencies in the application have been addressed.
30
C. Criteria for review of application. Review of the application for an
31
agricultural clearing permit shall commence upon the determination of
32
completeness or modified determination of completeness. The following
33
criteria shall be utilized by staff in reviewing an application for issuance of
34
an agricultural clearing permit:
35
i. An on -site inspection has been made by staff, if indicated.
36
ii. Environmental impacts, including wetlands and protected wildlife
37
species habitat(s) shall have been addressed in accordance with
38
the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan
39
and the Land Development Code, as may be amended from time
40
to time.
41
iii. Additional data and or information required by the County to
42
address environmental impacts shall be submitted by the
43
applicant.
44
d. Issuance of permit. After an application for an agricultural clearing permit
45
has been reviewed in accordance with paragraph c. above, the County
46
Manager or his designee shall grant the permit, grant with conditions or
47
deny the permit, in writing. Where the agricultural clearing permit is
48
denied, the letter shall state the reason(s) for said denial.
49
e. Renewal of agricultural clearing permit. An approved agricultural clearing
50
permit is valid for 5 years and may be automatically renewed for 5 -year
51
periods providing that a notification in writing is forwarded to the County
K
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Perm its_Agricultural
Clearing_errors 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d strikethFough 06 GUFFent text to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Manager or his designee at least 30 but no more than 180 days prior to
2 the expiration of the existing permit and providing that the property has
3 been actively engaged in a bona fide agricultural activity. Such notification
4 shall state that the applicant is in compliance with any and all conditions
5 and /or stipulations of the permit. A violation of permit conditions shall [be]
6 cause to void the agricultural clearing permit. Applicants failing to provide
7 notification as specified herein shall be required to submit a new
8 application for an agricultural clearing permit.
9 f. Exemptions for agricultural clearing permit.
10 i. An agricultural clearing permit is not required for operations
11 having obtained a permit under Ordinance No. 76 -42 and which
12 can demonstrate that an approved bona fide agricultural activity
13 was in existence within 2 years of the permit issuance date, or for
14 operations which can demonstrate that a bona fide agricultural
15 activity was in existence before the effective date of Ordinance
16 No. 76 -42. Such demonstrations for exemptions may include
17 agricultural classification records from the Property Appraiser's
18 Office; dated aerial photographs; occupational license for
19 agricultural operation; or other information which positively
20 establishes the commencement date and the particular location of
21 the agricultural operation.
22 ii. Upon issuance of an agricultural clearing [permit] or as exempted
23 above, activities necessary for the ongoing bona fide agricultural
24 use and maintenance shall be exempted from obtaining additional
25 agricultural clearing permits for that parcel providing that the
26 intent, use and scope of said activities remain in accordance with
27 the ongoing agricultural clearing permit or exemption. Ongoing
28 bona fide agricultural activities that qualify for this exemption as
29 described in this section may include but are not limited to clearing
30 for, around or in dikes, ditches, canals, reservoirs, swales, pump
31 stations, or pens; removal of new growth, such as shrubs or trees,
32 from areas previously permitted or exempted from this section; fire
33 line maintenance; approved wildlife food plots; or other activities
34 similar in nature to the foregoing. Fences, buildings and structures
35 requiring a building permit shall be exempt from an agricultural
36 clearing permit but must obtain a vegetation removal permit.
37 iii. No agricultural clearing permit shall be required for protected
38 vegetation that is dead, dying or damaged beyond saving due to
39 natural causes also known as acts of God provided that:
40 (a) The County Manager or his designee is notified in writing
41 within 2 business days prior to such removal and the
42 county makes no objection within said 2 business days;
43 (b) The tree is not a specimen tree;
44 (c) The vegetation is not within an area required to be
45 preserved as a result of a required preservation, mitigation
46 or restoration program;
47 (d) The parcel is currently engaged in bona fide agriculture, as
48 defined by this Code.
49 (e) No agricultural clearing permit shall be required for the
50 removal of any vegetation planted by a farmer or rancher
51 which was not planted as a result of a zoning regulation or
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Permits Agricultural
Clearing_errors 062712.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strkethm gh is GurFent text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
a required mitigation or restoration program.
2. Land Agricultural clearing notice. No later than 60 days prior to vegetation
removal as part of agricultural operations that fall within the scope of sections
163.3162(4) or 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, the property owner shall provide
notice to the environmental services director that the removal will occur. Said
notice shall include the following information:
a. A legal description of the land cleared, or such other description as is
sufficient to document the specific location of the cleared land;
b. The date on which land clearing will begin;
C. The date on which land clearing is expected to be completed;
d. A vegetation inventory identifying the acreage of existing native
vegetation on site prior to any site clearing; and
e. A signed agreement acknowledging the 25 -year prohibition on the
creation of TDR credits from land cleared for agricultural operations after
June 19, 2002, as set forth in section 2.03.07; and
f. If the land is outside the RLSA, a signed agreement acknowledging that,
if the land being cleared for agricultural operations is converted to a non-
agricultural uses within 25 years after the clearing occurs, the property
shall become subject to the requirements of Sections 3.05.07, as
provided in Section 3.05.02.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 D Submittal Reqs for Permits—Agricultural
Clearing_errors 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text ..tFikethrough is nt text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
AUTHORS: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist and Andrew Kelly,
Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENTS: Land Development Services and Code Enforcement
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
CHANGE: Update and identify minimum requirements for replacement of vegetation which has
been cleared illegally. Cross reference applicable sections of LDC for minimum standards to
apply.
Add requirement for a time zero monitoring report. Give respondents the option of submitting
first and second year follow -up monitoring reports to document condition and survivability of
mitigation plantings. The LDC currently requires a minimum of two follow -up monitoring
reports, submitted at one -year intervals.
Grammatical and other corrections
Update reference to plant guide used by the State Water Management Districts.
REASON: Bring the subsection up to date with recent changes to other sections of the LDC.
Follow -up inspections for determining compliance with mitigation for clearing violations is often
difficult without a requirement of a time zero monitoring report. Determination of compliance
for these cases can be even more difficult when turnover of staff occurs. Initial documentation of
plants installed will help staff to determine success during follow -up inspections and eliminate
the need for submission of follow -up monitoring reports by respondents.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The requirements of this subsection are, in some
cases, out dated and more costly to comply with. Cross referencing applicable sections of the
LDC for minimum standards will insure mitigation plantings are consistent with other sections of
the LDC.
Documentation of initial plantings through a time zero monitoring report should speed up
follow -up inspections, save staff time and help resolve Code Enforcement cases. Some cost will
be incurred on the part of the respondent in having to submit a time zero monitoring report, but
savings may be made on the part of the respondent in not being required to submit follow -up
monitoring reports to the County. Respondents will also likely save consultant and legal fees
where staff is able to more quickly demonstrate compliance with Code cases.
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Perm its_Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text striketh... ..h is ourrent d{ be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:
3.05.07 H (Preserve Standards)
3.05.10 (Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA))
4.06.05 (General Landscape Requirements)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created November 18, 2011. Revised December 8, 2011,
February 6, 2012, March 22, 2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
2 X X X X K X 7C X X X K X Y
3 E. Enforcement and penalties.
4 X X X X 7. X X X Y X X X X
5 2. Restoration standards. If an alleged violation of this Code has occurred and upon
6 agreement between the County Manager or his designee and the violator, or if
7 they cannot agree, then, upon conviction by the court or the code enforcement
8 board, in addition to any fine imposed, a restoration plan shall be ordered in
9 accordance with the following standards:
10 a. The restoration plan shall include the following minimum planting
11 standards:
12 i. In the successful replacement of trees illegally removed,
13 replacement trees shall be of sufficient size and quantity to
14 replace the dbh inches removed. Dbh is defined for the purposes
15 of this ordinance as diameter of the tree, measured at a height of
16 4.5 feet above natural grade.
17 ii. Each replacement tree shall be Florida grade No. 1 or better as
18 graded by the Florida department of agriculture and consumer
19 service.
20 E;antaineFized and
21 '
22 have a minirnum dbh of 3 inches
23 iii Replacement vegetation shall meet the following criteria at time of
24 planting:
25 a) Plant material used to meet the minimum landscape
26 requirements shall be in accordance with 4.06.05.
27 b) Plant material used to meet the requirements for littoral
28 shelf planting areas shall be in accordance with 3.05. 10
29 c) Environmental restoration within County required
30 preserves shall be in accordance with 3 05 07 H
31 d) Environmental restoration other than in County required
32 preserves, shall be in accordance with State and Federal
33 agency enforcement or permit conditions Where such
34 requirements are not enforced or project not permitted by
35 these agencies, the following minimum sizes shall apply'
36 one gallon or liner ground covers three gallon shrubs and
37 four foot high trees. Ground covers in aquatic
2
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Permits Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
is be deleted,
Te)d st*ethmugh GUFFent text to
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
environments may be planted as bare root plants.
2
Mangroves may be two foot high at time of planting.
3
e) Natural recruitment of native vegetation similar to or
4
compatible with native vegetation on site will be accepted.
5
iv. Replacement trees shall have a guarantee of 80 percent
6
survivability for a period of no less than 3 years. A maintenance
7
provision of no less than 3 years must be provided in the
8
restoration plan to control invasion of exotic vegetation (those
9
species defined as exotic vegetation by the Collier County Land
10
Development Code).
11
V. It shall be at the discretion of the County Manager or his designee
12
to allow for any deviation from the above specified ratio criteria.
13
b.
In the event that identification of the species of trees is impossible for any
14
reason on the property where protected trees were unlawfully removed, it
15
shall be presumed that the removed trees were of a similar species mix
16
as those found on adjacent properties.
17
C.
The nders vegetation shall be- restored - the -a;ea fro— whiGam`
18
protected ireec ,.,ore unlayAull„ remGyerd_ The selection of plants shall be
19
based on the characteristics of the Florida Department of Transportation,
20
Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classifications System (FLUCFCS)
21
code. Shrubs, ground cover, and grasses shall be restored as delineated
22
in the FLUCFCS Code. The species utilized shall be with relative
23
proportions characteristic of those in the FLUCFCS Code. The exact
24
number and type of species required may also be based upon the
25
existing indigenous vegetation on the adjacent property at the discretion
26
of the County Manager or his designee.
27
d.
If the unlawful removal of trees has caused any change in hydrology,
28
ground elevations or surface water flows, then the hydrology, ground
29
elevation or surface water flows shall be restored to pre - violation
30
conditions.
31
e.
In the event of impending development on property where protected trees
32
were unlawfully removed, the restoration plan shall indicate the location of
33
the replacement stock consistent with any approved plans for subsequent
34
development. For the purposes of this ordinance, impending development
35
shall mean that a developer has made application for a development
36
order or has applied for a building permit.
37
f.
The County Manager or his designee may, at his discretion, allow the
38
replacement stock to be planted off -site where impending development
39
displaces areas to be restored. In such situations, off -site plantings shall
40
be on lands under the control of a public land and /or agency. The off -site
41
location shall be subject to the approval of the County Manager or his
42
designee.
43
g.
The donation of land and /or of funds under the control of a public agency
44
may be made if none of the above are viable alternatives. This donation
45
of land and /or funds shall be equal to or greater than the total sum it
46
would cost to restore the area in which the violation occurred.
47
(Preservation of different contiguous habitats is to be encouraged.)
48
3. Corrective measures for environmental violations.
49
a.
Mitigation.
50
i. The person(s) responsible for violations of the environmental
51
sections of the Land Development Code shall be notified
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Perm its_Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
L�
Text underlined is new text to be added
fr'Le t..rn gh is F f d to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
according to section 8.08.00 and shall have 30 days to prepare a
mitigation plan that is acceptable to the county to resolve the
violation. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to development
services staff for review and comment. Once the plan is accepted
by development services, the responsible party shall have 15 days
to complete the mitigation unless other arrangements are
specified and agreed upon in the mitigation plan.
ii. Mitigation shall restore the area disturbed unless the responsible
party demonstrates that off -site mitigation will successfully offset
the impacts being mitigated for. Off -site mitigation shall be on
lands under the control of a public agency, or identified for public
acquisition, or on lands protected from future development. Ratios
for off -site mitigation shall be as follows: 2 to 1 for uplands and 3
to 1 for wetlands.
iii. The selection of plants to be used shall be based on the
characteristics of the Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classification System
(FLUCFCS) Code. The exact number and type of species required
may vary depending on the existing indigenous vegetation found
at the site.
iv. If only trees were removed and the understory vegetation was not
disturbed, then replacement of the dbh (diameter at breast height)
in inches removed shall be required.
V. If the violation has caused any change in hydrology, ground
elevations or surface water flows, then the hydrology, ground
elevation or surface water flows shall be restored to pre - violation
conditions.
vi. If the violation consists of clearing of residential, single - family
(RSF), village residential (VR) or estates (E) or other non
agricultural, non commercially zoned land in which single - family
lots have been subdivided for single - family use only, and 1 acre or
less of land is being cleared by the property owners themselves in
advance of issuance of building permit, the County Manager or his
designee may, in lieu of restoration or donation, impose a penalty
fee in the amount equal to double the cost of a typical building
permit.
Requirements for a mitigation plan.
i. A copy of the deed, contract for sale or agreement for sale or a
notarized statement of ownership clearly demonstrating ownership
and control of the subject lot or parcel of land, or permission from
the landowner to mitigate on his or her site shall be provided.
ii. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or
exceeds the credentials specified in section 10 02 02 n.3 3.05.07
H or Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code unless waived by the
County Manager or designee.
iii. The plan shall designate the preparer's s name, address
and telephone number that ar shall be included on the
plan.
iv. A north arrow, scale, and date shall be required on the plan.
V. Existing vegetation areas shall be shown.
4
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Permits Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T .h t 'L th .. ..h is Rt te..t to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 vi. The proposed planting areas shall be clearly defined.
2 vii. The plan shall denote the number and location of each plant to be
3 planted, or for the case of ground covers, show them in groupings.
4 Large mitigation areas may be designated by a more simplified
5 method.
6 viii. All plants proposed shall be denoted by genus, species, and the
7 common name.
8 ix. The plan shall identify what is adjacent to the mitigation areas, i.e.
9 existing forest (provide type), farm, natural buffer area, lake, etc.
10 C. Site - specific review criteria.
11 i. All plants used for mitigation shall be native Florida species.
12 ii. All plants used for mitigation shall be frorn a legal SOUFGe and be
13 gFaded FIGFida No. 1 or betteF, as graded by the Florida
14 Department of AgFiGU!tuFe and Consumer ServiGes' Grades and
15 Standards for NuF eFy Plants (Chaes S. Bush, 1973 , ti Dorf 1 an
16 �,.�., } ,., r�
17 Plants shall r.onfeFrl -t- to a-- F-leFida Noo.1a'.s to: (1) health and
18 vitality, (2) GOndition of foliage, (3) reet system, (4) freedom from
19
20 foliated acGeFding to the aGGepted normal shapes of the spedes or
21 spor-t. Trees shall be a minimum of 14 feet tall at the time o
22 planting and shall have !bh (diameter at breast hekjhQ
23 of 3 iRrheT Plant materials used to meet minimum landscape
24 requirements of the LDC shall conform to the plant specifications
25 in 4.06.05.
26 iii. The plants proposed for planting must be temperature tolerant to
27 the areas they are to be planted in. The South Florida Wate
28 Management iStFiGt'S rXeFiSGape oGuide Florida - Friendly
29 Landscaping Guide to Plant Selection & Landscape Design shall
30 be used in determining the temperature tolerances of the plants.
31 iv. The existing soil types shall be identified. Plants proposed for
32 planting shall be compatible with the soil type. The 1954 or the
33 1992 soil survey of Collier County shall be used to determine if the
34 plants proposed for planting are compatible with the existing or
35 proposed soil types.
36 V. The source and method of providing water to the plants shall be
37 indicated on the plan and subject to review and approval.
38 vi. A program to control prohibited exotic vegetation (section 3.05.08)
39 in the mitigation area shall be required.
40 d. County review of mitigation plan.
41 i. DevelopmeRt seFVOGes The County Manager or designee will
42 review the plan based on, but not limited to, the preceding
43 requirements within 15 days. Additional relevant information may
44 be required when requested.
45 ii. Should the county reject the mitigation plan, the reasons will be
46 provided so the applicant can correct the plan and resubmit for
47 county review.
48 e. Monitoring and replanting.
49 i. A monitoring program shall be required that would determine the
50 survivability by species of the plants used in the mitigation effort. A
51 mine rer�s ra be submitted. Deports shall he at
� d �e u�.. u
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Perm its_Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text ;A{ "L {h
a h ' t { to h �v�. - r! 1 { v�cv-
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 ' ° ^� ^ + ° ^� ^' . A time zero monitorinq report with photographs
2 shall be submitted within 30 days of replanting. At the option of the
3 respondent, two follow -up monitoring reports may be submitted at
4 one -year intervals, starting one year after submittal of the time
5 zero monitorinq report, to document condition and survivability of
6 mitigation plantings. If annual monitoring reports are submitted
7 they must document on -site conditions within one month prior to
8 the anniversary /due date for the re- inspection Success shall be
9 verified by the County Manager or designee
10 ii. An eighty percent survival by species shall be required for a two -
11 year period_ starting at time of submittal of the time zero
12 monitoring report, unless other arrangements are specified and
13 agreed upon in the mitigation plan. Replanting shall be required
14 each year if the mortality exceeds 20 percent of the total number
15 of each species in the mitigation plan. Should the County Manager
16 or designee determine the need for an extended monitoring
17 schedule, monitoring may continue until at least an eighty percent
18 survival of required planting(s) has been attained.
19 iii. The soil and hydrological conditions for some mitigation areas
20 may favor some of the plants and preclude others. Should the
21 county and /or consultant find that over time, some of the species
22 planted simply don't adjust, the mitigation plan shall be
23 reevaluated by both the consultant and the county, and a revised
24 plan will be instituted. This condition shall not apply to all
25 mitigation areas and each case will be evaluated individually,
26 based on the supported [supporting] data submitted by the
27 mitigator.
28 iv. Should there be a change in ownership of the property identified in
29 the approved mitigation plan, the seller will be responsible for
30 notifying the buyer of the mitigation plan and any requirements
31 pursuant to the plan.
32 f. Donation of land or funds. The donation of land and /or funds to a public
33 agency may be made if none of the above are viable alternatives. This
34 donation of land and /or funds shall be equal to or greater than the total
35 sum it would cost to mitigate for the violation according to section
36 10.02.06E.3.a. including consulting fees for design, and monitoring,
37 installation costs, vegetation costs, earth moving costs, irrigation costs,
38 replanting and exotic removal.
39 4. Appeal from enforcement. Any person who feels aggrieved by the application of
40 this section, may file, within 30 days after said grievance, a petition with the
41 County Manager or his designee, to have the case reviewed by the Collier
42 County Board of County Commissioners.
43 5. Suspension of permit requirement. The Board of County Commissioners may, by
44 emergency resolution, suspend the permit requirement for vegetation removal in
45 the aftermath of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, when the following
46 conditions are met and contained in the resolution:
47 a. The suspension is for a defined period of time not to exceed 30 days or
48 as otherwise set by the Board of County Commissioners.
49 b. The vegetation removal is necessitated by disaster related damage.
50 C. The suspension is not applicable to vegetation within habitats containing
51 listed species (as regulated in section 3.04.00).
6
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Permits Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
7
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Permits—Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
��rre
T F 'L is r nt he deleted.
)d th FO gh te)d to
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 6 Existing Code Enforcement cases.
The requirements of 10.02.06
E.2.a.iii and
2 10 02 06 E 3 e i shall not apply
to existing
Code Enforcement
cases with
3 plans /orders approved prior to
(effective
date of Ordinancel,
unless the
4 respondent elects to use the new criteria.
5 # # # # # # #
#
# # #
# #
7
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 06 E Submittal Reqs for Permits—Enforcement and
Penalties 062712.docx
Growth Management Division
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T of f 'L 1f.... gh in enf fe.h to be .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board Directed and Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA)
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division, Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02 Definitions
4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
4.07.02 Design Requirements
CHANGE: This amendment seeks to amend the open space provisions in the LDC. First, it is
proposed that grammatical errors are corrected in the `open space' and `common open space'
definitions in Section 1.08.02. Further, the `usable open space' definition is revised to make it
consistent with the definition in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Growth Management
Plan. The amendment includes "required yard (setbacks)" as usable open space and clarifies that
usable open space includes areas accessible by residents of "an individual lot" as well as the
development, or the general public.
The amendment removes the usable open space definitions from Sections 4.02.01 and 4.07.02.
Section 4.07.02 G.3 (previously G.4) replaces the word "shall" with "may" to reflect that the
Board of County Commissioners ability to require a developer to dedicate usable open space for
public use is discretionary.
REASON: During the January 25, 2007 hearing for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR),
the Board of County Commissioners discussed with Staff and other participants the usable open
space definition. The discussion identified the usable open space definition did not include the
terins "yard and lawn," and therefore these areas had not been included in the usable open space
calculations during reviews by staff. The speakers noted that these terms had been included in
the applied definition in prior years and reviews by staff. Further, that "yards and lawns" were
included in usable open space definition for the recent plan for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District. The proposed language stems from this dialogue and adds the term "required yard" to
the usable open space definition. The term "required yard" identifies the area outside of the
setbacks of the principal building structure. This addition will provide clarity to calculating the
usable open space within residential and mixed use developments.
Removing the usable open space definitions in sections 4.02.01 and 4.07.02 prevent potential
conflicts and inconsistencies with the definition in Section 1.08.02. Section 4.07.02 is further
amended to reflect the County's policy and practice of taking a discretionary approach to
requiring usable open space for public use.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \1 08 02 Definitions—usable open space 062512.docx
7/9/2012 10:30 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d strikethFough is GUFFent text to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed change will ease the burden for
residential developments, particularly for smaller infill parcels, in meeting the sixty (60 %)
percent usable open space requirement for residential developments. Further research and
discussion are warranted to identify any fiscal or operational impacts to the County.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Growth Management Plan, Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District, noted below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Useable open space is identified in the FLUE,
for Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. The policy is written as follows:
(IX) B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(IX) A) Receiving Lands
7. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements:
(XV) a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands projects greater than 40 acres in
size shall provide a minimum of 70% usable open space. Usable Open Space
includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf
courses, waterways, lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable
Open Space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of
native vegetation and lawn, yard and landscape areas. Open water beyond the
perimeter of the site, street right -of -way, except where dedicated or donated for
public uses, driveways, off - street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted
towards required Usable Open Space (GNP, FLUE pg. 71 -72).
To ensure future developments are consistent with the GMP usable open space provisions,
additional language identifying the higher standards in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District has
been included in the proposed amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends utilizing the proposed language as an
interim standard and reexamining the open space issue in a more comprehensive manner during
the next LDC Amendment cycle. The existing requirements and definitions can be revised to
better differentiate open space and recreation areas. Further analysis may determine that specific
types of open spaces should be incentivized, prioritized or limited. Furthermore, there are several
planning efforts within the County, such as the Master Mobility Plan and the Low Impact Design
(LID) Recommendation of the Watershed Management Plans which are in progress and may
include examining open space needs and functionality and provide a more comprehensive
approach to open space.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, on March 9, 2012, Edited March 15, 2012,
March 20, 2012, April 17, 2012, April 25, 2012, May 3, 2012, June 25, 2012
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \1 08 02 Definitions usable open space 062512.docx
7/9/2012 10:30 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text F 'L th ..h n .. ,.ten
nt Feet to be deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 1.08.02 Definitions
3 Open space: Areas that are not occupied by buildings, impervious parking areas, streets,
4 driveways or loading areas and which may be equipped or developed with amenities designed
5 to encourage the use and enjoyment of the space either privately or by the general public.
6 Examples of open space include: areas of preserved indigenous native vegetation; areas
7 replanted with vegetation after construction; lawns, landscaped areas and greenways; outdoor
8 recreational facilities; and, plazas, atriums, courtyards and other similar public spaces.
9
10 Open space, common: Those areas within or related to a development, not in individually
11 owned lots, designed and intended to be accessible to, and for the common use or enjoyment
12 of, the residents of the development, or the general public.
13
14 Open space, usable: Active or passive recreation areas such as a� rks, playgrounds, tennis
15 courts, golf courses, beach frontage, waterways, lakes, lagoons, floodplains, nature trails and
16 other similar open spaces. Usable Open space areas shall also include those portions of areas
17 set aside for preservation of native vegetation, required yards (setbacks) and of landscaped
18 areas, which are accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development,. or
19 the general public. Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street rights -of -way,
20 driveways, off - street parking areas; and ^ff *�tloading areas, shall not be counted in
21 deteFmining towards required uUsable oOpen sSpace.
22 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
23
24 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning Districts
26 B. Usable eOpen space requirements. Usable open space shall be provided as
27 follows except as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District within the
28 Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. shall iRcl de active
29 and passive FeGFeatien aFeas such as playgFeunds, gOlf GGuFses, beaGh fFoRtage,
30 watepways, lageens, fleed plains, nature trails, and other similaF open spaGes.
31 OpeR spaGe aFeas shall also inGlude thG6e areas set aside f9F preselVatiOn 0
32 native vegetation and landscaped areas. Open water aFea beYGRd the peFirnete
33 of the site, street Fights-of way, dFiveways, off street parking areas, and off street
34
35 1. In residential developments, at least sixty (60) percent of the gross area
36 shall be devoted to usable open space. This requirement shall not apply
37 to individual single - family lots less than 2.5 acres in size.
38 2. In developments of commercial, industrial and mixed use including
39 residential, at least thirty (30) percent of the gross area shall be devoted
40 to usable open space. This requirement shall not apply to individual
41 parcels less than five (5) acres in size.
42 3. Historical /archaeological resources that are to be preserved may be
43 utilized to satisfy required setbacks, buffer strips or open space up to
44 the maximum area required by development regulations. Conservation
45 of such historic or archaeological resources shall qualify for any open
46 space requirements mandated by the development regulations.
47 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
48
49
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \1 08 02 Definitions_usable open space 062512.docx
7/9/2012 10:30 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text StF L.. }hr h } } to h , }
�� vcycc'[Bold text indicates a defined term
1 4.07.02 Design Requirements
2
3 G. Open space requirements. Usable open space for PUDs shall be provided as
4 follows, except as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District within the
5 Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan
6
7
8 beach frontage, water-ways, lageens, flood plains, natuFe tFails, and
9 sirnilaF open spaGes. Open wateF areas beyond the peFirneter ef the
10 site, StFeet 11 street leading aFeas shall not be GOunted iR deteaniRiRg usable open
12 spaGe.
13 21. Within PUD districts composed entirely of residential dwelling units an
14 accessory uses;, at least sixty (60) percent of the gross area shall be
15 devoted to usable open space.
16 32. Within PUD districts containing commercial, industrial and mixed use
17 including residential, at least thirty (30) percent of the gross area shall be
18 devoted to usable open space.
19 43. An appropriate percentage of the gross project area sha# may be
20 required to be dedicated to public use as usable open space for all
21 development after a determination by the BCC that a public need exists
22 for such public facilities and that the amount of area dedicated is directly
23 related to the impacts or needs created by the proposed development.
24 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \1 08 02 Definitions usable open space 062512.docx
7/9/2012 10:30 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d t .k th h ' .t nt te. to he .deleted
FOUg
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board Directed
AUTHOR: Growth Management Division Staff
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights -
of -Way
4.06.02 Buffer Requirements
9.03.02 Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities
CHANGE: Currently, Section 4.06.03 states that landscaping must be brought into conformity
to the maximum extent possible when the vehicular use area is altered, expanded (except for
restriping of lots /drives), the building square footage is changed, or the structure has been vacant
for 90 days or more and a request for an occupational license to resume the business is made.
On September 27, 2011 the Board of County Commissioners approved a revision to section
4.06.03, permitting a building to be vacant for a 1 year time period, rather than 90 days. The
proposed amendment supports this revision, provides justification for the change, and amends
associated sections in the Code.
Section 4.06.03 is connected to two Code sections that provide landscape provisions. The first is
section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements,, which outlines the applicability of buffer standards and
states that existing landscaping that is not in conformance with the standards of the Section shall
be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when the vehicular use is altered or
expanded (except for restriping of lots /drives), the building square footage is changed, or there
has been a discontinuance of use for a period of 60 days or more and a request for an
occupational license to resume business is made. This language is similar to section 4.06.03
Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights -of -Way, above, but applies a
more stringent time period to bring buffers into conformity. It is proposed this section is
amended to be consistent with section 4.06.03.
Section 9.03.02 Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities, contains two sections which
provide time frames for nonconforming uses. The first provision states that if a nonconforming
use ceases for any reason (except for governmental action impedes access to a premise) for a
period of 180 days, then subsequent use of the land shall conform to the current LDC land use
regulations. The proposed amendment extends the 180 day time frame to 1 year. The second
provision states that if a nonconforming use ceases for a 90 days and the site features are not
consistent with the current code, then the following use must bring the site up to current code
standards. The proposed amendment extends the site features provision from the 90 day time
frame to 1 year.
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions\4 06 03 Landscaping Reqs for Vehicular Use Areas
062612.docx Caroline Cilek 7/11/2012 1:54 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added
TeA tFiketh h' L L to deleted,
�
Bold text indicates a defined term
REASON: The revision to section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas
and Rights -of -Way was generated by the Economic Recovery Task Force in 2010. The Task
Force sought to grant a new property owner or tenant a greater period of time to occupy a vacant
property before the site was required to come into conformity with the current Code. This
extension allows new occupants the ability to open their business without incurring landscape
renovation costs.
The timeframes outlined in sections 4.06.03, 4.06.02, and 9.03.02 can be tracked by examining
the date of issue or renewal for a Business Tax Receipt by the Collier County Tax Collector's
Office. A Business Tax Receipt is renewed on an annual basis and provides a record for Staff to
examine approximately how long a building has been vacant. For instance, if a single occupancy
building submits an application for an interior remodel, Staff can identify when the previous
business renewed its Business Tax Receipt and whether or not the building exceeds the time
frame to bring site features, buffers, etc. into compliance. If a single occupancy building submits
a site plan amendment or site improvement plan for review, the evaluation of sections 4.06.03,
4.06.02, and 9.03.02 will be a component of the review. Likewise, if an applicant applies for a
Business Tax Receipt, they must obtain a Zoning Certificate (which identifies the use is
permitted) and the site will be reviewed for compliance with sections 4.06.03, 4.06.02 and
9.03.02.
The 1 year time frame is supported by economic data collected by Costar, a commercial real
estate information company. Collier County's subscription service allows county level data to be
collected. The County's commercial vacancy figures indicate the average vacant time period for
a commercial building is 20.4 months. This figure includes commercial properties that range in
size from 200 square feet to 2,200 square feet. CoStar's data indicate that a commercial space
ranging from 200 square feet to 600 square feet are on the market between 0 and 3 months and
up to 21 months. CoStar notes that commercial spaces with 2,200 square feet are listed on the
market for over 22 months.
The proposed amendment will provide a greater time period for a commercial space to become
occupied before the need for landscaping improvements and other site features to come into
compliance is triggered. Based on the market figures from Costar, the greatest benefit will be for
new property owners or tenants of smaller properties. However, commercial properties with over
600 square feet will also be granted some relief.
The graphs, below, illustrate on average how long a commercial building is vacant in the County.
The graphs depict the following:
1.) Time on the Market (Days)
2.) Time on the Market (Months) — by Current Available Square Footage
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 03 Landscaping Reqs for Vehicular Use Areas
062612.docx Caroline Cilek 7/11/2012 1:54 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text t 'Lath..., ..h is nt te.h to he deleted!
Bold text indicates a defined term
Time On Market
occupancy
Existing Bidgs 602
500
#Spaces: 1472
4so Existing RBA: 16,976,737
Vacant: <3,964,580> 23%
400
Occupied: 13,012,157 T7%
a350 Leased: 13,271,668 78%
Y 300 availability
a Vacant Avail 3,834,448 23%
F
0 250 Total Avai: 4,861,098 29%
F 200 Direct Avail: 017,445 27%
c Sublet Avail: 327,818 2%
c
0 150
i Average Time: 20.4 Months
100
teasing activity
50 Leasing YTD: 493,967 3%
.. Net Absorp YTD: 1433,7061 (3 °4)
2006 2007 2007 2000 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 Cur
Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 qtr direct gross rent
Median Time On Market Office range: 58.50- 541.401yr
Office Avg: S20.701yr
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 Wmendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 06 03 Landscaping Reqs for Vehicular Use Areas
062612.docx Caroline Cilek 71
1211112011
Thin coWghnd report mntam research 6censcd to Co01er Courty C-0 M-agerwit Mwsion - 513185.
Time On Mkt - Current Avail SF
occupancy
j
Existing Bldgs:
602
2,100
'
# Spaces:
1472
2.200
i
Existing RBA:
16,9T6,737
2,000
..... _....�--
- . -... __ -...
Vacant
<3,964,580> 23%
1211112011
Thin coWghnd report mntam research 6censcd to Co01er Courty C-0 M-agerwit Mwsion - 513185.
Time On Mkt - Current Avail SF
12JiMll
This copyrighted report wnt'ars resea.ch r—�d m CAW Cowrty & -di Management Wsion - 613185.
Resource: "Time on the Market," "Time Vacant," "Time on the Market." CoStar Research —
Licensed to Collier County Growth Management Division. www.costar.com Accessed
12/1/2011.
11/2012 1:54 PM
occupancy
Existing Bldgs:
602
2,100
'
# Spaces:
1472
2.200
Existing RBA:
16,9T6,737
2,000
..... _....�--
- . -... __ -...
Vacant
<3,964,580> 23%
1
Occupied:
13,012,157 77%
L,900
- -- -- - - -- —
(—
Leased:
13,271,668 78%
1.600
-- - - - -r- ---
availability
0
Vacant Avail:
3,834,448 23%
q L,2a0
- - - - -- - -- -' - -- ' --
Total Avail:
4,881,098 29%
a
H 1,000
I - --- --
DirectAvaiC
4,517,445 277•
900
'-- - -� - -�
- - -- - -- - -- '--- -- -- -- - ---
Sublet Avait
327,818 2l.
600
-- I
I - -- --- ---
Averageriin'ie:
20.4 Months
400
_ _ _
_.
_. _. + ___ ._..._._ _ -- -
leasing activity
200
- - -
teasing YTD:
493.967 3•l.
Net Absorp YTD:
(433,708) t3-
0
-.
0 -3
....
4 -6 7 -9 1012 13-15 16 -18 19 -21 22+
Mnthe Mriths 1411d1s Mnthc Meths Mnt'hs MMhs Meths
direct gross rent
Time on Market For current Available Space
Office range:
$8.50441.401yr
Office Avg:
$20.701yr
12JiMll
This copyrighted report wnt'ars resea.ch r—�d m CAW Cowrty & -di Management Wsion - 613185.
Resource: "Time on the Market," "Time Vacant," "Time on the Market." CoStar Research —
Licensed to Collier County Growth Management Division. www.costar.com Accessed
12/1/2011.
11/2012 1:54 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added
T-e)d stFik th h' t text to be dplf-tpd-
Bold text indicates a defined term
FISCAL &OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal impacts for new property owners may be
significant. An extended timeframe will allow more vacant buildings to become utilized without
having to incur renovation costs.
The fiscal and operational impacts for the County will remain the same. Based on CoStar's
economic figures, it is presumable that Code enforcement will have fewer buildings to monitor
as a reduced number of vacancies will fall into the 1 year time frame.
At the request of the Collier County Planning Commission on May 3, 2012, Staff reached out to
the Naples Area Board of Relators (NABOR) to access if the proposed time frames in the
amendment are adequate. Following a meeting with the President of NABOR, Mr. Poteet on
Monday, June 4, 2012, it was concluded that the 1 year time frame outlined in the amendment is
a sufficient grace period for a business to occupy a vacant building before the requirements to
install site features is necessary.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services, October 10, 2011;
Edited Dec, 9, 2011; Edited Dec. 13, 2011; Edited Dec. 19, 2011; May 21, 2012, June 11, 2012,
June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights -of -Way
2
3 A. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all new off - street parking or
4 other vehicle use areas. Existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions
5 of this Code shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the
6 vehicular use area is altered or expanded except for restriping of lots /drives, the building
7 square footage is changed, or the structure has been vacant for a period of 99days 1
8 year or more and a request for an occupational license to resume business is made.
9 These provisions shall apply to all developments with the exception of single - family,
10 two - family, mobile home dwelling unit, public utility ancillary system, and dwellings
11 on individually platted lots. Any appeal from an administrative determination relating to
12 these regulations shall be to the board of zoning appeals or equivalent. Prior to issuing
13 occupancy permits for new construction, implementation and completion of landscaping
14 requirements in off - street vehicular facilities shall be required. Where a conflict exists
15 between the strict application on this division and the requirements for the number of off -
16 street parking spaces or area of off - street loading facilities, the requirements of this
17 section shall apply.
18 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
19
20
21
22
23
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 06 03 Landscaping Reqs for Vehicular Use Areas
062612.docx Caroline Cilek 7/11/2012 1:54 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d 3 'L th h is ent te.h to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
4.06.02 Buffer Requirements
A. Applicability of buffer requirements. The buffering and screening shown in table 2.4
below shall be required under this section and shall apply to all new development.
Existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be
brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the vehicular use area is
altered or expanded Jexcept for restriping of lots /drivesl, the building square footage is
changed, or there has been a discontinuance of use for a period of 1 year 60
conseGutive .Jays or more and a request for an occupational license to resume business
is made.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
9.03.02 Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities
F. Discontinuance or destruction.
1. If any such nonconforming use ceases for any reason (except where
governmental action impedes access to the premises) for a period of more than
180 4as1 near, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the
regulations specified by the LDC for the district in which such land is located.
2. Notwithstanding the above definitions of discontinuance relative to a
nonconforming use of land or water or structure, where the use of land, water or
a structure has ceased for a period of more than 1 year nine+„ (90) Live
days, and where such property or use is deficient in the required amount of
paved, striped parking, including parking and access to the structure for the
disabled; water management facilities; landscaping; and other site improvements
as required in Chapter Four of the LDC, prior to the recommencement of any use
of land, water or structure, said deficiencies as may apply shall be remedied, to
the greatest extent possible given the physical constraints on the property, via
the appropriate administrative processes found in Chapter Ten, or as otherwise
required by the LDC.
3. When nonconforming use status applies to a major structure or structures, or to a
major structure or structures and premises in combination, removal or destruction
of the structure or structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land.
"Destruction" of the structure for purposes of this subsection is hereby defined as
damage to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost at
the time of the destruction. Upon removal or destruction as set out in this section,
the use of land and structures shall therefore conform to the regulations for the
district in which such land is located.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 06 03 Landscaping Reqs for Vehicular Use Areas
062612.docx Caroline Cilek 7/11/2012 1:54 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T x♦ ntriketh.e Unh is ourFent text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management
AUTHOR: Diana Compagnone, Sign Plan Reviewer
DEPARTMENT: Plans Review and Inspections, Operations & Regulatory Management
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification
5.06.02 Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts
5.06.03 Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses
5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts
5.06.05 Exemptions from These Regulations
CHANGE: The proposed amendment seeks to amend the following sign regulations.
Within subsection 5.06.02 B.I Ld, the proposed amendment addresses an error made during the
2009 rewrite. The intent of the sign code is to exempt only single family and duplex lots from a
permit requirement for a flagpole in excess of 15 feet in height. The amendment claries that other
land uses must acquire a permit for a flagpole, regardless of height.
Within subsection 5.06.03 A.2, the proposed amendment seeks to correct an inaccurate
subsection reference.
Within subsection 5.06.04 C, the proposed amendment addresses two errors made during the
2009 rewrite. The intent of the Code is to prohibit accent lighting (accent striping, accent
banding, etc.) on all structures, including signs. The rewrite inaccurately established that accent
lighting was only prohibited on signs. In subsection 5.06.04 C.9, the rewrite also incorrectly
established a limit on the size of a parcel for a real estate signs. The intent of the sign code is not
to limit a real estate sign based on parcel size.
The proposed amendment seeks to amend a conflict between subsection 5.06.11 A.4.f and
subsection 5.06.04 D.1 and 5.06.04 E.2 -3. The current language in subsections 5.06.04 D.1 and
5.06.04 E.2 -3 allows for real estate and commercial ground signs to be 10 feet in height and
constructed without a building permit. However, subsection 5.06.11 A.4.f establishes that all
signs over 8 feet in height need a building permit. The amendment proposes changing the current
10 in feet to 8 feet in height in subsections 5.06.04 D.1 and 5.06.04 E.2 -3 and maintaining the
current building permit standards.
The proposed amendment addresses an error in subsection 5.06.00 F. Ld made during the 2009
rewrite. Subsection 5.06.00 F.1 illustrates the subsection is referencing "pole or ground signs."
Adding "ground signs" to 5.06.00 F. Ld clarifies the regulation is intended for both sign types.
The proposed amendment to subsection 5.06.00 F.4.a clarifies that a unit of a building, such as a
unit within a shopping center is subject to the wall sign standards.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle PAmendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUG—errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
fh Fough us f i d 4 be deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
The proposed amendment to subsection 5.06.00 F.4.e seeks to correct an error made during the
2009 rewrite. The proposed language, "non- reflective" was included in the prior sign code
standard.
The proposed amendment to subsection 5.06.00 F. 9 seeks to codify the standard practice to
allow on- premise directional wall signage to exceed 4 feet in height. On- premises directional
signs can be no greater than 6 square feet and 4 feet in height when constructed from the ground.
The new language permits the on- premise directional sign to exceed 4feet in height, a limit
designed for freestanding on- premise directional signs.
The proposed amendment to subsection 5.06.00 F. 9.a addresses an error made during the 2009
rewrite. Language from the residential directional sign section was inadvertently utilized for the
commercial directional sign section. As written, the regulation allows for signs to be in the
public right -of -way and this is not the intent nor permitted by the Code.
The proposed addition of the sandwich/sidewalk sign regulation, in subsection 5.06.00 F.14, was
directed by the Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 2010. The language has been
modified to address the number of signs, size, structure of the sign, the placement of the sign in
relation to the business, and when the signs can be utilized.
The proposed addition to subsection 5.06.05 A.1 provides a 6 foot standard height for
prohibitory signs. The height limit is designed to be consistent with other freestanding sign
standards.
The proposed amendment seeks to amend subsections 5.06.05 A.1 -3 which regulates signs and
actions that are exempt from the permit requirements of the Code. The proposed changes to
prohibitory signs provide a standard for height and the changes to the stadium sign section
outlines size and sign placement.
REASON: Reasons have been included in the Change section above.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a comprehensive review of the sign code,
section 5.06.00, during the next LDC Amendment cycle. A review of the section will result in
recommendations to improve several provisions of this section. Currently, we have a `one -size
fits' all approach for several sign code sections. For example, the on- premise directional sign
section allows for four (4) directional signs and could, instead, establish the number of
directional signs based on the size of the parcel or development. Another example is the wall
sign section which allows one (1) sign per street frontage (with one exception) per business,
regardless of the number of services and/or buildings the business operates. A stepped approach
would base the number of signs on the number of services and the square footage of the
2
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC_ errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text t 'L th a eh i n nU rre deleted. nt text to he _
Bold text indicates a defined term
buildings. A full analysis will provide recommendations to improve the nexus between signage
and development patterns.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Diana Compagnone, Sign Review, on October 24, 2011.
Edited by Caroline Cilek, February 14, 2012, April 26, 2012, May 3, 2012, May 9, 2012,
June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
5.06.02 Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts
* * * * * * * * * * *
B. Applicability
11. Flags & Flagpoles. Residential properties including Estates, Con & Agricultural
zoned districts with residential uses that have been issued a certificate of
occupancy are permitted up to three flags on a single flag- pole.
a. On single - family and duplex lots a flagpole shall not exceed 30 feet in
height above finished grade or extend more than 20 feet from any
building to which it is are attached.
b. On all other residentially zoned parcels a flagpole shall not exceed 35 feet
in height above finished grade or extend more than 20 feet from any
building to which it is attached.
C. Residential developments at least 10 acres in size having multiple
entrances, may have up to 3 flagpoles at each entrance that provides
ingress /egress off an arterial or collector road, provided that there is a
minimum 300 -foot separation between entrances.
i. Four additional flagpoles may be permitted within a residential
development provided that the flagpoles are not visible to
motorists along any frontage roadways.
d. Flagpoles in eXGesc of 15 {° °f shall have the flagpole foundation or
flagpole attachment design /construction plan signed and sealed by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida. The
design /construction plan shall indicate the maximum flag area that the
flagpole is capable of supporting, with the following exception:
i Single family and duplex lots with a flagpole less than 15 feet in
height. No permit required.
e. All flagpoles shall have a minimum five foot setback from all property
lines.
f. All flagpoles that are permitted must display their permit number at the
base of the flagpole in, at minimum, 'h inch numerals.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
5.06.03 Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses
A. Applicability. These requirements apply to signs for institutional use facilities where
signs are informational and contain no commercial message.
1. Signage for these facilities is exempt from the requirements provided in section
5.06.02 13.8. Conditional uses within residential and agricultural districts.
2. In addition, the number of signs, location and distance restrictions per section
5.06.04 € F. shall not apply to institutional use signage.
3. Applications for such sign permits must be applied for according to the
3
l:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC_errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Ake1�L. is t text 1 be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 requirements of section 5.06.11 of the LDC.
2 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
3 5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts
4 * * *
5 C. Development Standards
6 * * *
7 3. The use of accent lighting as defined by the Land Development Code is
8 prohibited. erg- s+gr�s.
9 *
10 9. No signs shall be permitted on a vacant lot or parcel, unless a building permit or
11 clearing permit has been issued, with the exception of real estate signs_ wh+Eh
12 may be alleooed on rnols to th R 10 nr
13 * * *
14 D. Real estate signs shall be permitted in nonresidential districts subject to the following:
15 1. One ground sign with a maximum height of 4-0 8 feet or wall sign with a
16 maximum sign area of 12 square feet per street frontage for each parcel, or lot
17 less than 1 acre in size. No building permit is required.
18 2. One ground sign with a maximum height of 40 8 feet or wall sign with a
19 maximum area of 32 square feet per street frontage for each parcel, or lot of 1-
20 10 acres in size. No building permit is required.
21 * *
22 E. Construction signs. Signs may be erected and located upon a site under construction.
23 Such signs shall be securely built, and allowed under the following:
24 1. Signs shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property line.
25 2. One ground sign with a maximum height of 8 40 feet or wall sign with a
26 maximum sign area of 12 square feet is allowed within each front yard for each
27 parcel less than one acre in size. No building permit is required.
28 3. One ground sign with a maximum height of 8 4-0 feet or wall sign with a
29 maximum sign area of 32 square feet is allowed within each front yard for each
30 parcel 1 -10 acres in area. No building permit is required.
31 * * *
32 F. On- premise signs.
33 * *
34 1. Pole or ground signs.
35 *
36 d. Pole signs and, where applicable, around signs shall provide a pole
37 cover no less than 50 percent of the width of the sign, with architectural
38 design features including colors and or materials common to those used
39 in the design of the building to which the sign is accessory
40 * *
41 4. Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs. One wall, mansard, canopy or awning
42 sign shall be permitted for each single- occupancy parcel, or for each unit in a
43 multiple- occupancy parcel. End units within shopping centers and multiple -
44 occupancy parcels, or single occupancy parcels where there is double frontage
45 on a public right -of -way, shall be allowed 2 signs, but such signs shall not be
46 placed on one wall. Retail businesses with a floor area of larger than 25,000
47 square feet and a front wall length of more than 200 linear feet, are allowed 3
48 wall signs; however, the combined area of those signs shall not exceed the
49 maximum allowable display area for signs by this Code.
50 a. The maximum allowable display area for signs shall not be more than 20
51 percent of the total square footage of the visual fagade unit including
52 windows of the building or unit to which the sign will be attached and shall
4
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC_ errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d F 'L• th a d! h is e.nt te.h to he delete
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 not, in any case, exceed 150 square feet for buildings or units up to
2 24,999 square feet, 200 square feet for buildings or units between
3 25,000 and 59,999 square feet and 250 square feet for buildings over
4 60,000 square feet in area.
5
6 e. In addition, any non - illuminated, non - reflective signs located in a window
7 shall not exceed 25 percent of each window area. No building permit
8 required.
9 i. Signs located in windows shall not be illuminated in any manner
10 with the following exception:
11 a) One sign per business establishment that is located in a
12 window may have 2.25 square feet of illuminated signage.
14 9. On- premises directional signs may be permitted within nonresidential zoning
15 districts intended to facilitate the movement of pedestrians and vehicles within
16 the site upon which such signs are posted. On- premises directional signs shall
17 not exceed 6 square feet in area. On- premises directional signs shall not exceed
18 4 feet in height unless located on the side of the a building. On- premises
19 directional signs shall be limited to 2 at each vehicle access point and a
20 maximum of 4 internal to the development. Internal signs are not intended to be
21 readily visible from the road.
22 a. Directional signs located internal to the subdivision or development shall
23 maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the property line. the
24
25 b. Directional signs may be combined into a single sign not to exceed 6 feet
26 in height and 64 square feet in area. Such signs shall require a building
27 permit.
29 14 Sandwich Board /Sidewalk Signs may be permitted subject the following
30 conditions:
31 a One nonilluminated sandwich board /sidewalk sign is allowed per
32 business establishment.
33 b The sign must be placed on the private property and within 10 feet
34 of the front door of the business or within a designated outdoor
35 eating area Signs shall allow a 3 foot passage way for pedestrian
36 accessibility and shall not block access to an entrance.
37 c The size of the sign shall be no more than 30 inches wide and 42
38 inches in height. The sign must be weighted at the base to provide
39 stability. A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign.
40 d The sign must be moved inside the business when the business is
41 closed.
42 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
43 5.06.05 Exemptions from These Regulations
44 The following signs and actions are exempt from the permit requirements of this Code, and shall
45 be permitted in all districts subject to the limitations set forth below:
46 A. Signs authorized to be displayed by law or by governmental order, rule or regulation.
47 1. Prohibitory signs (e.g., no dumping, no trespassing) 3 square feet in size or less
48 and no more than 6 ft in height unless mounted to a building may be allowed
49 without a permit.
50 2. Reasonable repairs and maintenance.
5
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisionsl5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC_errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d _triketh Fo gh is 4 d t h deleted,
�o zv- cc- vc:�ccccr
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 3. Signs located on fences or walls surrounding athletic fields or within sports
2 arenas, stadiums and the like not to exceed 32 square feet in size per side per
3 sign. Signs shall be oriented along the fence or wall to face the fields(s) or
4 playing area, and away from any adjacent public or private roads
5 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 06 00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC_ errors of omission
071612.docx Diana Compagnone 7/16/2012 9:21:06 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board Directed
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T .h n4riLethm..nh is euFFent te.h te he deleted._
Bold text indicates a defined term
AUTHOR: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager and Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth
Management Division
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division, Impact Fee Administration
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.07 C. Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy
CHANGE: Removing specific references to amount of estimated Transportation Impact Fees
required to be paid to obtain a certificate of public facility adequacy as such provisions are
contained in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact fee Ordinance), as referenced in this section of the LDC, and are
subject to change at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners.
REASON: Removes duplicate provisions and the potential for conflict between regulations
caused by Board directed changes to the calculated amount and/or timing of payments of
estimated Transportation Impact Fees.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Administration
on October 27, 2011, Edited Caroline Cilek, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy
C. Certificate of public facility adequacy.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. General.
a. Payment of road impact fees to obtain a certificate of adequate public
facilities.
i. This section is to be read in coniunction with Section 74-302(h) of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances
ii. A five year #ervmneraFy certificate of public facility adequacy (COA) shall be
issued concurrent with the approval of the next to occur final local
development order. °-T t the - tirne -a 4etnpsr-aryeerFtifisate of publiG faGi'ity
...d..... ....... ... ; --.. -A 7110% ..F #h.. #ho imr»n#
i
LIDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1Wmendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 fee Fate in -eff the- time -of the - pre - pproa', letter Will be due upon
2 payment of the estimated road impact fees in accordance with the
3 provisions of Section 74- 302(h) of the Collier County Code of Laws and
4 Ordinances. Such payments will be and deposited into the applicable
5 impact fee trust fund. The funds will then be immediately available for
6 appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners for transportation
7 capital improvements, except that for those non - residential (i.e., typically
8 commercial or industrial) developments otherwise required to obtain
9 approval of an SDP prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicants
10 for a final subdivision plat may elect to:
11 a) Comply with the applicable regulations of this section as to one or
12 more of the lot(s) of the FSP and obtain a COA specifically for just
13 that lot or lots at a specified intensity of development; or
14 b) Delay submitting a TIS and obtaining a COA for all of the proposed
15 lots, or just those remaining lots not then already complying with this
16 section, until a required SDP is applied for and the terms of this
17 section are then complied with including payment of estimated
18 transportation impact fees.
19 The subject development is not allocated any available road system
20 capacity or considered eligible to be vested for transportation
21 concurrency purposes, however, until approval of a TIS, payment of
22 estimated Transportation Impact Fees in accordance with this subsection,
23 and issuance of a COA in accordance with Chapters 3, 6, and 10 of this
24 Code and Rule 9J- 5.0055, F.A.C.
25 Final calculation of impact fees due will be based on the intensity of
26 development actually permitted for construction and the impact fee
27 schedule in effect at the time of the building permit(s) application, such
28 that additional impact fees may be due prior to issuance of the building
29 permit(s). The balaRGe of tFansper-tatiGn impaGt fees shall be paid in f
30 additional annual installments of 20%,
31 20 nn „men+
32 iii. Impact fees for all other Category "A” capital improvements will be paid at
33 the time of issuance of building permits at the rate then currently applicable.
34 At the time a tempaFaFy GGA is issued, and the fiFSt 200% of the estimat
35 payment is paid, the appliGant will deposit with the County suffiGient
36
37 Commissioners, feF a term of four aMGURt equal to the o
38 pay
39 iv. Upon payment of 100% of estimated impaEA frees, the GeFtifiGtttG
40 will be issued in perpetuity and the dediGated seGUFity will be released. No
41 fuFtheF advanGe payments will be due GRGe aGtual read impaGt fees are
42 paid equal to the initial estimated imn n+ fees.
43 V. OnGe the initial 20% of the estimated payment has been
44 paid, the seGUfity
45 issued, fai!UFe to submit the FemainiRg additional installments in aGGGFda
46 with the PFOV;SiE)RS Of this subseGtOOR shall result On the fellowinT.
47 ) !Ines failure to GUFe fGIIGWiRg 10 days wFitteR
demand,
48
49
50 fer review. bse t the Board fi dinn a nen +'en 1 n'rn, in + nec -
51 � '
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 )Amendment Revisions )Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
KI
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1Wmendment RevisionsWuthor Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
tr'I.ethrough 'c text is he deleted,
Text GUFFeRt
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
revoked.
2
vi. For these developments that have seGUred a three year GOA, in ard
3
extend the vesting period for an additional five dears the balance of +ho
4
, based en the ;FnpaGt fee rate in e
5
pre approval letter, must he paid in fide additional annual
at the time of the p
pre
6
being made P rcer y —
installments of G0 0— with rt'l first !
7
i�payment tt[hTh'la�e t
expiration nfthe three year Ger}rieaae. Cor these developments
8
have se UFed^yhtpp`year Gei�� •.� }e that has expired in order to evtenrl
9
the vesting Periord far an additional five years, the -balance of es +ima +e rt
10
tr n per+ tine impact fee_ based an the impact fee rate in effect _at the time
11
ef the pre approval letter must be paid in five additienal annual installme
12
of 20%, with the first payment eing made within 30 days of the effecti�ta
13
date of this Or`-0in RGe. At the -time firjt2(10� the estimated -paymrr°L- rnrti--�r�
14
paid, the applicant will deposit with the GOURty suffic;ierlt seGUFity, the fe
15
of whiGh has been appFGved by the Board of Geunty Commissioners,
16
term of four years, ' ° payment. Upon paym
17
ef 100% ce of the estimated act the certificate will he
�roilrrrctc �� �rr�v�rmTGCic.�v
p
18
fuu
sued in perpetuity and the dedicated security will he released. No further
19
advanGe payments will he due once actual rear) impact fees are pair= °quad
20
to the bbalance -nf thv'r- wTr°e estimTrated tFanspeFtatien iii paG ice$. c nrcv�e- .hie —I. -
21
additional annual installment has been paid, the s eGUr+ty has been
22
deposited with the County, and a tempeFaFy GOA has been issued, fai
23
to submit t 'n FdanGe with the provisions subsection
- �IT,Tt-- payfx�et� t�Truc�oruGrTGCtltltlTr- n'r�rovr.��i�$�it-- tFii���TVrr
24
shall result in the fella,wlina•
25
, the County
26
will exercise its payment rights to the dedicated security; and
27
b) The matter will be referred te the Board of County Gerrimissioners
28
far review. ohJei � nal circumstance
,
29
the temporary eeFtifiEa +te of publiG faGir +„ adequaaGy sal; be
30
revoked.
31
vii. Of -se +s far read impact+ fees assessed to building permits for impact feet.
32
paid in acGorddance with this subsection as well as any remaining balanne
33
to the original three year certifi
r�tera#s- related- N- zT,��r�m��I,- ���Irreate be
34
equally to the new or remaining „nits or square footage and will run with +he
35
subject land
36
viii This nrovi inn is to he rear) in cnni„nctian with section 74_302(h) of
37
•
38
b. Annual Traffic /PUD Monitoring Report. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) that
39
are less than one hundred (100) percent "built- out ", must submit an annual report
40
detailing their progress toward build -out of the development. The traffic report
41
shall be submitted as part of the annual PUD monitoring report on or before the
42
anniversary date of the PUD's approval by the Board per LDC section 10.02.13
43
F.
44
i. The written report shall be submitted to, and be in a format established by
45
the County Manager, or designee, unless payment -in -lieu is provided
46
pursuant to section 10.02.13 F.,
47
ii. The report shall provide any revised estimates to the initial build -out
48
schedule and any resulting effect on traffic impact projections, along with
49
any progress towards completing any developer contribution requirements.
50
iii. The traffic reporting requirements are the responsibility of the entity or
51
entities that:
KI
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1Wmendment RevisionsWuthor Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
kethr ^h is e ttext F be deleted.
Bold text indicates defined term
1 a. Retains the development rights to any density or intensity; or
2 b. Has obtained a new certificate of occupancy since the previous
3 monitoring period.
4 iv. Traffic /PUD Monitoring Reports which are more than thirty (30) days past
5 due will result in the suspension of final local development order issuance
6 for the PUD or portion of the PUD pending receipt of the report from the
7 responsible entity.
8 V. The County Manager or designee may waive the traffic counts for the
9 annual monitoring period for the entire PUD or portions of the PUD under
10 the following conditions:
11 a) If portions of the PUD have remaining un -built approved density or
12 intensity that produces less than twenty -five (25) PM peak trips,
13 b) If the PUD or portions of the PUD are completely built out or are still
14 vacant
15 c) If there has been no activity in portions of the PUD since the previous
16 monitoring report.
17 vi. A notarized statement is required to request a traffic count waiver stating
18 one (1) of the reasons above.
19 vii. The PUD owner(s) "the Developer, Home Owners Association, Master
20 Association or similar entity" may petition the Board of County
21 Commissioners to relinquish the development rights to any un -built units
22 and declare themselves "built -out" in order to satisfy all reporting
23 requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for any documentation
24 required to verify the status of the PUD when requesting a waiver or a
25 determination of "built -out" status.
26 c. Where the proposed development has been issued final subdivision plat
27 approval or final site development plan approval, a certificate of public facility
28 adequacy shall be obtained prior to approval of the next development order
29 required for the proposed development.
30 d. Assessment and application of transportation impact fees and surrender of
31 certificate of public facility adequacy. Upon notice by facsimile or other approved
32 electronic format that an application for a final local development order and a
33 certificate have been approved and prior to expiration of the temporary, 1 -year
34 capacity reservation previously secured by the applicant upon the County's
35 acceptance of the TIS pursuant to section 10.02.07 C.4.f., an applicant may pick
36 up the certificate upon payment of the estimated transportation impact fees due
37 in accordance with section 10.02.07 C.1.a. SUGh estimates shall he based the.
U
38 GUrFeRtly appFGved transpertatiOR impact fee rate °Ghedu;e-. If the certificate is not
39 picked up within the timeline set forth above and the applicable estimated
40 transportation impact fees paid, the application will be deemed denied and the
41 certificate will be voided. In such a case, the applicant shall then be required to
42 apply for an extension of the capacity reservation in accordance with section
43 10.02.07 C.4.f. If the size of the residential units is not known at the time of
44 payment, the transportation impact fees for residential development will be
45 estimated using the fee based on the mid -range housing size. Road impact fees
46 paid to obtain a certificate of adequate public facilities are non - refundable after
47 payment and FeGelpt issuance of the certificate of public facility adequacy
48 certificate.
49 Net lat�han 45 days priel: to the due date of the —next —te e$^ r annual
50 installment foF GeFfi,T^ tes issued sequent to the effeGtiye -date of this
51 amendment, er not later than 90 days pFier te the expiFation ef the 3 yeaF peried
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h ntFiketh.eu nh is ent te)d to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
hell notify the then nUrrent GWRer via nertified mail of the amol Int due onto
in .,,.n„rraRGe with sen +ien 10 02 07 G I.a. If the estimated transportation impact
fee account becomes depleted, the developer shall pay the currently applicable
transportation impact fee for each building permit in full prior to its issuance. In
the event that upon build -out of the development estimated transportation
impact fees are still unspent, the remaining balance of such estimated fees may
be transferred to another approved project within the same, or adjacent,
transportation impact fee district, provided any vested entitlements associated
with the unspent and transferred transportation impact fees are relinquished and
the certificate of public facility adequacy is modified to delete those entitlements.
2. Rules of general applicability for certificate of public facility adequacy. Certificates of
public adequacy issued for roads under section 10.02.07 C.1. of this Code will remain
in effect until the expiration date of the Ger+ifi,.,+ provided provisions of subsection
10.02.07 C.1. d. of this Code are met and that annual mid -year monitoring reports are
filed which comply with section 10.02.07 C.1. of this Code and all developer
requirements established during zoning or as part of a developer contribution
agreement are completed or are being constructed consistent with the current
development infrastructure improvement construction commitment schedule.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
41
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 -2 Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy_impact fees 062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:23:39 AM
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board Directed
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text 4 'i. tH D h i1.. ent text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
AUTHOR: Jamie French, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management
DEPARTMENT: Operations and Regulatory Management
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.01.02 Development Orders Required
CHANGE: To include an Early Construction Authorization (ECA) provision within the LDC.
This would allow limited building construction to occur prior to an approved site development
plan (SDP), site development plan amendment (SDPA) or site improvement plan (SIP) in certain
situations and at the owner's risk.
To apply for an ECA permit, the applicant will need to meet the following set of criteria:
1. A form provided by the Collier County Growth Management Division is submitted that
clearly states the developer understands that all such preliminary construction activities
are at his /her own risk and shall abide by the time frame and conditions identified in
subsection 10.01.02 C.
2. The zoning designation allows the use.
3. The proposed vegetation removal complies with Section 3.05.05.0, if applicable.
4. The site development plan, improvement plan or amendment application has been
submitted and reviewed by the Land Development Services and the first set of comments
posted.
5. The building permit application and plans have been submitted, reviewed, and approved
for the portion of work to be authorized for the permit by the Collier County Building
Department. Subsequent phased permit approvals may be granted.
6. The building application and plans have been submitted, reviewed, and approved for the
portion of work to be authorized for the permit by the Office of the Fire Code Official
and under the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Subsequent phased permit approvals may be
granted.
7. Posting of a bond or other surety acceptable to the County, to ensure that any
construction improvements will be removed if the development does not receive a final
local development order. The bond or surety shall be in an amount equal to an estimated
cost prepared by the developer and approved by the County Manager or designee to
remove the improvements granted by the ECA pen-nit.
The ECA may be granted once the SDP, SDPA, or SIP has received the initial review with
comments by the Planning and Zoning Department. To expand upon the proposed amendment,
the review period by the Planning and Zoning Department could be conducted in fifteen (15)
business days, rather than the standard thirty (30) business days. To offer a review service
guarantee, a refund policy for the Planning and Zoning Department can be established. If the
initial review is not completed within fifteen (15) business days then a percentage of the review
fee would be refunded to the applicant. To accomplish this service guarantee, the Collier County
1
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 0102 Development Orders Req_Early Construction
070612.docx 7/9/2012 10:24 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
Fee Schedule and would need to be amended and reflect a similar refund policy as the Building
Permit Review section (pg. 16, II A). „
Limitations on the construction activity are included in the proposed amendment to control for
unapproved site improvements. Construction may commence up to the first building code
inspection, subject to the time limitations outlined in the Florida Building code, section 105.4.1
Permit intent, which states that "Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work
authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work
authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time
the work is commenced." The bond or surety shall become effective if the applicant does not
receive an approved site plan from the Planning and Zoning Department. Site improvements
shall be removed if final development order is denied by the County.
REASON: On May 25, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners authorized the issuance of a
building permit prior to the approval of the site plan for the Florida Specialties, Inc. expansion
project in Immokalee. The project met the Fast Track Program criteria, an incentive based
program managed by the Economic Development Council (EDC), which allowed the review
process to be expedited. Following the closing of the EDC, the Fast Track program is no longer
an active incentive program. However, the County continues to make economic development and
creating a business friendly environment a priority.
The Executive Summary for the Florida Specialties project stated that an LDC Amendment was
needed to modify Section 10.02.03 to grant other businesses the option for an expedited review
process. At present, LDC Section 10.01.02 prohibits development or development related
activities prior to an approved development order, except where an Early Work Authorization
(EWA) has been approved. An EWA may be obtained for specified site preparation and
infrastructure construction provided certain criteria are met. As mentioned in the Florida
Specialties Executive Summary, the proposed permit process is modeled after the Fast Track
Program and will allow projects that meet the specified criteria apply for the ECA permit and
begin limited construction prior to an approved final local development order.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed amendment provides an opportunity
for qualified projects to receive an expedited review process which saves time and money for the
developer. The proposed amendment targets new and expanding businesses within the county to
support job growth and creation.
Fiscal and operational impacts to the county will need to be evaluated. Additional fees, if any,
need to be determined and included in the Collier County Fee Schedule.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:
Florida Building Code: 105.12 Work starting before permit issuance, 105.13 Phased permit
approval; Collier County Building Blocks — Procedure for Early Work Authorization Per 2004
FBC, Section 105.12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 01 02 Development Orders Req_Early Construction
070612.docx 7/9/2012 10:24 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T .h { 'L ♦hr..,,eh n n ,rre nt te)d to be deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: January 6, 2012; Edited February 21, 2012; March 5,
2012; March 28, 2012; April 17, 2012, May 9, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 10.01.02 Development Orders Required
2
3 A. Development Order Required. No on -site or off -site development or development
4 related activities, including site preparation or infrastructure construction, will be allowed
5 prior to approval of the otherwise required development order or development permit
6 including, but not limited to: SDP, SIP, Construction Drawings, or clearing_ permit S6P,
7 except where early work authorization or early construction authorization has been
8 approved.
9
10 C Early Construction Authorization (ECA). An ECA permit may grant the applicant a
11 conditional building permit prior to development order approval subiect to the criteria,
12 limitations and procedure established in this section.
13 1 The ECA may be approved by the County Manager or their designee if the
14 following criteria are met:
15 a A form provided by the Collier County Growth Management Division is
16 submitted that clearly states the developer understands that all such
17 preliminary construction activities are at his /her own risk and shall abide
18 by the submittal time frame identified in subsection 10.01.02 C.3.
19 b. The zoning designation allows the use.
20 c The proposed vegetation removal complies with Section 3.05.05.0, if
21 applicable.
22 d The site development plan improvement plan or amendment application
23 has been submitted and reviewed and the first review comments are
24 op sted.
25 e The building permit application and plans have been submitted, reviewed
26 and the portion of work to be authorized by the permit has been approved
27 by the Collier County Building Department.
28 f The portion of work to be authorized for the permit has been approved by
29 the Office of the Fire Code Official and under the Florida Fire Prevention
30 Code.
31 g Posting of a bond or other surety acceptable to the County, naming the
32 County as the insured to make certain that any construction
33 improvements for all phases will be removed if the development does
34 not receive the necessary final development order approval. The bond or
35 surety shall be in an amount equal to an estimated cost prepared by the
36 developer and approved by the County Manager or designee to remove
37 improvements granted by the ECA permit. If phased permits are
38 approved the initial bond or surety shall be increased to cover the
39 construction authorized by the phased permit or a subsequent bond or
40 surety shall be posted.
41 2. Limitations on construction activity.
42 a The ECA permit allows approved construction to commence up to the first
43 building code inspection. Construction may continue following phased or
44 complete building permit approval by the Collier County Building
45 Department and Office of the Fire Code Official. All construction is subject
3
is \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 0102 Development Orders Req_Early Construction
070612.docx 7/9/2012 10:24 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
y zzv- vu�c.�v v
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 to the time limitations identified in section 105.4.1 Permit intent of the
2 Florida Building Code.
3 b. the site development plan improvement plan or amendment is denied
4 by the County, then the developer shall remove any improvements
5 permitted by the ECA's conditional building permit within thirty (30) days
6 of the denial. Failure to remove the improvements within thirty (30) days
7 will result In the forfeiture of the Bond or surety provided for in 10 01 02
8 C.1.g.
9 3. Procedure.
10 a. The ECA permit application shall be reviewed by the Collier County
11 Planning and Zoning Department the Building Department and the Office
12 of the Fire Official through a combined submission process
13 b._ Failure to receive an approved site plan prior to the expiration of the
14 building permit shall result in the forfeiture of the bond or surety provided
15 for In 10.01.02 Q. 1.q.
16 # # # # # # # # # ii a 4�
4
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 01 02 Development Orders Req_Early Construction
070612.docx 7/9/2012 10:24 AM
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board Directed
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h stFikethmugh is nt text to he .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
AUTHOR: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Plan Manager and Laurie Beard, Plainer, PUD
Monitoring, Land Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.13 PUD Monitoring (Part I)
CHANGE: Currently, PUD property owners file an annual report regarding their development
commitments until the PUD is completely constructed and all obligation of the PUD Master Plan
are fulfilled. The proposed amendment allows property owner(s) to file a PUD report for only the
portions of the PUD which are not built -out. Property owners who own portions of the PUD
which are built -out will not file an annual report.
Further, it is recommended the proposed LD
Report (Part II), is combined with this section,
monitoring requirements.
amendment, Annual Traffic /PUD Monitoring
10.02.13, allowing for consolidation of all PUD
REASON: The Board of County Commissioners discussed several proposed LDC amendments
presented by Code Enforcement at the August 27, 2011 Board meeting. The Board supported the
proposed change to the PUD Monitoring section of the LDC which enables property owners to
avoid the expense of filing a PUD Monitoring Report if their portion of the PUD is built -out.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal and operational impacts for the referenced
PUD property owners is reduced as a monitoring report will no longer be required.
Fiscal and operational impacts for the County include reduced staff time from the likely decrease
in the number of annual PUD reviews submitted.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 10.02.07. C. Lb Annual Traffic /PUD Monitoring
Report (Part II)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land
Development Services, October 10, 2011; Edited March 22, 2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 13 F PUD Monitoring_Part 1—monitoring reports
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:25:12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text stFik ethre. ugh is t i d I be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
F. Monitoring Requirements.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The monitoring report must be prepared in a County approved format as an
affidavit executed by the property owner(s) attesting that the information
contained in the monitoring report is factually correct and complete. These
reports are to be submitted annually, on or before each anniversary of the date
said PUD was approved by the Board until the PUD is completely constructed
and all commitments in the PUD document/master plan are met (built out). A
track or parcel of a PUD that has completed construction within that tract may be
considered built -out and not responsible for annual monitoring reports as long as
all PUD commitments within that tract are complete This built -out status does
not exempt the tract owner(s) from commitments applicable to the entire PUD
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 13 F PUD Monitoring_Part I_monitoring reports
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:25:12 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text i iketh FOUgh is n .r. ent text to he deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association and Board Directed
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures
CHANGE: The amendment proposes to increase the timeframe to commence a conditional use
from three (3) years to five (5) years and to allow for one (1), two (2) year extension of the
conditional use permit. This change would apply to all conditional use applications, including all
zoning districts, overlay districts, PUDs, etc. This is not an exhaustive list, but rather exemplary.
REASON: The proposed amendment grants the applicant a total of seven (7) years to commence
a conditional use, allowing a greater time period for the site plan design, review, to obtain other
pen-nits, and to prepare financial affairs. The review by County Staff will assure the conditions
and intent has not changed since the initial application.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal and operational impacts for the applicants
include a greater time frame to commence the use and may reduce the time dedicated to
submitting extension materials and public hearings.
Fiscal and operation impacts for the County include reducing the staff time needed to review
conditional use extensions and re- reviewing previously approved conditional uses.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Related codes include the Southwest Florida
Regional Water Management District regulations; all relevant State of Florida and Collier
County building codes and statutes will apply.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The Growth Management Plan and Future
Land Use Map are consulted for the initial approval and will continue to be consulted for each
review.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land
Development Service on October 6, 2011. Edited January 23, 2012, March 14, 2012, June 1,
2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 08 00 Conditions and safeguards_ conditional use
extension 062712.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text g .mac- cvvverc:cv-
Bold text indicates a defined term
10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures
E. Conditions and safeguards. In recommending approval of any conditional use,
the Planning Commission may also recommend appropriate conditions and
safeguards in conformity with this Zoning Code. Violation of such conditions and
safeguards, which are made a part of the terms under which the conditional use
is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Zoning Code.
1. Any conditional use shall expire 3 five 5 years from the date of grant, if
by that date the use for which the conditional use was granted has not
been commenced.
2. Any conditional use shall expire 1 year following the discontinuance of
the use for which the conditional use was granted unless the site was
improved and /or structures built for the specific uses approved by a
conditional use and which cannot be converted to a use permitted by
the underlying zoning designation of the site.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a- maxi -ef one two 2 year
extensions of an approved conditional use upon written request of the
petitioner.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 )Amendment Revisions )Author Revisions\10 08 00 Conditions and safeguards_ conditional use
extension 062712.docx
Co �e-r Go-rrYity
Growth Management Division
C7
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d StFikethm gh is ent te)d to he .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Enviromnental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Allow archaeological or historical sites to be counted towards the minimum native
vegetation retention requirement for the County.
REASON: The GMP allows archaeological or historical sites to qualify for any open space
requirements mandated by development regulations, which would include areas of retained
native vegetation. Where such sites do not contain native vegetation or are authorized to be
excavated by the BCC, criteria would need to be included in the LDC to address how these areas
would be restored, if they were counted towards the minimum native vegetation retention
requirement for the County. Restoring these sites with native vegetation to allow them to count
towards the minimum native vegetation retention requirement would have to approved, by the
BCC as part of a PUD rezone.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed amendment will have little or no
fiscal or operational impact on the County. Costs associated with management of preserves
containing archaeological or historical sites should be similar to those without archaeological or
historical sites. Additional cost may be incurred by applicants in having to restore archaeological
or historical sites which have been excavated. Allowing archaeological or historical sites to count
towards the minimum native vegetation retention requirement will increase the amount of land
available for development, if the archaeological or historical sites were required to be preserved
otherwise.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 2.03.07 E (Historical and Archaeological Sites
(H)) LDC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed LDC amendment is consistent
with GMP CCME Policy 11.1.2 in that conservation of archaeological sites shall qualify for any
open space requirements mandated by development regulations. Specifically Policy 11. 1.2 states
the following.
Policy 11.1.2:
There shall be no loss of historic or archaeological resources on County -owned
property and historic resources on private property shall be protected, preserved
or utilized in a manner that will allow their continued existence. Conservation
techniques shall include at a minimum:
a. During the development permit review process, historic or archaeological
sites shal be identified and shown on the site plans;
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Tit.k„thr gh is ttext i
Bold text indicates a defined term
b. The County shall establish waivers for non - safety related set back
requirements and site planning requirements in order to accommodate
historic structures or historic sites within a proposed development;
C. As an alternative to preserving archaeological sites, the Owner may
allow excavation of the site by the State of Florida Division of Historic
Resources or the approved alternate prior to development. Should a site
be scientifically excavated, then development may proceed without
preserving the site;
d. The County shall accept donations of historic or archaeological sites;
e. Archaeological sites that are to be preserved may be utilized to satisfy
required setbacks, buffer strips or open space up to the maximum area
required by development regulations. Conservation of such historic or
archaeological sites shall qualify for any open space requirements
mandated by development regulations.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: October 27, 2011. Amended December 16, 2011,
March 22, 2012, May 4, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
2
3 H. Preserve standards.
4 1. Design standards.
5
6 e. Created preserves. Although the primary intent of GMP CCME
7 Policy 6.1.1 is to retain and protect existing native vegetation,
8 there are situations where the application of the retention
9 requirements of this Policy is not possible. In these cases,
10 creation or restoration of vegetation to satisfy all or a portion of the
11 native vegetation retention requirements may be allowed. In
12 keeping with the intent of this policy, the preservation of native
13 vegetation off site is preferable over creation of preserves.
14 Created Preserves shall be allowed for parcels that cannot
15 reasonably accommodate both the required on -site preserve area
16 and the proposed activity.
17 i. Applicability. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot
i8 reasonably accommodate both the required on -site
19 preserve area and the proposed activity include:
20 (a) Where site elevations or conditions requires
21 placement or removal of fill thereby harming or
22 reducing the survivability of the native vegetation
23 in its existing locations;
24 (b) Where the existing vegetation required by this
25 policy is located where proposed site improvements
26 are to be located and such improvements cannot
27 be relocated as to protect the existing native
28 vegetation;
29 (c) To provide for flood plain compensation as
30 required by the LDC.
31 (d) When a State or Federal permit requires creation of
2
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds_Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d StF Leth.e. gh is nt tek4 {n he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
native habitat on site. The created preserve
acreage may fulfill all or part of the native
vegetation requirement when preserves are
planted with the appropriate strata; using the
criteria set forth in Created Preserves. This
exception may be granted, regardless of the size of
the project.
(e) When small isolated areas (of less than 1/2 acre in
size) of native vegetation exist on site. In cases
where retention of native vegetation results in
small isolated areas of 1/2 acre or less, preserves
may be planted with all three strata; using the
criteria set forth in Created Preserves and shall be
created adjacent existing native vegetation areas
on site or contiguous to preserves on adjacent
properties. This exception may be granted,
regardless of the size of the project.
(f) When an access point to a project cannot be
relocated. To comply with obligatory health and
safety mandates such as road alignments required
by the State, preserves may be impacted and
created elsewhere on site.
(g) To provide for connections to on or off site
preserves.
(h) In the RFMU District where upland buffers
required by the LDC, lack native vegetative
communities.
(i) Archeological /historical sites where such sites are
authorized by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone, to
be planted with native vegetation in accordance
with the criteria herein.
ii. Approved created preserves may be used to recreate:
a) not more than one acre of the required preserves if
the property has less than twenty acres of existing
native vegetation.
b) not more than two acres of the required preserves if
the property has equal to or greater than twenty
acres and less than eighty acres of existing native
vegetation.
C) not more than 10% of the required preserves if the
property has equal to or greater than eighty acres
of existing native vegetation.
iii. The minimum dimensions shall apply as set forth in
3.05.07 H.1.b.
iv. All perimeter landscaping areas that are requested to be
approved to fulfill the native vegetation preserve
requirements shall be labeled as preserves and shall
comply with all preserve setbacks.
V. Preparation of required planting plans for preserves.
Preserve planting plans shall be designed by an individual
with academic credentials and experience in the area of
environmental sciences or natural resource management.
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds_Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikeFhro a h' curreRt text t be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's
2 or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at
3 least two years of ecological or biological professional
4 experience in the State of Florida.
5 vi. Planting requirements for created preserves. Soils
6 compatible with the habitat to be created shall be used to
7 create the preserve. Where compatible soils are not
8 present, a minimum of 6 to 8 inches of compatible soil shall
9 be used.
10 Where created preserves are approved, the planting plan
11 shall re- create a native plant community in all three strata
12 (ground cover, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant
13 materials to more quickly re- create the lost mature
14 vegetation. Environments which do not normally contain all
15 three strata shall only be required to plant the strata found
16 in the habitat to be created. Plant material shall be planted
17 in a manner that mimics a natural plant community and
18 shall not be maintained as landscaping. Such re-
19 vegetation shall include the following minimum sizes: one
20 gallon ground cover; 7 gallon shrubs; canopy trees in the
21 following sizes: 25 percent at 10 feet, 50 percent at 8 feet
22 and 25 percent at 6 feet. Spacing requirements for
23 calculating the number of plants shall be as follows: 20 to
24 30 foot on center for trees with a small canopy (less than
25 30 feet mature spread) and 40 to 50 foot on center for
26 trees with a large canopy (greater than 30 feet mature
27 spread), 10 foot on center for shrubs, 3 foot on center for
28 ground covers which spread by rhizomes or creeping
29 stems or which have a mature height of 2 feet or more,
30 excluding the bloom, and 2 foot on center for ground
31 covers with a mature height of less than 2 feet, excluding
32 the bloom, and which reproduce primarily by seed.
33 Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub
34 and other xeric habitats in order to promote diversity or
35 where smaller size plant material is better suited for re-
36 establishment of the native plant community. Coverage of
37 pine and hardwoods in scrub habitats shall occupy no
38 more than 70% of the area of a scrub preserve, in order to
39 create natural open areas for wildlife and native ground
40 covers. In south Florida slash pine dominated
41 environments, where fire is a concern, the amount of mid -
42 story vegetation planted may be reduced to promote the
43 growth of native ground covers, reduce the threat of
44 wildfire and to promote use of the preserve by listed
45 species.
46 Three gallon container saw palmetto (Serenoa repens)
47 may be used in lieu of seven gallon containers. South
48 Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) trees may be
49 planted in the following sizes: 25 percent at 6 feet and 75
50 percent at 4 feet, with a spacing requirement of 40 feet on
51 center for calculating the number of slash pines to be
52 planted.
4
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions\3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds_Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text StFiketh. ugh Is nt text to he .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Mangrove trees may be planted as three gallon size
containers but must be planted a minimum of five to seven
foot on center for calculating the number of mangroves to
be planted, if planted at this size. Ground covers in
estuarine and other aquatic environments may be planted
as liners or bare root plants.
Where archeological /historical sites are counted towards
the minimum native vegetation retention requirement and
where such sites have no native vegetation or the native
vegetation is authorized to be cleared and excavated by
the BCC as part of a PUD rezone, these sites shall be re-
vegetated with native vegetation similar to or compatible
with the native vegetation in the preserve or on the
archeological /historical site. Re- vegetation shall only be
with ground covers in one - gallon containers unless
otherwise approved by the BCC.
Upland or seasonally wet preserves with extended dry
periods shall detail a method of providing water until the
plants are established.
vii. Supplemental planting requirements within preserves.
Supplemental plantings in the strata required to restore the
habitat to its natural condition shall be added to preserves
where prior clearing or disturbance, or the removal of non-
native and /or nuisance vegetation has created open areas
with little or no native vegetation. Plant material shall be
planted in a manner that mimics a natural plant community
and shall not be maintained as landscaping. Supplemental
plantings must be of the species typical of the native
habitats being restored and take into consideration the
requirements of any listed species using the preserve.
Areas defined as "native vegetation" pursuant to this
section and required to be retained as preserves, shall
only be required to plant material in the sizes specified in
this subsection and not in the sizes required for created
preserves. Supplemental plantings within preserves shall
be in accordance with requirements specified in approved
state and federal permits for a project. Where not specified
in the State and Federal permits for a project,
supplemental plantings within County required preserves
shall adhere to the following minimum standards: one
gallon or liner ground covers, three gallon shrubs and four
foot high trees. Ground covers in aquatic environments
may be planted as bare root plants.
Natural recruitment of native groundcovers may be used in
areas where native groundcovers would be expected to
regenerate on their own. If within a two -year period the
coverage of ground covers is less than that typically found
in environments containing these species, then
supplemental planting with native ground covers or
distribution of native seed shall be required. A planting
plan with schedule for planting or distributing native seed
shall be included as part of the preserve management
5
L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds_Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
AkethM anti is ..V text V be deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1
plan, in case sufficient natural recruitment of groundcovers
2
has not occurred.
3
Natural recruitment of south Florida slash pine (Pinus
4
elliottii var. densa) may be used where south Florida slash
5
pine would be expected to regenerate on their own. If
6
within a two -year period the number of pine seedlings is
7
less than that needed to regenerate the habitat type, then
8
supplemental planting with south Florida slash pine or
9
distribution of south Florida slash pine seed shall be
10
required. A backup planting plan with schedule for planting
11
or distributing seed shall be included as part of the
12
preserve management plan, in case sufficient natural
13
recruitment has not occurred. South Florida slash pine
14
trees may be planted as seedlings in lieu of planting four
15
foot high trees, for individual preserves 100 or more acres
16
in size.
17
Restoration of mangroves shall be with one- to three - gallon
18
container mangroves, unless otherwise permitted by State
19
and Federal permitting agencies.
20
Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub
21
and other xeric habitats in order to promote diversity or
22
where smaller size plant material is better suited for re-
23
establishment of the native plant community. Coverage of
24
pine and hardwoods in scrub habitats shall occupy no
25
more than the 70% of the area of a scrub preserve, in
26
order to create natural open areas for wildlife and
27
indigenous ground covers.
28
viii. Success criteria. Success shall be demonstrated for
29
created preserves and supplemental planting within
30
preserves, 5 years after installation of plant material and
31
shall be included with the monitoring report. Before and
32
after photos taken from specific or permanent field markers
33
to identify the locations within the preserve shall be
34
included in the above mentioned monitoring report.
35
Demonstration of success shall include the following:
36
a) 80% vegetative coverage has been attained within
37
the preserve.
38
b) Native vegetation is within the range of species
39
diversity, density and distribution documented
40
within either reference sites or from literature
41
references for the specific habitat types.
42
c) Native vegetation characteristic of the habitat are
43
reproducing in the vegetative or seeding manner
44
typical of the species.
45
d) When permitted through the Water Management
46
District using UMAM, overall UMAM scores must
47
indicate that the preserves have attained or are
48
clearly trending toward the "with- mitigation" scores
49
used to determine success.
50 # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
6
L \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 H 1 e Preservation Stds_Archeological Site
coverage 062612.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.A ctr'Lethro gh is ent teA to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association
AUTHOR: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division
DEPARTMENT: Transportation Planning, Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 6.02.01 Generally
6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
CHANGE: Subsection 6.02.01 D.12 of the LDC requires a "real time" concurrency system for
all development plans. The proposed amendment would limit that requirement to site
development projects including: Site Development Plans, Site Development Plan Amendments,
Site Improvement Plans, Insubstantial changes and Plat and Plan projects.
Subsection 6.02.03 DA of the LDC requires that capital improvements are included in the first or
second year of a work schedule for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 5 year
work program and the Collier County Schedule of Capital Improvements. The proposed
amendment would add "or third" year to both of these schedules.
Subsection 6.02.03 E regarding potentially deficient road segments is no longer the current
standard applied and the proposed amendment eliminates the subsection.
Subsection 6.02.03 G regarding the determination of adequate public facilities in or out of a
designated ASI is no longer the current standard applied and the proposed amendment eliminates
the subsection.
REASON: In subsection 6.02.01 D.12, the "real time" concurrency system currently allocates
trips when a development project is approved. The proposed language spells out that the
concurrency system is not to be applied to Zoning and Land Rights actions (which are, instead,
subject to a Growth Management Plan consistency review).
The proposed amendment to subsection 6.02.03 DA would increase the time frame for scheduled
road and intersection improvements to be considered committed improvements for development
review purposes. A three -year time period for a committed improvement is consistent with State
DRI regulations and most local jurisdiction development review regulations found elsewhere
outside of Collier County. This change would benefit the local development community and
remove any competitive advantage that other jurisdictions would have for development projects,
based on the status of committed improvements.
Subsection 6.02.03 E is outdated and is no longer utilized. The Minimum Level of Service (LOS)
requirements are established in Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the Growth Management Plan's
Transportation Element provides the current standards. They are enforced by application of the
TIS Guidelines.
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d S i 'L th h is t te)d to be deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
1. Section E.1: This subsection is redundant to Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines in purpose
and intent.
2. Section E.2: This subsection fails to comply with Objective 2 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP.
3. Section E.3: This subsection conflicts with section 12 of the TIS Guidelines, which
determine how growth is to be applied and how potential failures are identified.
4. Section E.4: This subsection conflicts with policies 1.3 and 1.4 of the Transportation
Element of the Growth Management Plan. Further, it could potentially be contrary to the
established engineering methodology for determining minimum LOS. It is currently
designed as more of a Transportation Element Policy rather than as an enforceable LDC
requirement.
Section 6.02.03 G is outdated and is no longer utilized. The current methodology is identified in
Section 8 of the TIS Guidelines which establishes the `Area of Significant Influence' which is
further defined by the 2 % -2 % -3% analysis method to examine traffic distribution.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: County's fiscal and operational impacts include, but
are not limited to, the following:
Section 6.02.01, regarding the Transportation Concurrency Management System pertains to
development orders, listed in the proposed language. The Concurrency Management System does not
apply to comprehensive plan amendments, zoning petitions, or Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning. Rather, comprehensive plan amendments and zoning petitions are reviewed for consistency
with the Growth Management Plan. The proposed clarification will have no fiscal or operational
impact to Collier County.
Subsection 6.02.03 DA outlines the timeframe for the construction of the required capital
improvement. Allowing projects listed in the Capital Improvement Element to be considered as
"existing" for roadway capacity purposes during the three year planning window is not
consistent with the TIS Guidelines, and would require revision of the document (currently
unfunded). This increased planning window would allow roadway projects that are planned for
construction within the three year window to be counted as available capacity, and could allow
developments to gain approval without actual capacity being made available for up to three years
as opposed to the current threshold of two years. Potential fiscal impacts to the County could
result in an inability to adjust capital expenditures within the third year. Operational impacts
would include the possibility for increased congestion for one year on a roadway that is planned
for improvements within three years, instead of current two years.
There are no fiscal or operational impacts to the County if subsection 6.02.03.E or 6.02.03.G is
removed. Concurrency guidelines are utilized in place of the outdated method.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code,
Right -of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook,
The changes to subsection 6.02.03 DA are not consistent with the current timeframe identified in
the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures and would require revision of the
document.
2
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h stFikethre„eh in rurFent text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: All of the proposed changes are consistent
with the GMP.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
amendment on Thursday, May 17, 2012 and discussed the amendment to subsection 6.02.03 DA
which originated from the Collier Building Industry Association. Currently, the section provides
a two year time frame for scheduled road and intersection improvements to be considered
committed improvements for development review purposes.
The proposed change would be to extend the commitment to three years. During the discussion,
Staff relayed that the proposed three year time period for a committed improvement would be
consistent with the State Development of Regional Impact regulations and other local
jurisdictions. However, the County has maintained a two year policy for several years. The
Commissioners discussed, among other issues that it would be unlikely that the proposed change
would have a large impact since many of the roadways in the urban area have been expanded or
will not be expanded further. Further, the discussion conveyed that the current system is not
broken and this would keep the roadways "palatable." There were two votes of recommendation.
The first was to support the proposed change to a 3 year time frame, with a vote of 2 -6. The
second vote was 8 -1 to remove 6.02.03 DA from the amendment.
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services on October 13, 2011;
Edited December 7, 2011; Edited December 20, 2011; Edited January 3, 2012; Edited January 5,
2012; Edited February 29, 2012; March 2, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
6.02.01 Generally
D. For the purposes of this section only, the following terms are defined as follows:
12. Transportation Concurrency Management System means a "real time"
concurrency system that tracks and allocates the available roadway
capacity on a continuous basis with quarterly status reports to the Board.
Trips generated from proposed developments will be added to the trips
approved to date and the existing background traffic counts to determine
if there is available capacity for each new development to be approved,
in whole or part, as proposed development plans are submitted.
Application of this system is limited to the following final local
development orders: site development plan, site development plan
amendment, site improvement plan, and subdivision plat and plan
application.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
* * * * * * * * * * * *
D. In assessing the capacity of a County road segment, a state road segment or TCMA for
the purpose of determining whether it is operating below the adopted LOS, or would
based on the traffic impacts identified in an approved TIS submitted as part of an
application for a final local developments order, the County shall consider:
3
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisionsl6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added
TeA StF kSt WO
Ugh 4 to be deleted-. �
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 4. Construction of the required capital improvement is included in the first three of
3 seeend years of either the Florida DOT 5 year work program or the first three eF
4 sesend years of the Collier County Schedule of Capital Improvements adopted
5 as part of the Annual Update and Amendment of the Capital Improvements
6 Element (CIE) and Collier County Annual Budget that follows approval of the
7 AUIR.
8 # # # # # # # # # # # #
9 6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
10 * *
11 E. Potentially defiGient Fead segments
12 i A County oF State readseg�ent shall be GGRsideFed peteRtially deftieRt when
13
..—.'.AVGFk systern whose adopted LOS standaFd is LOS
14 „ „ „
� season, II ' that is pFeseRtly opeFated at its adep
15
16 opeFated at LOS "E" peak season, peak heuF, fal: 2 yeaFs or less, based on the
17 A
18 2. A petentially defioieRt Fead segment whiGh has "D" peak
19 seasen, peak hour, Fnay epeFate at LOS "E," peak seasOR, peak hour, fnr 2 yeaF6
20
21
22 lGGated on the major Fead netweFk system „ „
23 ' epeFatiRg at LOS „ ,I
24 punk hn„r , J base the A l IR en 25 4. in deteFmining the GapaGity of a County read segment ep a State Fead segmeRt
26
27 segment,
�c i�r+„n +, shall nc�•r+o r•
.,,,.,., ,.y ,ur,�vrrnacr:
28
29 p— AnR^apit I read •mpl:eye + +4. t undeF - •a
N
30
31 development agreement that iRGIudes the pFavisions in subsertieF;s
32 - €.1— and6:02:03 €3.
33
34
35 I , PFOgFam 36
37
38 GUFFnn+ five (5) year Gapital imnre. nt sE;hed6i!- is based i• ..^
39 finaRGially feasible "
40 # # # # # # # # # # # #
41 6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements
42 * *
43
44
45 Ag- .
46 i For development outside a designated ASI, OF where RE) AS! exists, the Fead
47 GOMPGReRt shall be gFanted.
48 2. Per- development within a desigRated AS! severing a potentially defiGieRt Fead
49
50
51 rnnd -- mnn+ ,A •+h•n_fk• A 01 .-. eJe.i:e.:.....a ........I --- _- -- -i — i,_ _ • .
4
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T .d F -L th h is current te)d to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
the proposed
development
nreate
a edefioient_
read segmen
",
1
where
will
2
for that
the
development
that doeS
RGt GFeate
the
deftieRt
read
3
GRIY
For
per-tiOR
development
of
designated
AS' Govering
a
defident
Fead
4
segment.
within
a
5
segment,
that
deer not
inurenc.e
the
net trinS
the
definient
road
segment
6
",
development
deer not
f irther
denr.+rte
the
LOS of
the definient
on
rn7d_
segment
8 #
and
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
5
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \6 02 01 Generally and 6 02 03 Transportation Level of
Service Reqs 071212.docx 7/13/2012 3:39:14 PM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text ctriketh.n ..h is cuFFent tevt to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association
AUTHOR: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division
DEPARTMENT: Transportation Planning, Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 6.06.01 Street System Requirements
6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements
CHANGE: To remove subsection 6.06.01 K of the LDC that requires a marginal access street be
provided by the developer for a development or subdivision in certain situations.
Subsection 6.06.01 S of the LDC states that the construction of a traffic control device is subject
to county approval. If a new traffic light is desired and if more than one development or
subdivision is involved, then each shall make a "pro -rata contribution for the installation cost of
the traffic control devices." The proposed amendment would change the "pro rata" language to
"proportionate share" and add language which identifies the cost would be distributed "as
defined by the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines" (TIS). The payment formula is outlined in the
Fair -Share Mitigation component of the TIS Guidelines (pg. 14).
Subsection 6.06.02 F outlines the design and construction materials for sidewalks, bike lanes and
pathways. The amendment recommends removing the design and construction specifications and
proposes reorganizing the existing sidewalk thickness standards for clarity and removing the
optional standard for a 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk with a limerock base. All sidewalks shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the Florida Department of
Transportation's (FDOT) Design Standards and Design Specifications for Road and Bridge
Constructed, as amended.
The FDOT Design Standards and Design Specifications for Road and Bridge Constructed and
the corresponding Index provide illustrations of sidewalk cross - sections. These cross - sections are
drawn for 4 inch thick concrete sidewalks but may be utilized for sidewalks with 6 inch thick
concrete.
Subsection 6.06.02 F.3.b provides the general construction standards for asphalt pathways. The
amendment proposes amending the thickness of the stabilized subgrade (LBR 40) from 12 inches
to 6 inches for all pathways.
REASON: County Staff considers 6.06.01 K an unnecessary code requirement, and recommends
omission from the LDC. The proposed amendment allows the design of the internally -owned and
privately maintained roads to be at the discretion of the project owner.
The change to subsection 6.06.01 S will clarify the proportionate share language in the LDC and
will better direct both applicants and Staff to use the correct "fair- share" calculation to deternline
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \6 06 01 Street System
Requirements—sidewalks—Pathways 062612.docx 719/2012 10:34:31 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d ptrikethr ..h is ..4 text to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
the proportionate share responsibility expected of a development that impacts (or causes) any
failing vehicular movements.
The reorganization to subsection 6.06.01.17 will provide clarity. Removing the optional standard
for a 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk with a limerock base reflects current practice.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The County's fiscal and operational impacts
include, but are not limited, to the following:
County Staff considers subsection 6.06.01 K an unnecessary code requirement, and recommends
omission from the LDC. Staff has not identified any fiscal or operational impacts to the County.
The proposed modification of subsection 6.06.0l.S seeks to remove the term "pro rata" and
replace it with "proportionate share." This change will assist in the implementation of the "Fair -
Share Mitigation" component in the County's TIS guidelines. Staff has not identified any fiscal
or operational impacts to the County.
The change to subsection 6.06.02 F removes the compacted four -inch limerock base option from
the sidewalk specification and retains the "compacted base" option. This method may reduce the
cost of constructing sidewalks. The proposed change to the base of a pathway may reduce the
cost of the construction materials. Staff has not identified any fiscal and operational impacts to
the County.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Florida Department of Transportation regulations;
Right -of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook; Collier County Access Management Plan,
and the Fair -Share Mitigation section of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and
Procedures (Resolution 2006 -299).
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land
Development Services, October 14, 2011; Edited December 7, 201, Edited December 20, 2011,
Edited December 29, 2011, Edited January 3, 2012; Edited March 2, 2012; March 5, 2012;
March 22, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 22, 2012, May 25, 2012, June 20, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
6.06.01 Street System Requirements
K. WheFe a subdivision oF development abuts OF Gentains existing limited ac;Gess
highway, freeway, oF afterial street, and if aGGess us desiFed to adjoining propeFty othe
S. Traffic control devices shall be provided by the developer when the engineering study
indicates traffic control is justified at any street intersection within the subdivision or
development or where the additional traffic flow results from the proposed subdivision
or development onto any collector or arterial street. Traffic control devices are subject .max`
to County approval. If more than 1 development or subdivision is involved, each shall
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \6 06 01 Street System
Requirements_sidewalks_pathways 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:34:31 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
ikethm ueh is nt text to he deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 be required to make a pro rata proportionate share contribution for the installation cost of
2 the traffic control devices as defined by the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, as may be
3 amended or superseded. The cost of all required traffic control devices shall be included
4 in the amount of subdivision performance security furnished for the required
5 improvements.
6 # # # # # # # # # # # #
7 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements
9 F. Sidewalk, Bike Lane, and Pathway Design & Construction /Materials. All workmanship
10 materials methods of placement curing forms foundation, finishing, etc. shall be in
11 conformance to the latest edition of FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
12 Construction and FDOT Design Standards.
13 1. All sidewalks shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
14 following: latest erd,t,en of FDOT's design Standards. All cirloiu..ILc shall he
15 COnStFUeted of RoFtland Gement GOnerete,
16
17 on an approved site .development plan
18 a. Concrete sidewalks for roads with a functional classification as an arterial or
19 collector or that is County maintained shall be a minimum of ^ inches thick,
20
21 6 inches thick of
22 concrete and
23 constructed over a compacted subgrade;_
24 b. Concrete sidewalks for non - County maintained roads with a functional
25 classification as local or with no functional classification (i.e., drive or
26 accessways) may he sonstr„sterd of shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick of
27 such concrete and constructed over a compacted subgrade. Expansion jsi�ts
28 shall be one half inE;h perform ed Nifium. ... n.pol.ics Genfal:ming to the latest edition
29 of ASTIVI. ContraGtion joints shall be saw out joints with longitudinal spaGing
30 equal to the width of the walk. The saw Gut depth shall equal or eXGeed one
31 forth the ^nnnrete thiGkness
32 C. Paver brick, sidewalks, —or paver brick accents in sidewalks must be
33 installed over a 4 -inch thick, compacted limerock base and sand cushion per
34 manufacture specifications, except as otherwise allowed above for sidewalks.
35 All workmanship mateFials, methods of placement, GUFing, forms, foundation
36 finishing, et^ shall be in Genfelzmanee to the latest edition of FDOT Standard
37
38 2. All bike lanes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most
39 current "Florida Bicycle Facilities Design Standards and Guidelines" or the
40 "Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and
41 Maintenance for Streets and Highways" (commonly known as the "Florida
42 Greenbook ") requirements.
43 3. All pathways shall be designed in accordance with the most current FDOT
44 Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook as it pertains to shared use
45 pathways. Below are the preferred standards for pathway construction;
46 however, if the applicant can demonstrate that a lesser cross - section will meet
47 the requirements of the County, then upon the approval of the County Manager,
48 or designee, it may be permitted. Pathways may be constructed of the following
49 types of materials:
50 a. Concrete - County maintained pathways shall be constructed of a
51 minimum of 6 inches of Portland cement concrete over a compacted
3
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \6 06 01 Street System
Requirements—Sidewalks—Pathways 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:34:31 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Tfi StFikethr.. !
a h' 4 4 m - av' ht, ri1 4 w�c-nzccr
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 subgrade. Pathways on non - County maintained roads with a functional
2 classification as local or with no functional classification shall be
3 constructed of a minimum of 4 inches of Portland cement concrete over a
4 compacted subgrade. All path..,a S nnn +r, ted of Portland -- a
5
1
6
7 GGMparted subgFade. Expansien joints shall be one half inGh preformed
8
9 '
10 pathway. The saw Gut depth shall equal or eXGee d 14 th a
12 fnFms, foundation, finishing eh II be f _ _ _ _
13 and ' r}C E �
14 GenStF GtiOn
15 b. Asphalt - All pathways constructed of asphalt shall contain a minimum of
16 42- 6 inches stabilized subgrade (LBR 40), 6 inches compacted lime -rock
17 base, and 1.5 inches Type S -111 asphaltic concrete, unless an alternate
18 cross - section is otherwise determined to be acceptable by the County
19 Manager, or designee.
20 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \6 06 01 Street System
Requirements—sidewalks—pathways 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:34:31 AM
Co per Gou�.ty
Growth Management Division
EW
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h ..t: LetL.w et. is current te.A to he delete.)
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements
CHANGE: This amendment proposes to create a new section within 4.06.02 Buffer
Requirements to allow for joint projects to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a
shared property line in order to share parking or other infrastructure facilities. The joint project
plans are designed for smaller parcels and will apply to several types of development:
1. Abutting commercial outparcels within a shopping center;
2. Abutting commercial parcels in a Business Park;
3. Abutting commercial parcels with the same zoning designation;
4. Abutting industrial parcels with the same zoning designation.
A joint project shall be submitted by one of the following methods: 1.) A single site development
plan which consists of both parcels; 2.) Separate development plans for each parcel that are
submitted concurrently. Joint projects must meet all design requirements of the Code and are
subject to a shared maintenance and access easement. The proposed amendment provides
standards for a joint project including:
1. One outparcel shall be no greater than 3 acres and the combined parcel acreage shall not
exceed 5 acres.
2. The shared buffer landscape material and square footage shall be reallocated to the
remaining landscape buffers and/or internal landscaped areas. There shall be no net loss
of landscape material or square footage of the buffer.
3. All perimeter buffers, road right -of -way buffers, and buffers adjacent to an internal main
access drives shall be maintained.
REASON: The proposed changes seek to provide flexibility to the landscaping buffer section to
allow projects to create amenities, such as a shared outdoor patio. The proposed provision also
supports the integration of close by amenities, such as a pond or water feature.
The joint project amendment supports innovative design and greater flexibility for new and
redevelopment sites. The proposed amendment provides businesses an opportunity to utilize
buffer landscaping materials in different ways, such as a courtyard utilized by patrons.
Allowing businesses to share or remove a buffer provides an opportunity for a reduced number
of driveways and curb cuts onto local streets and access roads. The proposed changes will also
assist redevelopment projects that may not meet the current code buffer or parking provisions.
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text uJ
Bold text indicates a defined term
The following graphic depicts the proposed change:
A local example of the proposed amendment is illustrated on Naples Boulevard in north Naples.
As demonstrated in the image, two adjacent parcels are joined by a courtyard. In this instance the
property line is along the south building's edge, but a joint project would allow these two
businesses the ability share a courtyard or parking spaces equally. In this example, the courtyard
supplies the landscape material that would have been utilized by a dividing buffer. Resource:
Collier County Property Assessor's website.
This amendment was reviewed by local landscape architects who provided feedback on the
amendment. Several of the suggestions offered helped to develop the proposed text.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal or operational impacts to the
County.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 4.05.02 Design Standards
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: N/A
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
March 5, 2012, May 4, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 21, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements
2
3 A. Applicability of buffer requirements. The buffering and screening shown in table 2.4 below
4 shall be required under this section and shall apply to all new development. Existing
5 landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be brought into
6 conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the vehicular use area is altered or
7 expanded except for restriping of lots /drives, the building square footage is changed, or
8 there has been a discontinuance of use for a period of 60 consecutive days or more and a
9 request for an occupational license to resume business is made.
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str Lethro unh is ent text dr. he .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
Subdivisions or Developments shall be buffered for the protection of property owners
from land uses as required pursuant to this section 4.06.00. bBuffers shall not inhibit
pedestrian circulation between adjacent commercial land uses. bBuffers shall be installed
during construction as follows and in accordance with this section 4.06.00:
1. To separate residential Developments from commercial, community use, industrial and
public use Developments and adjacent expressways, arterials and railroad rights -of-
way, except where such expressway, arterial, or railroad right -of -way abuts a golf
course.
2. To separate commercial, community use, industrial and public use Developments from
residential Developments.
3. To separate subdivisions of residential property that do not result in the submittal of a
site development plan pursuant to the provisions of section 10.02.03 from other
residential properties.
Separation shall be created with a landscape buffer strip which is designed and
constructed in compliance with the provisions of this section 4.06.00. Such buffer
strip(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plat as a tract of easement and shall
not be located within any public or private right -of -way. The ability to locate buffer(s)
within a platted or recorded easement shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of
this section 4.06.00. buffers adjacent to protected /preserve areas shall conform to the
requirements established by the agency requiring such buffer.
Landscape buffers, when required by this Code, this section 4.06.00, or other county
regulation shall be in addition to the required right -of -way width and shall be designated
as a separate buffer tract or easement on the final subdivision plat. The minimum
buffer width shall be in conformance with this section 4.06.00. In no case shall the
required buffer be constructed to reduce cross - corner or stopping sight distances, or
safe pedestrian passage. All buffer tracts or easements shall be owned and maintained
by a property owner's association or other similar entity and shall be so dedicated on the
final subdivision plat.
B. Methods of determining buffers. Where a property adjacent to the proposed use is: (1)
undeveloped, (2) undeveloped but permitted without the required buffering and
screening required pursuant to this Code, or (3) developed without the buffering and
screening required pursuant to this Code, the proposed use shall be required to install
the more opaque buffer as provided for in table 2.4. Where property adjacent to the
proposed use has provided the more opaque buffer as provided for in table 2.4, the
proposed use shall install a type A buffer.
Where the incorporation of existing native vegetation in landscape buffers is
determined as being equivalent to or in excess of the intent of this Code, the planning
services director may waive the planting requirements of this section.
Buffering and landscaping between similar residential land uses may be incorporated
into the yards of individual lots or tracts without the mandatory creation of separate
tracts. If buffering and landscaping is to be located on a lot, it shall be shown as an
easement for buffering and landscaping.
The buffering and screening provisions of this Code shall be applicable at the time of
planned unit development (PUD), preliminary subdivision plat (PSP), or site
development plan (SDP) review, with the installation of the buffering and screening
required pursuant to section 4.06.05 G. If the applicant chooses to forego the optional
PSP process, then signed and sealed landscape plans will be required on the final
subdivision plat. Where a more intensive land use is developed contiguous to a
property within a similar zoning district, the planning services director may require
buffering and screening the same as for the higher intensity uses between those uses.
3
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
Landscape buffering and screening standards within any planned unit development
shall conform to the minimum buffering and screening standards of the zoning district to
which it most closely resembles. The planning services director may approve alternative
landscape buffering and screening standards when such alternative standards have
been determined by use of professional acceptable standards to be equivalent to or in
excess of the intent of this Code.
C. Table of buffer yards.
Types of buffers. Within a required buffer strip, the following alternative shall be used
based on the matrix in table 2.4.
1. Alternative A: Ten - foot -wide landscape buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet
on center.
2. Alternative B: Fifteen - foot -wide, 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer
six feet in height, which may include a wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof,
including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. When planting a hedge, it shall
be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a
maximum four feet on center at planting.
3. Alternative C: 20- foot -wide, opaque within one year, landscape buffer with a six -foot
wall, fence, hedge, or berm, or combination thereof and two staggered rows of trees
spaced no more than 30 feet on center. Projects located within the Golden Gate
Neighborhood center district shall be exempt from the right -of -way requirement of a
six -foot wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof. These projects shall provide a
meandering Type D landscape buffer hedge. In addition, a minimum of 50 percent of
the 25 -foot wide buffer area shall be composed of a meandering bed of shrubs and
ground covers other than grass.
4. Alternative D: A landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right -of -way
external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads internal
to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be consistent with the
provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is incorporated by
reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape buffer shall vary
according to the ultimate width of the abutting right -of -way. Where the ultimate width of
the right -of -way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure
at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width of the right -of -way is 100 or more
feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least 15 feet in width.
Developments of 15 acres or more and Developments within an activity center shall
provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width
of the right -of -way. Activity center right -of -way buffer width requirements shall not be
applicable to roadways internal to the development. (See Figure 4.06.02 C.)
4
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Figure 4.06.02 C.
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str'Leth Fo nh is ent text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
TYPES OF BUFFERS
CODE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS LDC 4.06.02.C.1. -4.
no' oc
� III �w�if
TYPE W BUFFER
M10 51NU85. A' Oi.tP MWi ATMNiING
n'o.c
I I
o� + + +
15'
TYPE 'B' BUFFER
r am swues. r oc.em r�w� AraANmue
+
TYPE 'C' BUFFER
DWBLE- STAe.GEAEO HERB w. M3 5VftU0.5
NI'OC. �3Y HI6H ATP.AHIINGA MMNTAff AT 36'
Y y.
TYPE 'D' BUFFER v
S -ID
NOTE: • TREXIBT11lY 8 BUFFER PLANTIIJG I ERE Wr HM B wao°�'Awm�ill°N
1REE565HRU85 MAYOCCURANYWHERE MET. BUFFER
AS LONG AS ON CENTER REQUIREMENT I5 MET.
• BUFFER MAY MEANDER AS LONG AS
SPECIFIED WIDTH I5 MAIFITAINED.
a. Trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape buffer
abutting a right -of -way or primary access road internal to a commercial
development.
b. A continuous 3 gallon double row hedge spaced 3 feet on center of at least 24
inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of 3 feet height
within one year shall be required in the landscape buffer where vehicular areas are
adjacent to the road right -of -way, pursuant to section 4.06.05 CA
c. Where a fence or wall fronts an arterial or collector road as described by the
transportation circulation element of the growth management plan, a continuous 3
gallon single row hedge a minimum of 24 inches in height spaced 3 feet on center,
shall be planted along the right -of -way side of the fence. The required trees shall be
located on the side of the fence facing the right -of -way. Every effort shall be made
to undulate the wall and landscaping design incorporating trees, shrubs, and ground
cover into the design. It is not the intent of this requirement to obscure from view
decorative elements such as emblems, tile, molding and wrought iron.
d. The remaining area of the required landscape buffer must contain only existing
native vegetation, grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment. Every effort
should be made to preserve, retain and incorporate the existing native vegetation in
these areas.
Table 2.4 Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications —'[Not included]
'Buffering in agriculture (A) districts shall be applicable at the time of site
development plan (SDP) submittal.
2Industrial (1) zoned property, where abutting industrial (1) zoned property,
shall be required to install a minimum 5- foot -wide type A landscape
buffer adjacent to the side and rear property lines.T#±s The buffer area
shall not be used for water management. In addition, trees may be
reduced to 50 feet on center along rear and side perimeter buffers only.
This reduction in buffer width shall not apply to buffers adjacent to
5
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
T-evf strikefhr.. h' f f + tn h a I f .J
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 vehicular rights -of -way or nonindustrial zoned property. Abutting industrial
2 zoned properties may remove a side or rear buffer along the shared
3 property line in accordance with Section 4 06 02 C.7. This exception to
4 buffers shall not apply to buffers abutting to vehicular rights -of -way.
5 3 Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping
6 center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a
7 shared buffer 15 feet wide with each adjacent abutting property
8 contributing 7.5 feet. The outparcels may remove a side or rear buffer
9 along the shared property line between comparable uses within the same
10 zoning designation in accordance with Section 4 06 02 C.7. This does
11 These provisions shall not apply to right -of -way buffers.
12 e. The letter listed under "Adjacent Properties Zoning District and /or Property Use"
13 shall be the landscape buffer and screening alternative required. Where a
14 conflict exists between the buffer required by zoning district or property use, the
15 more stringent buffer shall be required. The "" symbol shall represent that no
16 buffer is required. The PUD district buffer, due to a variety of differing land uses,
17 is indicated by the " *" symbol, and shall be based on the landscape buffer and
18 screening of the district or property use with the most similar types, densities and
19 intensities of use. Where a conflict exists between the buffering requirements
20 and the yard requirements of this Code, the yard requirements of the subject
21 zoning district shall apply.
22 f. Refer to section 5.05.05 for automobile service station landscape
23 requirements.
24 5. Business Parks. A 25 -foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided around the
25 boundary of the business park. A six -foot tall opaque architecturally finished masonry
26 wall, or berm, or combination thereof shall be required and two staggered rows of trees
27 spaced no more than 30 feet on center shall be located on the outside of the wall, berm,
28 or berm /wall combination.
29 6. Buffering and screening standards. In accordance with the provisions of this Code,
30 loading areas or docks, outdoor storage, trash collection, mechanical equipment, trash
31 compaction, vehicular storage excluding new and used cars, recycling, roof top
32 equipment and other service function areas shall be fully screened and out of view from
33 adjacent properties at ground view level and in view of roadway corridors.
34 7. Joint Project Plan Abutting platted parcels may submit a joint project plan to remove one
35 side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line in order to share parking or
36 other infrastructure facilities provided the following criteria are met:
37 a. A joint proiect plan shall include all necessary information to ensure that the
38 combined site meets all of the design requirements of this Code and shall be
39 submitted as either a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels or separate
40 SDPs or SIPs for each parcel that are submitted concurrently. Joint project plans
41 require a shared maintenance and access easement that is recorded in the
42 public records.
43 b. The following are eligible for a joint project plan One outparcel shall be no
44 greater than 3 acres and the combined parcel acreage shall not exceed 5 acres:
45 i. Abutting commercial outparcels located within a shopping center.
46 ii. Abutting commercial parcels in a Business Park
47 iii. Abutting commercial parcels with the same zoning designation
48 iv. Abutting industrial parcels with the same zoning designation
6
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te..4 trikethrn unh is en♦ text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 C. The eliminated buffer shall be reallocated to the remaining landscape buffers
2 and /or internal landscaped areas of the proposed ioint proiect. There shall be no
3 net loss of landscape material or square footage of the buffer as a result of the
4 eliminated buffer on the shared property line.
5 d The buffer to be eliminated shall not be a perimeter buffer or adiacent to any
6 internal main access drives.
7 D. Standards for retention and detention areas in buffer yards. Unless otherwise noted, all
8 standards outlined in section 4.06.05 C. apply. Trees and shrubs must be installed at the
9 height specified in this section.
10 Water management systems, which must include retention and detention areas, swales,
11 and subsurface installations, are permitted within a required buffer provided they are
12 consistent with accepted engineering and landscaping practice and the following criteria:
13 1. Water management systems must not exceed 50 percent of the square footage
14 of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer.
15 2. Water management systems must not exceed, at any location within the required
16 side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer, 70 percent of the required buffer width.
17 A minimum 5 -foot wide 10:1 level planting area shall be maintained where trees
18 and hedges are required.
19 3. Exceptions to these standards may be granted on a case -by -case basis,
20 evaluated on the following criteria:
21 a. Water management systems, in the form of dry retention, may utilize an
22 area greater than 50 percent of the buffer when existing native vegetation
23 is retained at natural grade.
24 b. For lots of record 10,000 square feet or less in size, water management
25 areas may utilize an area greater than 50 percent of the required side and
26 rear yard buffers. A level planting area of at least three feet in width must
27 be provided in these buffers.
28 4. Sidewalks and other impervious areas must not occupy any part of a required
29 Alternative A, B, C, or D type buffer, except when:
30 a. Driveways and sidewalks are constructed perpendicular to the buffer and
31 provide direct access to the parcel.
32 b. Parallel meandering sidewalks occupy the buffer and its width is
33 increased by the equivalent sidewalk width.
34 C. A required 15 -20 foot wide buffer is reduced to a minimum of ten feet
35 wide and is increased by the five to ten foot equivalent width elsewhere
36 along that buffer.
37 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
7
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 06 02 Buffer Requirements 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:34 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text StFikethro unh is nt te.h to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager, Land Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
CHANGE: Currently, the LDC requires that Collier County and Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Right -Of -Way (ROW) permits shall be submitted prior to Site
Development Plans (SDP) approval.
The proposed amendment stipulates that Collier County and FDOT ROW permits may be
submitted following SDP approval and at/or before the County pre - construction meeting.
REASON: During SDP approval there are many changes proposed to a site that can often
impact public Rights of Way [ROW]. The Collier County ROW Permitting Department often
must review the proposed SDP for impacts to the ROW prior to issuing a ROW permit.
However, the current LDC provisions require ROW permits to be issued prior to SDP approval;
causing a discrepancy in the sequence of permit approvals. It is the intent of this revision to
eliminate the discrepancy in timing caused by requiring the ROW permit to be issued prior to
SDP approval.
Further, the processes for SDP approval and FDOT ROW permits are contradictory; FDOT can
only issue a notice of intent, but not a full ROW permit until a SDP is approved. Per Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 14 -97, FDOT ROW permits are subject to local development
order (i.e. SDP, SDPA) approval.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal impacts to the County include reduced time
and labor in the application review process, once this redundant review process is eliminated.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Florida Administrative Code.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner on October
17, 2011, Edited February 27, 2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 03 B 1 j -k Submittal Reqs for SDPs_ROW process
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:35:14 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
ctFiketh FOUgh is t F )d to be d I{ a
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
2
3 B. Final Site development plan procedure and requirements.
4
5 1. Site development plan submittal packet:
6
7 j. Permits. All necessary permits and necessary applications requiring
8 county approval and other permitting and construction related items,
9 including but not limited to the following, shall be submitted and approved
10 with the site development plan:
11 i. Florida Department of Environmental Protection water and sewer
12 facilities construction permit application.
13 ii. Excavation permit application.
14 iii. A Notice of Intent [NOI] to issue either a Florida Department of
15 Transportation and /or a Collier County right -of -way permit. Utilities
16
17 peFmits.
18
19 development plan appFGval-.
20 ivy. Blasting permit prior to commencement of any blasting operation.
21 v_W. South Florida Water Management District permit, if required, or,
22 Collier County general permit for water management prior to site
23 development plan approval.
24 vi". Interim wastewater and /or water treatment plant construction or
25 interim septic system and /or private well permits prior to building
26 permit approval.
27 viivi4. Any additional state and federal permits which may be required
28 prior to commencement of construction, addressing the impacts
29 on jurisdictional wetlands and habitat involving protected species.
30 viii4. All other pertinent data, computations, plans, reports, and the like
31 necessary for the proper design and construction of the
32 development that may be submitted.
33 ixx. All necessary performance securities required by Collier County
34 ordinances in effect at the time of construction.
35 k. Permits. The following permits, if applicable require final approval and
36 issuance prior to the County pre- construction meeting_
37 i. Florida Department of Transportation Right -Of -Way Construction
38 Permit.
39 ii. Collier County right -of -way FROWI permit.
40 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
41 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
42
43 F. SIP Requirements for the Nonconforming Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict.
44
45 2. SIP submission requirements, preparation standards and notes.
46
47 h. A right -of -way permit shall be required, subject to subsection 10.02.03
48 B.1. k.
49 same -I.-!! be sul rnitted to the assigned planneF.
50 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 03 B 1 j -k Submittal Reqs for SDPs ROW process
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:35:14 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
T ..1 t 'L thre gh i s .. rre deleted. nt te—. to he
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Bill Lorenz, Director and John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans Reviewer, Land
Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION: 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, the
Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The EAC, and the
Historic Preservation Board
CHANGE: To amend the Site Development Plan extension provision and allow for approved
SDPs to apply for two (2) two -year extensions in place of the one (1), one year extension.
Following two, two -year extensions an applicant may apply for a site development plan
amendment to keep the site plan valid and current with the Code.
In Section 10.03.05 S states an SDP is valid for two years, which is incorrect. It is proposed this
is amended to three years.
REASON: Current economic conditions necessitate the need for additional time for completion
of an SDP. This revision would be consistent with what the State of Florida has approved in the
way of granting two year extensions of existing development permits. The limit on the number of
extensions will assist in making sure the site plan is consistent with Code.
The scrivener's error states an incorrect a SDP time limit.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Land Development Services currently collects
$150.00 per year for each extension. Under the proposed amendment, we would collect $150.00
per extension approval.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 10.02.05 B.11 Subdivision Expirations. This
section is also being revised simultaneously during this LDC amendment cycle and will be
consistent with this proposed amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There is no growth management impact.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans
Reviewer on October 12, 2011; Edited by Caroline Cilek, January 27, 2011; June 1, 2012; June
27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 03 B 4 b Submittal Reqs for SDPs_ extended
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:35:41 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d sFriketh. h' F F d F be deleted-,
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
2
3 B. Final Site development plan procedure and requirements.
4
5 4. Procedure for review of application.
6
7 b. Approved site development plans (SDPs) shall remain in force for three
8 (3) years from the date of approval, as determined by the date of the SDP
9 approval letter. If construction has not commenced within 3 years, the site
10 development plan approval term will expire and the SDP approval is of
11 no force or effect. One An amendment to the SDP may be applied for and
12 may be granted prior to the original expiration date, so long as the
13 proposed amendment complies with the LDC requirements in force at the
14 time of the SDP amendment submittal. The SDP amendment shall remain
15 in effect for 3 years from the date of approval, as determined by the date
16 of the SDP amendment approval letter.
17 i. A one time, one -year Two year extensions of the *,h ee ar limit,
18 of for the approved SDP or the approved SDP amendment may
19 be granted. A maximum of two (2) extensions may be granted
20 before a SDP amendment is required. AppliGations for an
21 extension Fnurt be made to the planning Fnanagel: with the
22 app Fop riate p Face sing /adm' istr tive F
23 C. Once construction has commenced, the approval term shall be
24 determined as follows. The construction of infrastructure improvements
25 approved under an SDP or SDP Amendment shall be completed, and the
26 project engineer's completion certificate provided to the Engineering and
27 Environmental Services Director, within 30 months of the pre- construction
28 conference, which will be considered the date of commencement of
29 construction. A single 12 month Two year extensions to complete
30 construction may be granted_ . A maximum of two
31 (2) extensions may be granted before an amendment is required and the
32 extension is reviewed for LDC compliance Each request should provide
33 written justification for the extension and ^ Witten Fequest shall be
34 submitted to, and approved by the County Manager or designee prior to
35 expiration of the then effective approval term. Thereafter, once the SDP
36 or SDP Amendment approval term expires the SDP is of no force or
37 effect.
38 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
39 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, the Planning
40 Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The EAC, and the Historic Preservation
41 Board
42
43 S. Site development plan time limits. Approved final site development plans (SDPs) only
44 remain valid and in force for 2 3 years from the date of approval unless construction has
45 commenced as specified in section 10.02.03 of this Code. If no development, i.e., actual
46 construction, has commenced within -2 3 years, measured from the date of such site
47 development plan approval, the site development plan approval term expires and the
48 SDP, is of no force or effect; however, 1 amendment to the SDP, may be approved, prior
49 to the expiration date, which would allow the SDP as amended to remain valid for 2 3
50 years measured from the date of approval of the amendment so long as the proposed
51 amendment complies with the requirements of the then existing code. Once construction
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 03 B 4 b Submittal Reqs for SDPs extended
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:35:41 AM
I has commenced, the approval term will
2 10.02.03 of this Code.
3 # # # # # # #
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d ntFiketh fo nh in ent text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
be determined by the provisions of section
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 11Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 03 B 4 b Submittal Reqs for SDPs_ extended
062712.docx 7/9/2012 10:35:41 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h str'Letl;M gh is ent te.A to he .Deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Bill Lorenz, Director, Land Development Services and John Houldsworth, Senior
Site Plans Reviewer, Engineering Review Services
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC/ SECTION: 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvements Plans
CHANGE: To amend the extension dates for approved Construction Plans and Plats from one
year extensions to two year extensions. This is a type of improvements plan that is associated
with a plat. Following two, two -year extensions, an applicant may apply for a site development
plan amendment to keep the site plan valid and current with the Code.
REASON: Current economic conditions necessitate the need for additional time for completion
of improvements. This revision would be consistent with what the State of Florida has approved
in the way of granting two year extensions of existing development permits. The limit on the
number of extensions will assist in making sure the site plan is consistent with Code.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Land Development Services currently collects
$150.00 per year for each extension. Under the proposed amendment, we would collect $150.00
every two years for extension approvals. Extensions are tracked by County Staff and the
extension will require less time dedicated to monitoring.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 10.02.04 B.4.b site development plan time limits.
This section is also being revised by the appropriate amendment and will be consistent with this
amendment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There is no growth management impact.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans
Reviewer on October 12, 2011. Edited by Caroline Cilek on January 27, 2012; March 2, 2012;
June 1, 2012; July 12, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
* * * * * * * * * *
A. Procedures for improvement plans and final subdivision plat.
* * * * * * * * * *
B. Construction of required improvements.
* * * * * * * * * *
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 05 B Submittal Reqs for Improv Plans—extended
071212.docx John Houldsworth 7/12/2012 9:51:10 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
a
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 11. Expiration. If improvements are not completed within the prescribed time period
2 as specified in section 10.02.04 B.3.b and a subdivision performance security
3 has been submitted, the engineering review director may recommend to the
4 board that it draw upon the subdivision performance security or otherwise
5 cause the subdivision performance security to be used to complete the
6 construction, repair, and maintenance of the required improvements. All of the
7 required improvements shall receive final acceptance by the Board of County
8 Commissioners within 36 months from the date of the original board approval.
9 The developer may request one two -year extensions for completion and
10 acceptance of the required improvements. A maximum of two (2) extensions may
11 be granted. Each request should provide written justification for the extension.
12 Addotmenal extensioRs at the diSGretiGR of the County Manager OF designee.
13 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
2
I:\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 05 B Submittal Reqs for Improv Plans—extended
071212.docx John Houldsworth 7112/2012 9:51:10 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te..t strikethFG gh is ..t te)d to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Plan Manager and Laurie Beard, Planner — PUD
Monitoring, Land Development Services
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy
CHANGE: Currently, when PUD property owners file a PUD annual monitoring report
regarding their development one of three options for traffic counts must be included with the
report. The options are: traffic counts, payment in lieu of traffic counts or a traffic count waiver.
The proposed amendment allows property owner(s) to file a onetime fee for traffic counts based
upon the number of access points within the PUD.
Further, it is recommended that this section is moved to Section 10.02.13 F allowing for
consolidation of all PUD monitoring requirements.
REASON: The proposed amendment to the Annual Traffic /PUD Monitoring Report section will
enable the property owner and future Homeowner Associations, Property Owners Associations,
etc. to avoid the expense of filing a Traffic Count Report annually until the PUD is fully built -
out. These are done on an annual basis until the PUD goes through the close out process and can
be costly to the various associations. The funds generated by the traffic count fees will be used to
purchase and maintain permanent traffic count stations located within Collier County.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal and operational impacts for the referenced
PUD property owners is reduced as a traffic report will no longer be required to be filed
annually.
Other considerations regarding this amendment include: The changes would be retro- active for
PUD's approved as of the adoption date of the amendment. Approved PUD's that are not fully
developed or that have not performed their first traffic count and/or first payment in lieu of
traffic counts, a onetime payment shall apply. For PUD's that have already done at least one
traffic count or made at least one payment in lieu of traffic counts, this obligation would be
considered fulfilled and no further traffic count or payment in lieu of traffic counts would be
necessary.
Fiscal and operational impacts for the County include reduced staff time in reviewing the reports
and changes in revenue. Under the proposed amendment, fees will be issued at $500 per entrance
to the PUD. This revenue will be available to purchase and maintain permanent traffic count
stations within the County.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 b PUD Monitoring_Part II 062712.docx
719/2012 10:36 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d n+riLethrn ..J ..h ' ++ t to be .+ I + a
Bold text indicates a defined term
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Amendment 10.02.13. F. I. PUD Monitoring
(Part I)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE:
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Land Development Services, October 19, 2011;
Edited March 23, 2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy
2
3 C. Certificate of public facility adequacy.
4
5 1. General.
6
7 b . Annual T-Faffid�UD M-enito&g Report Planned Unit Developments
g "built II one
9 ' of the
10 development. The traffiE; Feper-t shall be submitted as part of the annual
11
12 app the -Board F 6BGse-F#+e,, -, 0.02
The ,�rritten report shall a to and a fnrrr, t
13 i T- kar—�, r shall
established by the County Manager, eF designee,-unte,
15 an lieu is pFayid d n,,r, � ant toy+. CG'tion7'7 1 02.13 -r
16 �L�ttn any
17
18
19 Gentrih, Minn rein, lirement .
20
21 eRtity nr entities that.
22
intensity;
23 Of
24
25 neniteFing period.
26 iv. T-Faff Reports wh;Gh are mere than thiFty (3G)
27 days paste due ;.A.FTll- Tess * - he suspension of final IeGal
28
29
30 V. The GGunty manager- OF designee may waffive the tFaffiG COURtS
31 the annual ME)RitOrffiRg peFied for the entire PUD or portions of the
32 PUD under the following Genditiens:
33
34 density OF iRtensity that predUGes less than twenty five
35 (25) PM peak +rinc+
�L ,
36 b) if the PUD OF POFthORS of the PUD are GOMpletely built out
37 or pre still vr+nr+nt
38 G\ If there has been nn r+nti�i'ty in n Ftions of the PL JD / there v uvuv
39 the revin, mnnitvr inn mperF
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 b PUD Monitoring_P-art II 062712.docx
7/9/2012 10:36 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
it is required to request a 4rnffiG nnl Rt waive
Feasons abovo
tl�-F7ttGGyilar entity" may petition the R�of
� to Felin�,uish� the development rights 4nrinho
J Pit ..:IL _11 :_ - -J_- L_
the DI D when Feq estinn � �Ll�iver nr a determinnfien of "built a t"
the V T V LTYYTIL
status.
as. Where the proposed development has been issued final
subdivision plat approval or final site development plan approval,
a certificate of public facility adequacy shall be obtained prior to
approval of the next development order required for the proposed
development.
bd. Assessment and application of transportation impact fees and
surrender of certificate of public facility adequacy. Upon notice by
facsimile or other approved electronic format that an application
for a final local development order and a certificate have been
approved and prior to expiration of the temporary, 1 -year capacity
reservation previously secured by the applicant upon the County's
acceptance of the TIS pursuant to section 10.02.07 C.4.f., an
applicant may pick up the certificate upon payment of the
estimated transportation impact fees due in accordance with
section 10.02.07 C.1.a. Such estimates shall be based on the
currently approved transportation impact fee rate schedule. If the
certificate is not picked up within the timeline set forth above and
the applicable estimated transportation impact fees paid, the
application will be deemed denied and the certificate will be
voided. In such a case, the applicant shall then be required to
apply for an extension of the capacity reservation in accordance
with section 10.02.07 CAA. If the size of the residential units is not
known at the time of payment, the transportation impact fees for
residential development will be estimated using the fee based on
the mid -range housing size. Road impact fees paid to obtain a
certificate of adequate public facilities are non - refundable after
payment and receipt of the certificate of public facility adequacy
certificate.
Not later than 45 days prior to the due date of the next to occur
annual installment for certificates issued subsequent to the
effective date of this amendment, or not later than 90 days prior to
the expiration of the 3 year period for certificates issued prior to
the effective date of this amendment, the county shall notify the
then current owner via certified mail of the amount due calculated
in accordance with section, 10.02.07 C.1.a. If the estimated
transportation impact fee account becomes depleted, the
developer shall pay the currently applicable transportation impact
fee for each building permit in full prior to its issuance. In the event
that upon build -out of the development estimated transportation
impact fees are still unspent, the remaining balance of such
estimated fees may be transferred to another approved project
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 b PUD Monitoring_Part II 062712.docx
7/9/2012 10:36 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d StFikethrough OS t text 4 L. deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
within the same, or adjacent, transportation impact fee district,
provided any vested entitlements associated with the unspent and
transferred transportation impact fees are relinquished and the
certificate of public facility adequacy is modified to delete those
entitlements.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
F. Monitorina Reauirements
6. Traffic Count Monitoring requirements. A onetime payment for permanent traffic
count stations shall be due at the time of the first PUD Annual Monitoring Report
following the first certificate of occupancy within the PUD. The Payment shall be
based upon the number of ingress and /or egress points (Access Points) based
upon the conceptual Master Plan within the PUD Ordinance. Each Access Point
shall require a payment of $500.00. If additional Access Points are granted at
any time, an additional payment of $500 per Access Point will be payable with
the following Annual Monitoring Report. The Traffic Count monitoring
requirement shall be considered fulfilled for all PUD's that have already provided
at least one traffic count or payment in lieu of traffic counts. PUD's that have
traffic count monitoring language tied to specific commitments within their
ordinances shall remain in effect.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \10 02 07 C 1 b PUD Monitoring_Part II 062712.docx
7/9/2012 10:36 AM
40&74�r C-�-t4-pllry
Growth Management Division
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethre unh is ent taxi to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Public Services Division — Parks and Recreation Department
AUTHOR: Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.05.02 Design Standards
4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements
CHANGE: At present, any development with over 200 parking spaces, including public parks,
may surface fifteen (15 %) percent of the required off - street parking spaces in grass.
Additionally, the County Manager may allow houses of worship and schools to use grass parking
for up to seventy (70 %) percent of their parking spaces if it is determined that the paving will
have a significant negative impacts (4.05.02 13.2). This amendment proposes to remove the 200
parking space threshold for public parks and similar private recreational facilities, such as ball
fields, playgrounds, and privately owned neighborhood parks and allow these facilities to utilize
grass parking for up to seventy (70 %) percent of the off - street parking requirement. Consistent
with the current Code, the grass parking areas will be compacted, stabilized, well drained and
surfaced with a durable grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces and access aisles will be
paved.
The proposed language outlines how grass parking spaces shall be reviewed for stormwater
management calculations. The language seeks to provide flexibility for future paving needs by
requiring adequate stormwater management facilities during the initial development phase. The
provision states that grass parking in excess of fifteen (15 %) percent of the required off - street
parking shall be considered impervious for Collier County and the South Florida Water
Management District water management calculations. The fifteen (15 %) percent threshold
maintains the standard for developers which utilize grass parking.
The amendment also seeks to consolidate all grass parking provisions into Section 4.05.02 -
Design Standards. It is proposed that the existing provision in Section 4.05.04 - Parking Space
Requirements is removed and relocated Section 4.05.02.
REASON: Public parks and similar private recreational facilities are designed to accommodate
seasonal parking needs, peak time parking needs and parking for large events. This results in
unused parking spaces the majority of the time. This type of usage presents an opportunity to
employ a cost effective and low impact design strategy.
The United States Department of Agriculture recognizes that grass coverage can reduce the
runoff rate of rain and water compared to a smoother surface, such as concrete or asphalt
(Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Second Ed. 1986). Permeable
surfaces have also been recognized as a cool pavement. The surfaces allow air, water, and water
vapor into the soil creating an evaporative cooling process. Grass surfaces in particular stay
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 05 02 Design Standards and 4 05 04 Parking Space
Reqs 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:36 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d strikethr.. h u _ t t )d 4 M deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
cooler because the temperature of the vegetation is generally lower than the surrounding air
temperature, particularly after rainfall. However, even when dry, the natural vegetation
properties produce lower temperatures than other parking surfaces benefiting the ambient air
temperature (Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies Cool Pavements, EPA
2008).
The proposed relocation of Section 4.05.04 - Parking Space Requirements and consolidation of
all grass parking provisions will improve the organization and make the LDC more user- friendly.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Grass parking costs considerably less than other
pervious and impervious parking surfaces, making County park projects less costly. There are
maintenance considerations for grass parking, such as irrigation or mowing. A full cost analysis
has not been completed, but it is generally accepted that grass parking requires little maintenance
if appropriately sited.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: South Florida Water Management District
regulations and Section 4.05.02 13.2 of the LDC.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: No discernable impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Growth Management Staff support the proposed language. A
full review of the grass parking standards shall be conducted in conjunction with the future Low
Impact Design (LID) Recommendations of the Watershed Management Plans.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: December 14, 2011, February 21, 2012, March 14; March
22, 2012; April 25, 2012, May 9, 2012, June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 4.05.02 Design Standards
2
3 B. PaFking lets and spaGeS shall meet the fellewing standards:
4 i Be surfaGed with asphalt,
5 , well gFaded Gendition. Upon appFGval of the County
6 ManageF or designee,
7 stabilized- -subgfade magi be substituted fer the above m teri is
QT- above 0 aC1TfCtCGIT
8 2. 1Jp to seventy (70%) peFGent of the parking spaGes for houses of worship and
9
10 designee determines that the paying of serne oF all paFk;ng spaGes fE)F heUSeS Gf
11 weFship and SGhOGIS will have significant negative enviFORmental impaGtS, the
12 County Manager oF designee that these paFking spaGeS Ret be
13 paved
14 3. SpaGes that aFe Ret paved shall be GornpaGted, stabilized, well drained and
15 s Irfa Ged with a durable r Fria Goyer
16 4. DFiveways,
17
18 B. Parking lots and spaces shall meet the following surfacing standards:
19 1. Be surfaced with asphalt, bituminous concrete or dustless material and
20 maintained in smooth well - graded condition Upon approval of the County_
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 05 02 Design Standards and 4 05 04 Parking Space
Reqs 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:36 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te)d str'Lethrough is ruFFent te)d to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Manager or designee, a suitable material (lime rock excluded) with a suitable
2 stabilized subgrade may be substituted for the above materials. Driveways,
3 handicapped spaces and access aisles shall be paved.
4 a. Grass Parking Spaces. Grass parking spaces may be used to satisfy the
5 required off street requirements of Section 4.05.04 in the following
6 circumstances:
7 i. Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, well drained
8 and surfaced with a durable and maintained grass cover.
9 Driveways, handicapped spaces and access aisles shall be
10 ap ved.
11 H. Grass parking spaces in excess of fifteen (15 %) percent of the
12 total required off - street parking shall be considered as an
13 impervious surface in water management calculations for quality
14 and quantity standards per the South Florida Water Management
15 District and Collier County regulations.
16 iii. Up to seventy (70 %) percent of the parking spaces for houses of
17 worship and schools may be surfaced with grass or lawn, when
18 the County Manager or designee determines that the paving of
19 some or all parking spaces for houses of worship and schools will
20 have significant negative environmental impacts;
21 iv. Parking lots in excess of 200 parking spaces may surface fifteen
22 (15 %) percent of the required off - street parking spaces in
23 grass. Such grass parking spaces shall be located along the
24 outlying perimeter of the parking lot;
25 V. Public Parks and similar private recreational facilities in residential
26 developments may surface seventy (70 %) percent of the required
27 off - street spaces in grass.
28 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
29 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 05 02 Design Standards and 4 05 04 Parking Space
Reqs 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:36 AM
31
32
°
33
34
GempaGted,
stabilized,
DFiveways,
handiGapped
aGGess
aisles
shall
be
All
•
35
be innh
de d
spaGes
in
the �e
and
management
GaiG_tlatiens
paved.
fnr
site
grassed
development
pal:king
36
37
38
#
spaces
plan
#
review.
shall
#
#
v-
#
m-
rrt�-
#
ater
ccvcc, „�o��aQC��rcrrc
#
#
��ar�arcrrrorr�-
#
#
rvr.mti
#
utiva��vv���v��a
#
#
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \4 05 02 Design Standards and 4 05 04 Parking Space
Reqs 062612.docx 7/9/2012 10:36 AM
co Pe,-r
Growth Management Division
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text ntrikethro .nh is nt text to be .deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist; Caroline Cilek, Senior
Planner; Fred Reischl, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Allow removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD).
Correct formatting to identify criteria which only apply to the RFMUD.
Amend and correct section references.
At the request of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), add Conservation and
Coastal Management Element (CCME) GMP Policy provision 6.2.5(6).a.3, to the LDC
amendment.
REASON: The LDC treats the removal of exotic vegetation as mitigation differently in each of
the three major areas of the County.
1) In the Urban Area, wetland mitigation required by state and federal jurisdictional agencies,
including exotic vegetation removal is deemed to meet the objective of protection and
conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands, and therefore counted as
mitigation for impacts to wetlands.
2) In the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD), removal of exotic vegetation is not allowed
by the County to be counted as mitigation for impacts to wetlands.
3) In the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), as within the Urban Area, mitigation for
wetland impacts is deferred to the state and federal jurisdictional agencies, and removal
of exotic vegetation is counted as mitigation for impacts to wetlands.
The LDC requires exotic vegetation removal for developments. The LDC, however, does not
allow removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation for impacts to wetlands in the
Rural Fridge Mixed Use District (RFMUD). By requiring removal of exotic vegetation, but not
counting that removal as mitigation, the County may exceed the mitigation required by other
agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands, and it may create an unequal burden on property
owners within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
Correct fornatting and add CCME Policy provision 6.2.5(6).a.3 to LDC, for consistency with the
GMP.
Amend and correct section references.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation Standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 7/9/12
Text underlined is new text to be added.
ctð.. ugh is GUFFent E .h 4 be deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The current LDC language can make a development
more expensive for a developer. If the required vegetation removal is provided in addition to the
mitigation required by other agencies, there is an additional fiscal impact to a developer. Fiscal
and operational impacts for the County include administering the mitigation program. As the
County does not currently have a wetlands permitting program, evaluation of the State's wetland
permitting criteria would have to take place along with consideration on how to implement the
additional requirement. Since final development orders (SDP, PPL, etc.) have not been issued for
development in the RFMUD, since the adoption of this requirement, a program would have to be
developed along with training for staff to implement the program. Initial thoughts on
implementing the requirement include the need for the submission of two separate sets of State
Unified Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) scores, one with the use of exotic
vegetation removal as credit ( "lift ") for wetland impacts and the other without. Mitigation for
loss of wetland function would then have to be evaluated based on the UMAM scores provided.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Policy 6.2.5 of the GMP, Conservation and
Coastal Management Element (CCME) relays one relevant portion regarding exotic vegetation
removal as mitigation: "If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this
policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies."
However, this language does not necessarily prohibit exotic vegetation removal to be included as
mitigation.
Policy 6.2.5 of the GMP, Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME):
"Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the Immokalee
Urban Designated Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher
functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands based upon the
vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element, the wetland functionality
assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final permitting
requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. A direct impact is
hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the
hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:"
Policy 6.2.5(6) of the GMP, CCME states:
"(6) Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to
result in no net loss of wetland functions.
a. Mitigation Requirements:
1. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional
score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland
functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case shall
the acreage proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being
impacted.
2. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to
wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of
2
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 7/9/12
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str'Lethmugh is e..t t,.v to he .Jelet.,.J
Bold text indicates a defined term
storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or adjacent to the
impacted wetland.
3. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland
vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation
easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant
removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic
Pest Plant Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance.
4. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site
alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs
(6) a.1, (6) a.2, and (6) a.3 of this policy. If agency permits have not
provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will
require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
5. Mitigation requirements for single- family lots shall be determined by the
State and Federal agencies during their permitting process, pursuant to
the requirements of Policy 6.2.7 of this element.
b. Mitigation Incentives:
1. Collier County shall encourage certain types of mitigation by providing a
variety of incentives in the form of density bonuses and credits to open
space and vegetation retention requirements. Density bonuses shall be
limited to no more than 10% of the allowed density.
2. Preferred mitigation activities that would qualify for these incentives
include, but are not limited, to the following:
(a) Adding wetland habitat to or restoring wetland functions within
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands,
(b) Creating, enhancing or restoring wading bird habitat to be located
near wood stork, and/or other wading bird colonies.
3. Within one (1) year of the effective date of these amendments, Collier
County shall adopt specific criteria in the LDC to implement this
incentive program, and to identify other mitigation priorities."
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: The proposed LDC amendment, along with other
amendments proposed by the Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA), came at the request
of the County to make the LDC more efficient, streamline the development process, and to allow
for flexibility without sacrificing the quality of development. As a result, CBIA established an
advisory committee made up of professional consultants to identify areas of the LDC which they
believed could be improved upon. Recommendations were then forwarded to County Staff..
Staff has reviewed and discussed the proposed changes with CBIA and those not supported by
staff have been removed. Those remaining, while initiated by CBIA, are supported by staff and
considered staff sponsored amendments coordinated with CBIA requests. Staff is in support of
this proposed amendment for the reasons mentioned above, that is: the regulation creates an
unequal burden on property owners within the RFMUD when wetlands are impacted, and that
the County does not have a wetlands regulatory program in which to implement the requirement.
3
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation Standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 719/12
Text underlined is new text to be added
Te)d s tFiketti h is t te)d to F deleted,
Bold text indicates a defined term
CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS: During the June 19, 2012 meeting of the CCPC, the Planning
Commission recommended by a vote of 4/3, to allow removal of exotic vegetation to count
towards mitigation for secondary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District (RFMUD), when the mitigation is reconciled with State and Federal Permits for a
project. The language, originally proposed by staff to be removed, was retained and revised as
follows.
Exotic vegetation Vegetation Removal. exotie Exotic vegetation removal shall
not constitute mitigation unless the mitigation is for secondary impacts not
dredge and fill) and it is reconciled with the State and Federal permits
The language regarding "reconciled with the State and Federal Permits" was added at the request
of the County Attorney Office, for compliance with 373.414, Florida Statutes. Subsection
373.414(b)4 F.S. states the following with regards to mitigation requirements.
444. If mitigation requirements imposed by a local government for surface
water and wetland impacts of an activity regulated under this part cannot
be reconciled with mitigation requirements approved under a permit for
the same activity issued under this part, including application of the
uniform wetland mitigation assessment method adopted pursuant to
subsection (18), the mitigation requirements for the surface water and
wetland impacts shall be controlled by the permit issued under this part."
Also discussed at the meeting was Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion Number:
AGO 94 -102, dated December 6, 1994, which further clarified the issue. The Advisory states the
following with regards to mitigation and development within wetlands.
"I find nothing in section 373.414(l)(b), Florida Statutes, that seeks to alter the
power of a local government pursuant to its comprehensive plan to control growth
and development within its boundaries. Rather, the provisions of section 373.414,
Florida Statutes, would appear to apply only to those instances in which
development of wetlands is permitted subject to mitigation.
Section 373.441(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department of
Environmental Protection, after consultation with the water management districts,
adopt rules by December 1, 1994, to guide the participation of counties,
municipalities, and local pollution control programs in an efficient system. Thus,
the statute requires that provisions be made for ensuring the consistency of permit
applications with local comprehensive plans. In addition, section 373.441(2),
Florida Statutes, provides that "[n]othing in this section affects or modifies land
development regulations adopted by a local government to implement its
comprehensive plan pursuant to chapter 163."
Section 373.414(l)(b), Florida Statutes, thus appears to apply when local
government regulations permit the development of wetlands and there is a conflict
between state and local mitigation requirements. In such cases, the state
mitigation requirements will prevail over any mitigation requirements adopted by
4
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation Standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 719/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Tevt ctr'Lexttx. ugh is ent text to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
the local government that cannot be reconciled with those of Part IV, Chapter
373, Florida Statutes. Where, however, as in the instant inquiry, development of
wetlands is not permitted under the local government's comprehensive growth
plan, the statute would appear to be inapplicable.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that section 373.414, Florida Statutes, does not
prohibit a local government from prohibiting development of wetland areas under
its comprehensive growth management plan."
After voting on the LDC amendment on June 19t", the CCPC directed staff to revise the
amendment and bring it back to the CCPC for their meeting on June 21St. During the meeting on
the 21St, the CCPC heard public speakers, discussed the amendment and voted 6/3 to remove the
restriction on mitigation within the RFMUD. Concerns of creating a conflict with state law, costs
of administering the requirement/program, and lack of proper stakeholder involvement when the
restriction was first placed in the LDC, were cited by the Planning Commission as reasons for
their recommendation.
Created November 10, 2011, Amended December 16, 2011, March 15, 2012, April 24, 2012,
May 7, 2012, May 17, 2012, June 19, 2012, June 27, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.05.07 Preservation Standards
F. Wetland preservation and conservation.
1. Purpose. The following standards are intended to protect and conserve
Collier County's valuable wetlands and their natural functions, including
marine wetlands. These standards apply to all of Collier County, except
for lands within the RLSA District. RLSA District lands are regulated in
section 4.08.00. wetlands shall be protected as follows, with total site
preservation not to exceed those amounts of vegetation retention set forth
in section 3.05.07(C), unless otherwise required.
2. Urban lands. In the case of wetlands located within the Urban designated
areas of the County, the County will rely on the jurisdictional
determinations made by the applicable state or federal agency in
accordance with the following provisions:
a. Where permits issued by such jurisdictional agencies allow for
impacts to wetlands within this designated area and require
mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the
objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the
natural functions of wetlands within this area.
b. The County shall require the appropriate jurisdictional permit prior
to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site
improvements, except in the case of any single - family residence
that is not part of an approved development or platted subdivision.
C. Within the Immokalee Urban Designated Area, there exists high
quality wetland system connected to the Lake Trafford /Camp
Keais system. These wetlands require greater protection
measures and therefore the wetland protection standards set forth
5
I:TDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 719/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added.
_T_e)d stFikethrn ..h is GUFFent 4 )d to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
in 3.05.07 (F)(3) below shall apply in this area.
3. RFMU district. Direct impacts of development within wetlands shall be
limited by directing such impacts away from high quality wetlands. This
shall be accomplished by adherence to the vegetation retention
requirements of section 3.05.07 (C) above and the following standards:
a. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time
of project review, applicants shall rate the functionality of wetlands
using the Unified Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method set forth
in F.A.C. 62 -345. For projects that have already been issued an
Environmental Resource Permit by the state, the County will
accept wetlands functionality assessments that are based upon
the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid
Assessment Procedures (WRAP), as described in Technical
Publication Reg 001 (September 1997, as update August 1999).
The applicant shall submit to County staff these respective
assessments and the scores accepted by either the South Florida
Water Management District or Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
b. Wetlands documented as being utilized by listed species or
serving as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be
preserved on site, regardless of whether the preservation of these
wetlands exceeds the acreage required in section 3.05.07{8)x.
C. Existing wetland flowways through the project shall be maintained,
regardless of whether the preservation of these flowways
exceeds the acreage required in section 3.05.07(C).
d- d. Drawdowns or diversion of the ground water table shall not
adversely change the hydroperiod of preserved wetlands on or
offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect
surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and
project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these
requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with
Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review,
January 2001.
e. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained
within Section 3.05.07(F)(5).
f. Preserved wetlands shall be buffered from other land uses as
follows:
i. A minimum 50 -foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to a
natural water body.
ii. For other wetlands a minimum 25 -foot vegetated upland
buffer adjacent to the wetland.
iii. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a
vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer
width by 50 %. A structural buffer shall be required adjacent
to wetlands where direct impacts are allowed. A structural
buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative
hedge with suitable fencing.
iv. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved
jurisdictional line.
V. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native
vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native
6
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisionsl3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 7/9/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text StF Leth Mugh is nt te)d to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected
hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
vi. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive
exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council.
vii. The following land uses are considered to be compatible
with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and
recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space
activity or use which is comparable in nature with
the foregoing uses.
4. g_ Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to
wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions, in
adherence with the following requirements and conditions:
a: i_ Mitigation Requirements:
47 a) Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting
from direct impacts to wetlands shall be
compensated for by providing an equal amount of
storage or conveyance capacity on site and within
or adjacent to the impacted wetland.
47 b) Prior to issuance of any final development order
that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with al and b above d) of
this subsection. If agency permits have not
provided mitigation consistent with this Section,
Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that
of the jurisdictional agencies.
ccl Mitigation requirements for single - family lots shall
be determined by the State and Federal agencies
during their permitting process, pursuant to the
requirements of Section (5) 4 below.
d) Preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation shall be placed in
a conservation easement in accordance with
3.05.07 H.1.d, provide for initial removal of
Category I Invasive Exotic Vegetation as defined
by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council and
provide for continual removal of exotic vegetation.
b: ii. Mitigation Incentives: A density bonus of 10% of the
maximum allowable residential density, a 20% reduction
in the required open space acreage, a 10% reduction in
the required native vegetation, or a 50% reduction in
required littoral zone requirements may be granted for
projects that do any of the following:
a) Increase wetland habitat through recreation or
restoration of wetland functions, of the same type
found on -site, on an amount of off -site acres within
7
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation standards- removal of exotic
062712 - revised.docx 7/9112
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Tikethrough is curFent te.h to he deleted.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands,
2 equal to, or greater than 50% of the on -site native
3 vegetation preservation acreage required, or 20%
4 of the overall project size, whichever is greater;
5 ii-: 121 Create, enhance or restore wading bird habitat to
6 be located near wood stork, and /or other wading
7 bird colonies, in an amount that is equal to, or
8 greater than 50% of the on -site native vegetation
9 preservation acreage required, or 20% of the
10 overall project size, whichever is greater; or
11 iimi- cc) Create, enhance or restore habitat for other listed
12 species, in a location and amount mutually
13 agreeable to the applicant and Collier County after
14 consultation with the applicable jurisdictional
15 agencies.
16 E iii. EIS Provisions. When mitigation is proposed, the EIS shall
17 demonstrate that there is no net loss in wetland functions
18 as prescribed above.
19 d. ExotiG vegetation Removal. eX0ticvegetation rerneval shall nGt
20 cnnstit to mitigation
21 64. Estates, rural - settlement areas, and ACSC. In the case of lands located
22 within Estates Designated Area, the Rural Settlement Area, and the
23 ACSC, the County shall rely on the wetland jurisdictional determinations
24 and permit requirements issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency, in
25 accordance with the following:
26 a. For single - family residences within Southern Golden Gate Estates
27 or within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, the
28 County shall require the appropriate federal and state wetland -
29 related permits before Collier County issues a building permit.
30 b. Outside of Southern Golden Gate Estates and the Area of Critical
31 State Concern, Collier County shall inform applicants for individual
32 single - family building permits that federal and state wetland
33 permits may be required prior to construction. The County shall
34 also notify the applicable federal and state agencies of single
35 family building permits applications in these areas.
36 65. RLSA district. Within the RLSA District, wetlands shall be preserved
37 pursuant to section 4.08.00.
38 7-6. Submerged marine habitats. The County shall protect and conserve
39 submerged marine habitats as provided in section 5.03.06 1J.
40 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
8
hLDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \3 05 07 F 4 d Preservation standards- removal of exotic
062712- revised.docx 7/9/12
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text stFikethreugh is eurFent te)d to he deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Division
AUTHOR: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Land Development Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 4.02.01 D. Exemptions and Exclusions from Design Standards
CHANGE: To allow air conditioning (A/C) units that must be elevated in order to meet flood
elevation requirements to encroach into any yard provided that minimum building separations
are maintained, consistent with Staff Clarification SC 07 -01.
REASON: Section 4.02.01 D. provides exemptions and exclusions from the dimensional
standards in the base zoning districts, such as height limitations and setback requirements. The
existing language allows for "ground (slab on grade) mounted A/C units" to encroach into any
yard provided it does not impact required landscaped buffers (4.02.01 D.9.) The LDC also
allows setback/yard encroachments for window or wall - mounted A/C units for up to two (2) feet
(4.02.01 D.6.). In the special flood hazard areas, primarily the coastal VE zones, the A/C units
are required to be elevated to the same level as the first habitable floor (above the Base Flood
Elevation), and cannot be constructed as slab on grade. The proposed amendment will treat
these elevated A/C units in a consistent manner as ground mounted A/C units.
On June 18, 2007, a Staff Clarification (SC 07 -01) was prepared to clarify this issue. It was
noted that "the rule allowing unlimited encroachment has also (historically) been applied to
elevated pad mounted A/C units" that are required to meet flood elevation requirements. The
Staff Clarification regarding elevated pad mounted A/C units concludes with the following
decision:
In order to resolve this discrepancy it is my decision to treat these elevated units
as ` pad-mounted" regardless of the type of supporting structure however, I am
limiting the extent of the encroachment to that which maintains the required
separation distance between structures. A Land Development Code amendment
will be prepared to incorporate this provision. In the interim, units meeting this
limitation will be allowed to exist and new units which don't violate the building
separation requirements may be permitted.
This section of the Code, Section 4.02.01 D.9., was amended as part of Ordinance 10 -67 § 3.Q;
however, the amendment failed to codify SC 07 -01. That amendment was drafted to allow
unenclosed pool equipment to encroach into any required yard. During the review of this pool
equipment amendment by the Collier County Planning Commission, the term "pad mounted"
was replaced with "ground (slab -on- grade) mounted."
1
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 01 D AC Encroachment 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:38 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text str Leah FO h is GUFFent iryrz to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
The proposed amendment codifies how elevated A/C units are being regulated and the decision
outlined in SC 07 -01.
The amendment also deletes the reference to permanent emergency generators from this section,
as these are currently provided for in Section 4.02.01 D. 13.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed amendment does not result in any
fiscal or operational impacts.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Section 3.02.06 E. General Standards for
Flood Hazard Reduction
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: N/A
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: LDC Ordinance No. 10 -23, § 3.Q
Prepared by Christopher O. Scott, Senior Planner, Growth Management Division on February
29, 2012. Edited June 26, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards.
9. Fences, walls and hedges, subject to section 5.03.02, ground (slab on gFade)
mounted air conditioners, unenclosed pool equipment and well pumps, are
permitted in required yards, subject to the provisions of section 4.06.00. This
includes air conditioners that are ground mounted and those required to be
elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures provided
the minimum separation of structures is maintained. �Fcr Ne1im.,non+ e.r,ernerin„
.1µa s a�J{�d. QFdir anGee. \
2
LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \4 02 01 D AC Encroachment 062612.docx 7/9/2012
10:38 AM
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Te.h StF LeiV.m gh ;e. ♦ t ..4 F be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Collier Building Industry Association
AUTHOR: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2012 Cycle 1
LDC SECTION(S): 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards
CHANGE: To amend subsection 5.05.08 C.9 to allow outparcels and freestanding buildings
within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or within a common ownership development an
exception to the primary fagade requirements for the "back" of the building.
To amend subsection 5.05.08 F, which outlines the Deviations and Alternate Compliance
process, to include buildings within a PUD. The process is currently limited to buildings that are
not located within a PUD.
REASON: The proposed amendment to subsection 5.05.08 C.9 is designed to make the facade
requirements for secondary fagades, considered the "back" of the building, more functional and
less burdensome for developers and architects. Currently, all sides of a building are required to
meet the primary fagade requirements, which include detailing such as windows, covered
entryways, covered walkways, and trellises. The proposed change will allow outparcels and
freestanding buildings to have a functional "back" service area which will face the interior of the
development. This amendment will provide for the practical design of a building's service area
and alleviate a point of contention and frustration for many developers.
Currently, new buildings constructed within a PUD do not have a means to seek an architectural
deviation from the LDC. The County's Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance
process provides a method for a unique architectural design while still meeting the intent of the
LDC. The proposed change to subsection 5.05.08 F will allow new buildings in PUDs the same
design flexibility as buildings in other zoning districts. The proposed amendment is not likely to
conflict with a PUD Master Plan because Master Plans generally provide the site standards, but
do not specify the specific design details for buildings.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The amendments will provide fiscal benefits to
developers. The secondary fagade may cost less than the current requirements. The extension of
the Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance process will provide a larger number of
buildings the opportunity to apply for an alternative design which may assist developers with
new projects.
County Staff does not anticipate any fiscal or operational impacts to the County.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1)Amendment Revisions\Author Revisions \5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards Deviations 071312.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Text underlined is new text to be added.
_T_o)d stFikethrn nh is GUFFent te..4 to be deleted.-
Bold text indicates a defined term
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: This amendment and an additional recommendation from
the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) were presented to the Planning
Commission on May 3, 2012. The Planning Commission inquired if this amendment and
recommendation had been reviewed by the 2004 Architectural Review Committee. Staff replied
that the Review Committee had not met to review or discuss the proposed amendments. The
Planning Commission Chairman directed Staff to have the Architectural Review Committee
reconvene and review the amendments. The Commission did not discuss or vote on the proposed
amendments.
As a follow up to this discussion, Staff requested the direction and support of the Planning
Commission to review section 5.05.08 in its entirety. Staff noted that the same request would be
asked of the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission supported Staff's
request.
Due to the level of involvement and interest DSAC members had established with the proposed
amendment and recommendation, they were updated as to the status of the amendment on June
6, 2012. Following discussion, they recommended that the amendment, as written, and their
recommendation regarding spandrel windows be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration and direction to Staff.
Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner on March 12, 2012; March 19, 2012, March 27,
2012, June 26, 2012, July 5, 2012, July 13, 2012
Amend the LDC as follows:
5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards
C. Building design standards.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
9. Outparcels and freestanding buildings within a PUD and common ownership
developments.
a. Purpose and intent. To provide unified architectural design and site planning for
all on -site structures, and to provide for safe and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian access and movement within the site.
b. Facades standards. All facades must meet the requirements of 5.05.08.C.5,
Project standards.
i. Primary facades. All exterior facades of freestanding structures, including
structures located on outparcels, are considered primary facades, and
must meet the requirements of this Section with respect to the
architectural design treatment for primary facades - Section 5.05.08 C.2.
Primary facade standards, except for those facades considered
secondary facades.
ii. Secondary facades. One facade of a freestandinq structure includinq
structures located on outparcels, that is internal to the site and that does
not abut or face the streets on the periphery of the development
Outparcels and freestanding buildings are allowed one secondary facade
2
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revision s \Author Revisions \5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards Deviations 071312.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text nfriLeth FO h' current t )d to be deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
C. Design standards. The design for freestanding buildings must employ
architectural, site and landscaping design elements integrated with, and common
to those used on the primary structure and its site. These common design
elements must include colors, building materials, and landscaping associated
with the main structure. All freestanding buildings must provide for vehicular and
pedestrian inter - connection between adjacent outparcels or freestanding sites
and the primary structure.
d. Primary facade standards. The following design features are in addition to the list
of requirement options to meet Section 5.05.08 C.2. Primary facade standards:
i. Walls expanding the design features of the building, not less than 7 feet
high, creating a courtyard not less than 12 feet from the building and
length of no less than 60% of the length of the associated facade. The
courtyard may be gated and able to be secured from exterior public
access. Grilled openings are allowed if courtyard is landscaped. Opening
depths or wall terminations must be a minimum of 12 inches deep. If the
courtyard contains service or utility equipment, the height and design
must prevent view from the exterior. Courtyard walls are not to be
considered fences.
ii. Trellis or latticework used as a support for climbing plants may count as
window area equal to the plant coverage area.
F. Deviations and Alternate Compliance. The following alternative compliance process is
established to allow deviations from the requirements of this Section as approved by the
County Manager or his designee.
1. Review and approval procedure. Upon request by the applicant, the County
Manager or his designee may administratively approve a Site and Development
Plan application that includes an alternative architectural design and site
development plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting
the standards of Section 5.05.08. Approved deviations are allowed only as to the
specific design and plan reviewed. Any modification to an approved design shall
necessitate re- review and approval by the County Manager or his designee.
2. Review criteria. In approving an alternative plan, the County Manager or his
designee must find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose
and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. If the plan
is approved through this provision, the Site Development Plan approval letter
shall specifically note the deviations and the basis for their approval.
3. Submittal requirements. In addition to the base submittal requirements,
applicants must provide the following:
a. Architectural design plan and /or site development plan clearly labeled as
an "Alternative Architectural Design Standards Plan ". This plan must
identify the section numbers from this Section from which the deviation is
being requested.
b. A narrative statement that specifically identifies all standards of Section
5.05.08 from which the deviations are requested, and the justification for
the request. This statement must include a description of how the
alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section,
without specifically complying with those standards identified.
4. Applicability.
a. The following types of buildings and uses qualify for an administrative
determination of deviations from Section 5.05.08. development standards:
i. Assembly,
3
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards Deviations 071312.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards Deviations 071312.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Tevt is ent te)d to he
Gtr'Leth Mugh deleted-.
Bold text indicates a defined term
ii.
Educational,
iii.
Institutional,
iv.
Mixed use buildings (such as commercial /residential /office), and
V.
Any other non - commercial building, or use, that is not listed under
Section 5.05.08 D. Design standards for specific building types of
this Section, and due to its function, has specific requirements
making meeting Section 5.05.08. standards unfeasible.
vi.
Buildings located on property with a commercial zoning
designation when submitted for Site Development Plan review on
or afteF except for the following:
a) Buildings IGGated on eutpamels, freestanding (non
attaGhed multiple OF individual) buildings In C at ep -nrn T
with a PU mooning designation,
PFOpeFty —oF multiple
buildings developed under a unified , ry nnmmnn development
plan (SUGh as a shopping venter)
g1) Buildings with a gross building area of 10,000 square feet
or more on the ground floor.
bye) Multi -story buildings with a total gross building area of
20,000 square feet or more.
A Project sites with more than one building where the
aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or
more. Individual buildings within a project site that have
been previously granted deviations where additional
development causes an aggregation of building area
20,000 square feet or greater, must bring existing buildings
up to the requirements of 5.05.08.
b. The
deviation process is also applicable to the specific requirements
listed under the following sections:
i.
Section 5.05.08 B.3. Renovations and redevelopment.
ii.
Section 5.05.08 B.4. Abandonment or discontinuance of use.
iii.
Sections 5.05.08 D.2.d. for Self- storage buildings.
# # # #
# # # # # # # # #
4
I: \LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \Amendment Revisions \Author Revisions \5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards Deviations 071312.docx