The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 02/06/2019Page 1 of 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA February 6, 2019 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Request Form,” list the topic they wish to address and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order – Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2018 IV. Approval of DSAC/Subcommittee minutes from January 3, 2019 (Only committee members Clay Brooker, Robert Mulhere, Chris Mitchell and Laura DeJohn are to vote on this) V. Welcome new members: Mark McLean, Architect and John English, Civil Engineer VI. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair VII. Public Speakers VIII. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] B. Public Utilities Department update – [Eric Fey or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division & Planning Division updates – [Jay Ahmad or designee] D. Collier County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson] E. North Collier Fire Review update – [Todd Riggall or Dale Fey] F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update – [Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update – [Matt McLean] IX. New Business A. LDC Amendments and Public Notice Signage [Jeremy Frantz] X. Old Business XI. Committee Member Comments XII. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates: March 6, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm April 3, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm May 1, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm June 5, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm February 6, 2019 3:00 PM 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Growth Management Department If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff, please contact Judy Puig at 252-2370 DSAC Meeting Page 1 of 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA February 6, 2019 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Request Form,” list the topic they wish to address and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order – Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2018 IV. Approval of DSAC/Subcommittee minutes from January 3, 2019 (Only committee members Clay Brooker, Robert Mulhere, Chris Mitchell and Laura DeJohn are to vote on this) V. Welcome new members: Mark McLean, Architect and John English, Civil Engineer VI. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair VII. Public Speakers VIII. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] B. Public Utilities Department update – [Eric Fey or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division & Planning Division updates – [Jay Ahmad or designee] D. Collier County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson] E. North Collier Fire Review update – [Todd Riggall or Dale Fey] F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update – [Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update – [Matt McLean] IX. New Business A. LDC Amendments and Public Notice Signage [Jeremy Frantz] X. Old Business XI. Committee Member Comments XII. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates: March 6, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm April 3, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm May 1, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm June 5, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm December 5, 2018 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, December 5, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere (Excused) Mario Valle Norman Gentry Marco Espinar Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Jeremy Sterk Jeff Curl (Vacancy) (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Eric Fey, Sr. Project Manager, Public Utilities Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering Matt McLean, Director, Development Review Rich Long, Director, Plans Review and Inspections Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management Marlene Messam, Sr. Project Manager December 5, 2018 2 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. I. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Boughton moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 10 - 0. III. Approval of Minutes from November 7, 2018 Meeting Mr. Curl moved to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2018 Meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously 10 - 0. IV. Public Speakers None V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] Mr. Ossorio provided the report “Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report October 22, – November 21, 2018 Highlights” for informational purposes. He noted: • The new nuisance abatement policy is complete. • The Division has suspended enforcement of the requirements for prohibition of rental periods of 6-months or less for private homes in certain single family residential zones. • Ordinance 2018-55 will be effective in January of 2019 where the County will be regulating the gas stations in the County including provision of certification stickers on the site. • Neighborhood sweeps continue to ensure the appearance of the community is at an acceptable standard. Mr. Sterk arrived at 3:04 p.m. B. Public Utilities Division update – [Tom Chmelik or designee] Mr. Fey submitted the monthly report on response time for “Letters of Availability, Utility Deviations and FDEP Permits” for information purposes. He noted: • Staff continues to monitor response times for letters of availability. • Staff is working on guidelines for the response time for utility deviations. • There will be a public meeting at North Collier Regional Park on 12/6/18 for the Immokalee Road/Randall Blvd. Intersection PD & E study. Mr. Dunnavant arrived at 3:10 p.m. The Committee requested Mr. Fey research the status of the new fire line assessment changes including the history of the program and the current requirements for charges and report back to the Committee. C. Growth Management Department/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning – [Jay Ahmad or designee] Mr. Ahmad reported: • White Blvd. Bridge – construction ongoing with contractor subject to liquidated damages of $240,000 to date. December 5, 2018 3 • Golden Gate Blvd., 20th to Everglade Blvd. – clearing and grubbing underway and work on utility relocations, some delays by FPL due to Hurricane Michael remediation efforts in the panhandle. • Tree Farm Road – connection to Immokalee Road with traffic signal proposed for the intersection. • City Gate Blvd. – extended ½ mile to County recovery center. • Pine Road Blvd. – local participation grant awarded to provide 3 lanes at the intersection including right turn lane east of Santa Barbara. D. County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow and/or Shawn Hanson] Ms. Beddow reported turnaround times are as follows: Building Plan review – 447 for the month – 4 days; Site Plan – 54 reviews for month – 2 days; Inspections – 1 - 2 days. The last fire alarm class will be held in December. E. North Naples Fire Review update – [Todd Riggall or Dale Fey] Mr. Riggall reported turnaround times are as follows: Building Plan review – 432 for the month; Site Plan reviews – 55 for the month; Inspections – 1 to 2 days. F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update [Ken Kovensky] Mr. Kovensky submitted the “Collier County November 2018 Monthly Statistics” which outlined building plan and land development review activities. The following was noted during his report: • Application related to electronic submittal is at 49% of total. • Permits related to Hurricane Irma activity is at 18%. • The new call center has proven successful with substantially decreased wait times for those seeking assistance. • Work continues on implementing the credit card payment system in the City View portal. • The Green Building Coalition Subcommittee is anticipated to begin meeting over the next 30 – 60 days. G. Development Review Division update [Matt McLean] Mr. McLean reported: • Application activity has increased 15 – 20% year over year. • Kirsten Wilke has temporarily assumed Summer Araque’s position who left to become the Coordinator for Conservation Collier. • Staff is considering implementing additional requirements for clearing of land for construction of single family homes (other than filing an affidavit) due to concerns on environmental impacts from improper clearing of sites and is seeking input from the Committee on the concept. • Staff continues to review the requirements for addressing impacts on the bonneted bat. Clearing Plans The Committee noted: • The FDEP wetlands permits do incorporate limits of clearing and fill on their approved plans which may aid in some cases. • The concept is favorable for all involved as improper activity has large financial consequences on the landowner in the form of remediation and generally this form of replanting is unsuccessful over time due to the lack of irrigation water, ongoing care to establish the plantings, lack of follow up inspections, etc. December 5, 2018 4 • Construction of homes in these areas requires a site and/or drainage plan and the clearing plan could be incorporated into this document. • A drawing is easier to interpret for all those involved in the process as opposed to determining the limits from a written affidavit filed by the owner. Mr. Valle left at 4:00 p.m. VI. New Business A. Transportation policy for private bridges [Marlene Messam] Ms. Messam provided the “Policy on Privately Owned Bridges” for consideration. She presented a PowerPoint “Privately Owned Bridges, A Policy” for information purposes highlighting: • The County is considering a policy for acceptance of private bridges in the County and requiring an inspection program for those remaining in private control. • The program would include identifying the ownership of the structures, their structural integrity and requesting a voluntary transfer of ownership upon the owner addressing any deficiencies. • An MOU would be executed whereby the private party would maintain architectural, aesthetic or landscaping features for the bridge, while the County maintains the structural integrity for public safety purposes. • There are 3 forms of the private bridges, those serving: a public to public roadway (i.e. Goodlette-Frank Road over Pelican Marsh Blvd., Strand Blvd. over Cocohatchee Canal, Livingston Road over Pelican Marsh golf cart path, Bellaire Bay Drive over Cocohatchee Canal, Goodland Bay Drive over Cocohatchee Canal); public to private; and private to private roads. • The concept is for the County to accept the public to public structures and instituting some form of inspection program for the others. Committee discussion occurred including: • Does the County have any legal authority to impose requirements on privately owned bridges? • Concern the private owner may have to abide by a new set of FDOT standards requiring removal or non installation of architectural features, retrofitting existing bridges to meet requirements, etc. and the potential cost of any retrofitting. • Should the privately owned requirements be enacted for those structures proposed in the future and not retroactively imposed? • If the County assumes the ownership of a structure, coordination with other parties would be required (LDC amendments, removal of the asset from the tax assessor value, etc.). The Committee provided the following input for the bridges: 1. Public to Public - Given the public safety aspects and potential liability the public to public connections should be transferred to the County. 2. Public to Private – Undertake measures to prioritize the structures to determine if any are in need of repair so a determination may be made on the most beneficial avenue to proceed to address any issues. 3. Private to Private – An inspection program would be beneficial, however the standards required need to be clearly identified and concern there could be a substantial cost burden to a homeowners association if the policy is mandated (inspections are $15,000 - $20,000 to begin). It was noted poor maintenance of these bridges is a safety/financial concern, if a structure December 5, 2018 5 becomes impassable and owners or emergency vehicles cannot access a property, the County would potentially remediate the issue in an emergency action and charge the costs to the owners. B. Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment [Jeremy Frantz] Ms. DeJohn reported a conflict of interest in the item and would not be casting a vote as the company she works for assisted in preparation of the policy. Mr. Brooker reported he had to leave the meeting but expressed concern on the 30 foot height limitation of the building and recommended consideration be given to increasing the requirement to 35 feet. Mr. Brooker left the meeting at 4:25 p.m. Mr. Frantz presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts He noted: • The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow single family homes in the Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District within the area known as Plantation Island in part to provide new options for rebuilding after storm damage with more resilient structures in an area vulnerable to storm hazards. • The height requirement is measured from the first floor elevation of the structure as required under the FEMA regulations, not from existing ground level. • A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held in November to garner input from the public. • The program is an “opt in” and not a requirement for those in the zone. The County is not imposing the regulation creating a financial burden on those who choose to construct under the existing zoning regulation. • The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the proposal and found it acceptable. Mr. Curl moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Land Development Code Amendment. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously 10 – 0. Ms. DeJohn abstained. VII. Old Business None VIII. Committee Member Comments – Discuss the January 2nd Meeting The Committee cancelled the January 2, 2019 Meeting. IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates February 6, 2019 - GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. March 6, 2019 - GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. ***** December 5, 2018 6 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:50 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ______________________________________ Chairman, William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on ________________, as presented _______, or as amended ________. January 3, 2019 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 3, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in a REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Department Building, Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the following persons present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Robert Mulhere Chris Mitchell Laura DeJohn ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, Manager, Plans Review and Inspections Richard Long, Director, Plans Reviews and Inspections January 3, 2019 2 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Division building at 239-252-2400. 1. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 3:40 p.m. 2. Florida Green Building Coalition consideration Staff reported the meeting was convened as Commissioner Fiala requested staff to investigate the requirements of the Florida Green Building Coalition to determine if the County should pursue any interest in becoming a member of the organization and/or any certifications available. The Coalition’s website was made available to the members with the following noted during discussions: • The certifications are awarded through a point system and focus on energy, water, air, land and waste. • Another tier is available to developers who may use the resources to improve the environmental quality of developments. The sustainable quality of the residential environment may be used as a marketing tool. • A determination would need to be made on who the program would target (private development vs. local government) and how it would be adopted/implemented (i.e. a voluntary program for the private sector vs. strict requirements.) • In general, the standards employed add significant cost to the development of a project with a minimal financial benefit to the proponent. • It may be beneficial for the BCC to request a presentation on the program to aid them in determining if the concept should be pursued. • Any decision to move forward would require participation by other Departments (Public Utilities, Facilities Management, Stormwater Planning, Parks and Recreation, etc.) as the main focus of the Coalition is outside the responsibilities assigned to the Growth Management Division. The Subcommittee noted: 1. There have been substantial prior efforts put forth in this arena that should be reviewed to determine their benefits and it would be advantageous for the BCC to request a presentation on the program to determine if it is in the County’s best interest to move forward. 2. If the BCC determines to undertake the process, it would be time consuming and consideration should be given to convening some type of Committee, Task Force, etc. to assist in the activity. 3. The responsibility for the activity shouldn’t fall under the Growth Management Division or the Development Services Advisory Committee given the array of Departments who would need to be involved in the process. 4. There is a concern the increase in cost associated with the development of any project under the auspices of the program may not yield a significant economic benefit to the County or others (other than a marketing tool). 5. The program may be beneficial for proposed communities in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area where large scale mixed use projects may be developed in the future. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:18 P.M. January 3, 2019 3 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ______________________________________ These Minutes were approved by the Committee on ________________, as presented _______, or as amended ________. This report reflects monthly data from: November 22 thru December 21, 2018 Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report November 22, 2018 – December 21, 2018 Highlights • Cases opened: 643 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 373 • Property inspections: 2683 • Lien searches requested: 998 Trends 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 418 803 743 625 650 559 510 619 772 668 806 642 Cases Opened Per Month 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 1488 2790 2519 2452 2569 2425 2417 2760 2849 2630 2999 2683 Code Inspections per Month This report reflects monthly data from: November 22 thru December 21, 2018 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2017 2018 3012 2204 4647 5423 Origin of Case Code Div. Initiated Cases Complaint Initiated Cases 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Bayshore Immokalee 47 49 161 298 CRA Case Opened Monthly This report reflects monthly data from: November 22 thru December 21, 2018 November 22, 2018 – December 21, 2018 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. Animals 0%Accessory Use 2%Land Use 11% Noise 2% Nuisance Abatement 22% Occupational Licensing 1% Parking Enforcement 3% Property Maintenance 11% Right of Way 6% Signs 3% Site Development 8% Temp Land Use 1% Vehicles 26% Vegetation Requirements 4% This report reflects monthly data from: November 22 thru December 21, 2018 October 22, 2018 – November 21, 2018 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. Animals 1%Accessory Use 0%Land Use 10% Noise 2% Nuisance Abatement 33% Occupational Licensing 1% Parking Enforcement 4% Property Maintenance 12% Right of Way 6% Signs 4% Site Development 8% Temporary Land Use 1% Vehicles 14% Vegetation Requirements 4% This report reflects monthly data from: November 22 thru December 21, 2018 September 22, 2018 – October 21, 2018 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. Animals 1%Accessory Use 1%Land Use 10% Noise 2% Nuisance Abatement 33% Occupational Licensing 1% Parking Enforcement 1% Property Maintenance 14% Right of Way 6% Signs 4% Site Development 8% Vehicles 16% Vegetation Requirements 4% This report reflects monthly data from: December 22, 2018 thru January 21, 2019 Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report December 22, 2018 – January 21, 2019 Highlights • Cases opened: 654 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 262 • Property inspections: 2048 • Lien searches requested: 672 Trends 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 803 743 625 650 559 510 619 772 668 806 642 654 Cases Opened Per Month 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 2790 2519 2452 2569 2425 2417 2760 2849 2630 2999 2683 2048 Code Inspections per Month This report reflects monthly data from: December 22, 2018 thru January 21, 2019 This report reflects monthly data from: December 22, 2018 thru January 21, 2019 December 22, 2018 – January 21, 2019 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from: December 22, 2018 thru January 21, 2019 November 22, 2018 – December 21, 2018 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. Animals 0%Accessory Use 2%Land Use 11% Noise 2% Nuisance Abatement 22% Occupational Licensing 1% Parking Enforcement 3% Property Maintenance 11% Right of Way 6% Signs 3% Site Development 8% Temp Land Use 1% Vehicles 26% Vegetation Requirements 4% This report reflects monthly data from: December 22, 2018 thru January 21, 2019 October 22, 2018 – November 21, 2018 Code Cases by Category Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use – Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals – Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use – Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement – Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing – Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements – Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. Animals 1%Accessory Use 0%Land Use 10% Noise 2% Nuisance Abatement 33% Occupational Licensing 1% Parking Enforcement 4% Property Maintenance 12% Right of Way 6% Signs 4% Site Development 8% Temporary Land Use 1% Vehicles 14% Vegetation Requirements 4% Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division6464343220 0 0 16032617139914114243116646434012345670102030405060708090100Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18RequestsDaysResponse Time - Letters of AvailabilityRequests CompletedMinimumAverageMaximumRequests Received Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division222222145655315161214191102468101214161820024681012141618Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18RequestsDaysResponse Time - Utility DeviationsRequests CompletedSufficiency Review TimeSubstantive Review TimeRequests Received Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division654657423421421418775910735024681012051015202530Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18RequestsDaysResponse Time - FDEP PermitsRequests CompletedInitial Review TimeRevision Review TimeDirector Approval TimeRequests Received Resubmittal Resubmittal Applicant (Developer's Engineer) emails Utility Deviation Request to UtilityPlanning@colliercountyfl.gov. Utility Planning role initiates automated workflow Water or WW?Water Wastewater Reject email to Applicant Approval email to Applicant Op Manager Principal Approval Op DirectorA Op Manager Principal Approval Op DirectorA Resubmittal Resubmittal 1 DAY Yes within 3 days No No Yes within 3 days 4 DAYS TOTAL No response in 3 days No response in 3 days 4 DAYS TOTAL Yes within 2 days No No Yes within 2 days 6 DAYS TOTAL No response in 2 days No response in 2 days 6 DAYS TOTAL Yes within 3 days No No Yes within 3 days 9 DAYS TOTAL No response in 3 days No response in 3 days 9 DAYS TOTAL = All three are needed for approval. Only one is needed for rejection. Applicant (Developer's Engineer) emails Utility Deviation Request to UtilityPlanning@colliercountyfl.gov. Utility Planning role initiates automated workflow Water or WW?Water Wastewater Resubmit or Reject email to Applicant Oper & Eng Prin Escalation Department Head Escalation Eng Director Approval email to Applicant Approval email to Applicant Oper & Eng Prin Escalation Department Head Escalation Eng Director Oper & Eng Prin Principal PM Oper. Director Oper. Manager December 2018 Monthly Statistics 112/2018 Growth Management Department Building Plan Review Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 2 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-182,724 2,884 3,246 3,548 3,571 3,981 3,907 3,188 3,686 1,984 4,473 4,704 4,797 5,358 5,906 6,427 6,335 6,124 5,599 4,880 5,083 4,246 4,651 3,831 3,141 All Permits Applied by Month Carport/Shed, 54 Solar, 56 ROW Residential, 72 Well Permits, 85 Pool, 104Fence, 121Gas, 123 Electrical, 145 Building Add Alt, 178 Plumbing, 184 Aluminum Structure, 194 New Res 1 & 2 Family, 255 Shutters/Doors/Windows, 307 Mechanical, 405 Roof, 612 Top 15 of 34 Building Permit Types Applied in December Building Plan Review Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 3 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000 Dec-16Mar-17Jun-17Sep-17Dec-17Mar-18Jun-18Sep-18Dec-18Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date 1&2 Family Multi-family Commercial $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000 Dec-16Mar-17Jun-17Sep-17Dec-17Mar-18Jun-18Sep-18Dec-18Monthly Multi-family and Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date Multi-family Commercial Building Plan Review Statistics 412/2018 Growth Management Department - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Dec- 16 Jan- 17 Feb- 17 Mar- 17 Apr- 17 May- 17 Jun- 17 Jul- 17 Aug- 17 Sep- 17 Oct- 17 Nov- 17 Dec- 17 Jan- 18 Feb- 18 Mar- 18 Apr- 18 May- 18 Jun- 18 Jul- 18 Aug- 18 Sep- 18 Oct- 18 Nov- 18 Dec- 18 Commercial 10 15 10 6 6 12 4 7 13 5 7 5 4 5 9 10 5 12 7 7 5 8 6 4 4 Multi-family 7 10 5 4 15 -4 5 5 3 3 13 4 6 4 7 7 5 6 6 3 18 12 6 2 1&2 Family 166 203 202 286 242 268 293 224 287 177 202 163 194 222 169 282 292 318 302 355 251 223 213 232 194 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec-16Mar-17Jun-17Sep-17Dec-17Mar-18Jun-18Sep-18Dec-18New Multi-family Building Permits Issued by Month - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Dec-16Mar-17Jun-17Sep-17Dec-17Mar-18Jun-18Sep-18Dec-18New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month Building Inspections Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 5 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1819,050 17,615 16,605 20,089 16,794 18,948 18,023 16,286 19,552 9,097 18,429 18,119 18,276 19,542 18,930 21,368 21,446 22,596 21,371 20,899 25,433 21,168 26,419 21,380 20,750 Building Inspections Electrical, 3,471 Land Development, 1,619 Gas, 496 Mechanical, 1,601 Plumbing, 3,115 ROW, 453 Septic, 158 Structural, 9,730 Well, 103 Pollution, 4 Types of Building Inspections in December Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Utility Conveyance Final Acceptance Utility Conveyance Preliminary Acceptance Vegetation Removal Permit Zoning Verification Letter Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change 34 39 54 132 133 Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18121 139 144 145 154 176 178 146 158 63 148 114 111 133 128 199 133 162 163 173 177 128 159 144 126 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 7 - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1825 25 24 19 32 25 20 25 21 14 20 22 15 21 21 33 21 39 24 22 35 35 34 27 17 Pre -application Meetings by Month - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1839 44 21 39 30 23 27 21 22 36 40 32 35 34 36 24 23 26 52 16 28 40 56 35 26 64534663485461547450746143644650638553528368666459Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month Temporary Use Commercial Certificates Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-188 8 3 3 2 2 4 5 2 2 1 6 0 2 3 3 7 5 5 1 5 3 3 2 4 Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month Numberof SubdivisionsYearly Totals 2016 -46 2017 -38 2018 -43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1821 30 10 19 4 7 11 18 6 4 3 15 0 10 7 11 39 22 18 2 27 12 19 13 12 Plat Pages Recorded per Month Number of PagesYearly Totals 2016 -172 2017 -127 2018 -192 Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 9 Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1813 9 10 20 11 13 13 11 12 5 19 7 14 12 9 17 13 18 11 8 13 14 11 12 8 - 5 10 15 20 25 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-185 4 12 12 10 11 4 7 5 11 10 5 7 6 5 23 12 8 11 9 12 10 8 4 6 Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 10 - 10 20 30 40 50 60 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1842 31 34 42 35 38 55 43 54 22 44 45 35 30 26 49 47 50 44 33 54 25 49 34 38 Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-1828 31 20 29 33 52 36 42 37 17 30 25 26 23 23 32 34 61 36 40 34 38 34 30 32 Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month Reviews for Land Development Services 12/2018 Growth Management Department 11 Percentage On-time for the Month of December - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18807 687 786 999 840 906 1,066 904 984 697 1,005 840 862 915 820 1,061 1,183 1,270 961 970 1,134 916 1,127 987 876 Number of Land Development Reviews Land Development Services Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 12 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate Construction Estimate Utility Estimate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Inspections per monthSite & Utility Inspections Final Subdivision Inspection Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Preliminary Utility Inspection Tie In Inspection Fire Review Statistics 12/2018 Growth Management Department 13 Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month Fire District 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18DaysBuilding Fire Review Average Number of Days 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Jan-18Feb-18Mar-18Apr-18May-18Jun-18Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18DaysPlanning Fire Review Average Number of Days Working with City View Portal with CAPTCHA Codes Enabled Page 1 of 1 Purpose THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO EXPLAIN THE CAPTCHA FUNCTIONALITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION WILL IMPLEMENT ON THE CITYVIEW PORTAL. What is it? Captcha is an acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart. The CityView Portal currently uses CAPTCHA’s to prevent visitors or automated traffic (bots) from repetitively submitting/creating applications. Why do we need it? Our CityView Portal, like most websites, has a finite set of resources available to fulfill requests from visitors to Portal. Each anonymous and registered visitor consumes a portion of these resources. Once the resources have been completely exhausted the Portal will respond slower or not at all to visitor’s requests. Over the past several months GMD has been working with our IT and software vendor to identify a solution for mitigating the increased amount of automated (bot) traffic accessing the CityView Portal and consuming all available resources on the server. What are we doing? GMD’s software vendor for CityView has recommended the implementation of a CAPTCHA system (see image below) on all search forms located on the Portal. The CAPTCHA’s will prevent non-human (bot) automated traffic from repetitively querying the search forms to extract data from GMD’s systems. What do GMD’s customers need to know? Each anonymous or registered visitor to the CityView Portal will see a CAPTCHA (shown above) on all pages that allow the visitor to search Code Enforcement, Building Department, Planning Department, Contractor Licensing or Property related information. For example, if the visitor accesses the Property Search link (shown below), or any of the Status and Fees links (shown below) they will need to complete the CAPTCHA on step 5, review and submit. They will only need to complete the CAPTCHA once per unique session (i.e. if the visitor is registered but performs the search anonymous and then decides to login using their registered account credentials they will have to complete a CAPTCHA again. H:\Planning and Regulation\DSAC\Read Aheads\2019\2-6-2019 DSAC meeting\Public Notice Signs Memo to DSAC 2-6-19.docx Memorandum To: Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) From: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager Date: January 25, 2019 Re: Proposed Changes to Public Notice Signs LDC Section 10.03.06 provides public notice requirements for a variety of petition types. Numerous petitions require the posting of a sign and a template for each sign is provided in the Administrative Code. Over time, these templates have resulted in public notice signs that are difficult to read, particularly to motorists traveling at higher speeds. Staff proposes to modify the public notice sign templates to enhance legibility, as shown below. No changes are proposed to the required sign sizes. These changes were presented to the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee on December 18, 2018, and changes to the text colors were suggested and incorporated into the examples below. Proposed PUD Rezone Template Current PUD Rezone Template Memorandum To: Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Date: January 29, 2019 Re: 2019 LDC Amendments Zoning Staff has prepared several new Land Development Code (LDC) amendments, which were reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee - Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee on December 18, 2018. Staff is now seeking a recommendation from the DSAC. The amendments, which were reviewed by the Subcommittee, including their recommendations, are as follows: 1. LDC Sections 2.01.03, 2.03.08 & 2.03.09 - Communication Towers This amendment adds communication towers as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands and the Conservation (CON) Zoning Districts as an essential service. o Lacking a quorum, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee did not take a formal vote, however, the members in attendance commented that they did not have any issues with the amendment. After the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee’s review, the amendment was modified to add communication towers as an essential use in the Conservation (CON) District. 2. LDC Sections 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 - Permanent Emergency Generators This amendment introduces addresses the placement and location of residential permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwelling units. o The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval of the amendment with changes that have been incorporated into the current draft, except for changing the term “permanent emergency generators” to “optional standby generators.” 3. LDC Section 4.02.08 - Outdoor Residential Lighting This amendment establishes standards for new outdoor lighting associated with single- family and two-family dwelling units, and duplexes. These standards are intended to prevent high-intensity outdoor lighting from negatively impacting neighboring residential properties. o The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval of the amendment with no changes. 4. LDC Sections 4.06.02 & 4.06.05 - Revised Commercial Landscaping This revised amendment places new restrictions when replacing or removing required landscaping trees at commercial shopping centers. The purpose and intent of the amendment is to maintain existing mature canopy trees at shopping centers and their value to the surrounding neighborhood. o The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee stated that the amendment is not necessary and that the limitation on removing a maximum of 50 percent of the landscaping within 15 years is too restrictive. However, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended that if the Board of County Commissioners were to approve such an amendment, the 50 percent limitation should be removed, and the timeframe for retaining the current canopy be reduced to 10 years. 5. LDC Sections 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 - Gas Station Signs This amendment modifies the current standards related to ground signs for facilities with fuel pumps in accordance with Section 553.79(20(a)2 of the Florida Statutes and in coordination with local stakeholders. o Lacking a quorum, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee did not take a formal vote, however, the members in attendance commented that they did not have any issues with the amendment. Staff anticipates the following hearing dates: CCPC – February 7, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. CCPC – February 28, 2019, at 5:05 p.m. (Communication Towers and Plantation Island Overlay amendments only) Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeremy Frantz, AICP JeremyFrantz@colliergov.net (239) 252-2305 L:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\02-06-2019\LDC Amendments Memo to DSAC 2-6-2019.docx 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003474 ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment adds communication towers as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands and the Conservation District (CON) as an essential service. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.01.03 Essential Services 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR N/A DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On November 13, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to address Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending Lands (See Exhibit A). Currently, communication towers are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)-Sending Lands or Conservation (CON) Districts. Therefore, communication towers are prohibited in the RFMUD-Sending Lands and CON Districts. However, the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 USC 332) states that local governments “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” (Section 332(c)(3)(7)(B)(i)(II)) This LDC amendment would ensure compliance with the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 by defining communications towers as an essential service and allowing communications towers as a conditional use in the RFMUD-Sending Lands and CON Districts. Additionally, communication towers would still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards. Corresponding cross-references to this new conditional use are also added to LDC sections 2.03.08 and 2.03.09. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Review The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed this amendment on December 18, 2018. Lacking a quorum, no action was taken, but the amendment was forwarded to the full DSAC with no comments or suggested changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Executive Summary Approved by BCC DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 2.01.03 - Essential Services 3 4 Essential services are hereby defined as services designed and operated to provide water, 5 sewer, gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by 6 providers which have been approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate 7 jurisdiction, and government facilities. Essential services are allowed in any zoning district subject 8 to the following conditions: 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 G. Conditional uses. The following uses require approval pursuant to section 10.08.00 13 conditional uses: 14 15 1. Conditional essential services in every zoning district excluding the RFMU district 16 sending lands, CON districts, NRPAs, and RLSA designated HSAs and FSAs. In 17 every zoning district, unless otherwise identified as permitted uses, and excluding 18 RFMU district Sending Lands, CON districts, and NRPAs, the following uses shall 19 be allowed as conditional uses: 20 21 a. Electric or gas generating plants; 22 23 b. Effluent tanks; 24 25 c. Major re-pump stations sewage treatment plants, including percolation 26 ponds, and water aeration or treatment plants, 27 28 d. Hospitals and hospices; 29 30 e. Government facilities, including where not identified as a permitted use in 31 this section, safety service facilities such as including law enforcement, fire, 32 emergency medical services; and 33 34 f. Conservation Collier lands which provide for permitted, nondestructive, 35 passive natural resource based recreational and educational activities, 36 when such sites require major improvements to accommodate public 37 access and use. These major improvements shall include, but are not 38 limited to: parking areas of 21 parking spaces or more; nature centers; 39 equestrian paths; biking trails; canoe and kayak launch sites; public 40 restroom facilities, greater than 500 square feet; signage beyond that 41 allowed in sections 2.01.03 A.9. and 2.01.03 B.1.e. of this Code and other 42 nondestructive passive recreational activities as identified by the County 43 Manager or designee. The provisions for Conservation Collier lands in this 44 Code do not affect the underlying zoning districts or land use designations 45 in any district where Conservation Collier lands are established, such that 46 no expansion or diminution of the various zoning district conditional uses is 47 intended or implied by these provisions, except as stated above for major 48 improvements. Oil and gas field development and production as defined DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 and regulated in this Code remains a conditional use on or beneath 2 Conservation Collier lands established in zoning districts providing for oil 3 and gas field development and production as a conditional use, subject to 4 subsection 2.03.09 B.1.c.i. 5 6 2. Conditional essential services in RFMU sending lands, NRPAs, CON districts, and 7 RLSA designated HSAs and FSAs. Within RFMU District Sending Lands, NRPAs, 8 CON districts, and the RFLA designated HSAs and FSAs subject to the limitations 9 set forth in section 4.08.08 C.2., in addition to the essential services identified as 10 allowed conditional uses in subsection 2.01.03 G.1. above, the following additional 11 essential services are allowed as conditional uses: 12 13 a. Sewer lines and lift stations necessary to serve a publicly owned or 14 privately owned central sewer system providing service to urban areas; or 15 the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, as delineated on the Urban- 16 Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Element 17 of the GMP, when not located within already cleared portions of existing 18 rights-of-way or easements; 19 20 b. Safety Services limited to law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical 21 services; and 22 23 c. Oil and gas field development and production, as defined and regulated in 24 this Code, remains a conditional use on or beneath Conservation Collier 25 lands established in the CON zoning district subject to subsection 2.03.09 26 B.1.c.i. 27 28 3. Additional conditional uses in residential, and estate zoned districts, and in RFMU 29 receiving and neutral lands. In residential, agricultural, and estate zoned districts 30 and in RFMU Receiving and neutral lands, in addition to those essential services 31 identified as conditional uses in section 2.01.03 G.1. above, the following essential 32 services shall also be allowed as conditional uses: 33 34 a. Regional parks and community parks; 35 36 b. Public parks and public library facilities; 37 38 c. Safety service facilities; 39 40 d. Other similar facilities, except as otherwise specified herein. 41 42 4. Additional conditional uses in the RFMU sending lands and CON districts. The 43 following essential services shall be allowed as conditional uses: 44 45 a. Communications towers, subject to all applicable provisions of LDC 46 section 5.05.09. 47 48 4. 5.Conditional uses that include the installation of structures: 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 a. Where structures are involved other than structures supporting lines or 2 cables, such structures shall comply with the regulations for the district in 3 which they are located, or as may be required on an approved site 4 development plan under section 10.02.03. In addition, the structures shall 5 conform insofar as possible to the character of the district in which they are 6 located as to development standards, as well as architecture and 7 landscaping, with utilization of screening and buffering to ensure 8 compatible with the surrounding and nearby existing and future uses. 9 10 b. Within the RFMU district sending lands, NRPAs, Conservation Districts, 11 and the RLSA HSAs and FSAs, structures supporting the conditional use 12 shall be located so as to minimize any impacts on native vegetation and on 13 wildlife and wildlife habitat. 14 15 c. Essential services shall not be deemed to include the erection of structures 16 for commercial activities such as sales or the collection of bills in districts 17 from which such activities would otherwise be barred. Unstaffed billing 18 services, which are accessory uses to the normal operations of the 19 essential service, may be permitted. 20 21 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 22 23 2.03.08 – Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 A. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU District). 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 31 4. RFMU sending lands. RFMU sending lands are those lands that have the highest 32 degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant 33 wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. RFMU sending lands are the 34 principal target for preservation and conservation. Density may be transferred from 35 RFMU sending lands as provided in LDC section 2.03.07 D.4.c. All NRPAs within 36 the RFMU district are also RFMU sending lands. With the exception of specific 37 provisions applicable only to NBMO neutral lands, the following standards shall 38 apply within all RFMU sending lands: 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 42 a. Allowable uses where TDR credits have not been severed. 43 44 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 45 46 (3) Conditional Uses. 47 48 (a) Those essential services identified in LDC section 2.01.03 49 G.2 and 4. 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 b. Uses allowed where TDR credits have been severed. 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 (2) Conditional uses: 8 9 (a) Those Essential Uses identified in LDC section 2.01.03 G.2 and 4. 10 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 12 13 2.03.09 – Open Space Zoning Districts 14 15 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 17 B. Conservation District "CON". The purpose and intent of the conservation district "CON" is 18 to conserve, protect and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier 19 County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats possess ecological and 20 physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. 21 Barrier islands, coastal bays, wetlands, and habitat for listed species deserve particular 22 attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All 23 proposals for development in the CON district must be subject to rigorous review to ensure 24 that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent 25 functional values. The CON District includes such public lands as Everglades National 26 Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, portions 27 of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, 28 Collier-Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Research 29 Reserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park, and the National Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp 30 Sanctuary (privately owned), and C.R.E.W. It is the intent of the CON District to require 31 review of all development proposed within the CON District to ensure that the inherent 32 value of the County's natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably altered. The CON 33 District corresponds to and implements the conservation land use designation on the 34 future land use map of the Collier County GMP. 35 36 1. Allowable uses. The following uses are allowed in the CON District. 37 38 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 39 40 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in 41 the CON, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 42 10.08.00 and further subject to: 1) submission of a plan for development as 43 part of the required EIS that demonstrates that wetlands , listed species 44 and their habitat are adequately protected; and 2) conditions which may be 45 imposed by the Board of County Commissioners, as deemed appropriate, 46 to limit the size, location, and access to the conditional use. DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 2. Those essential services set forth in subsection 2.01.03 G.2. and 4. 5 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # Exhibit A – Executive Summary Approved by BCC 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx Exhibit A – Executive Summary Approved by BCC 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003486 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment introduces a new section to address the placement and location of residential permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwelling units. The amendment establishes locational criteria to property lines, another generator, ancillary fuel tanks, window openings to a dwelling, and when necessary the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 5.03.07 Permanent Emergency Generators (New Section) ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC - TBD CCPC 2/7/19 DSAC 2/6/19 DSAC-LDR 12/18/18 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approved with recommendations DSAC TBD CCPC TBD 7 BACKGROUND After Hurricane Irma, all of the County’s 270,000 customers served by Florida Power and Light had power outages. There has been a significant increase of County residents installing various residential permanent emergency generators as a means of resiliency against power outage events. Many building permit applications have been rejected due to setback requirements, lacking a detailed location plan, or insufficient information. The majority of permits issued have been for 20 and 22 kilowatt generators which represent 77.2% of the total permits and 89.5% are 30 kilowatts or less. (See Exhibit A). On June 26, 2018, the Board directed staff to proceed with an amendment to increase flexibility for the placement of emergency generators on residential parcels or lots. Staff reviewed common manufacturers’ recommended minimum surrounding clearances from walls, fences and landscaping (See Exhibit B), standards in other communities (See Exhibit C), and other guidelines. Staff also worked with industry professionals to better understand common constraints and potential safety issues. The amendment provides additional flexibility for generator placement by establishing minimum setbacks from property lines that vary depending on the required yard sizes. These setbacks are based on the majority of generators being placed within three to four feet from the exterior house’s wall. Four out of five common manufacturer’s installation guidelines would be able to meet placement within four feet of the house wall (see Exhibit B- yellow highlight). The amendment also addresses potential health, safety and welfare associated with adding permanent generators in close proximity to homes by requiring minimum distances between generators and mechancial air intake equipment, compliance with manufacturer’s specifications, concurrent review of applicable building permits and providing design standards consistent with the Florida’s building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fuel and gas codes. 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22-19.docx A scaled illustration of the proposed 10 feet separation standard between generators is shown in Exhibit D along with photos of installed generators taken from West Coast Generators’s website. Additionally, the exhibit identifies two generator permits that have been rejected, one in a side yard setback of 6.0’ and the other 7.5’. To meet manufacturer’s locational specifications and current LDC code requirement, these generators exceeded the current standard by 11 inches and 8 inches. The DSAC-LDR subcommittee accepted staff’s textual changes and made the following recommendations: · Revise the words or term “permanent emergency generators” to “optional standby generators” to relate to the Florida Building and National Electrical Code’s use of the term. Report back at the full DSAC meeting, if the County Attorney’s Office or Building Manager has a reason not to change the term. · Require screening when the generator’s placement is in the front yard, on a waterfront or preserve lot. · Increase the setback to road right-of-ways from two feet to five feet. · Require a five feet setback from waterfront or preserve lots. · Modify the Table to alleviate possible confusion with a required setback for a side yard. The proposed text incorporates the subcommittee’s recommendations. After consulting with the County Attorney’s Office, the title “ permanent emergency generators” does not require a change to address the Florida Building or National Electrical Code definitions and use of the term “optional standby generators”. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal or operational impacts with this amendment to the County. When applicable, the homeowner’s added costs are to screen a generator, install carbon monoxide detectors, extend an exhaust outlet and acquire a spot survey. GMP CONSISTENCY Based upon staff’s analysis, the amendment is consistent with the GMP. (See Exhibit E) EXHIBITS: A) Permanent Generator Permits Issued or Rejected; B) Manufacturer’s Surrounding Clearances; C) Other Florida Communities Research; D) Illustrations; E) GMP Consistency Review DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.01 - Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 13. Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard with a 10-9 foot rear yard setback. Permanent emergency generators may encroach into side 10 yards up to 36 inches. Generators are not permitted to encroach into required front 11 yards. For single-family and two-family dwelling units, see LDC section 5.03.07 for 12 exceptions and requirements. Above-ground fuel tanks for the generators are 13 subject to the same setbacks; however, underground tanks are not subject to 14 setback requirements. In order to reduce noise during required routine exercising 15 of the generators, this exercising is restricted to operating the generator for no 16 more than 30 minutes weekly during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and shall 17 not exceed sound level limits for Manufacturing and Industrial uses as set forth in 18 Ordinance 90-17, the Noise Ordinance, as amended. All permanent emergency 19 generators must be equipped with sound attenuating housing to reduce noise. 20 21 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 22 23 5.03.07 - Permanent Emergency Generators 24 25 A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to protect the public health and safety 26 of homeowners from the risks associated with combustion engines and the entry of carbon 27 monoxide gas to a dwelling unit. It is the intent to improve the resiliency of homeowners 28 who seek shelter at home during periods of electrical power outages. 29 30 B. Applicability. Permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwellings 31 shall be permitted as an accessory use and located in accordance with LDC section 32 5.03.07 Table 1. 33 34 C. Standards and Requirements. 35 36 1. Permanent emergency generators shall adhere to all generator manufacturer’s 37 locational specifications and applicable federal, state, and local code 38 requirements. The manufacturer’s locational specifications shall be concurrently 39 reviewed with the applicable electrical, structural, mechanical, gas piping, and 40 storage tank permits. 41 42 2. Submittals. At a minimum, the applicant’s site plan shall indicate the location and 43 dimension of the proposed generator, generator exhaust direction and permanent 44 fuel tank(s) in proximity to the dwelling unit and lot line. The site plan shall be 45 provided with the building permit application. 46 47 3. Location and Distances. Permanent emergency generators may be located in the 48 required front, side and rear yard setback in accordance with the following Table 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx 1. All distance setback and separation requirements shall be measured from the 1 most restrictive of the generator’s enclosure or exhaust outlet and adhere to the 2 following: 3 4 a. When located underneath the dwelling unit, the exhaust outlet shall be 5 vented outside of the dwelling unit above the roof line. 6 7 b. Generators may be allowed in the front yard, at a distance no greater than 8 six feet from the dwelling unit in zoning districts with 35 feet front yard 9 setback or greater and shall require a vegetative screen. 10 11 c. Generators located in the rear yard with a waterfront or preserve lot shall 12 require a vegetative screen. 13 14 d. Generators elevated 30 inches or more above the general ground level of 15 the graded lot, including the supporting structure, shall be set back the 16 same as the principal structure for the zoning district. 17 18 TABLE 1 Generator Setback and Separation Standards (feet) 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 4. Carbon Monoxide Detector. If any exterior wall openings are within 10 feet of the 46 generator’s exhaust outlet, at least one carbon monoxide detector shall be installed 47 inside the structure near the exterior wall openings and on each floor level. 48 49 5. Generator Noise and Testing. Generator noise and routine testing shall be in 50 compliance with LDC section 4.02.1 D.13. 51 Side Yard Setback Distance to Lot Line 5 or Less 1 Greater Than 5 and Up To 7.5 2 Greater Than 7.5 and Up To 20 4 20 or greater 10 Rear Yard 7.5 or Less 5 Greater Than 7.5 10 waterfront lot 5 non-waterfront or preserve lot Separation Distance to Road Right-Of-Way 5 Between Mechanical Air Intake Equipment or Other Generator 10 Distance from Windows, Soffit Vent, Eaves, Other Mechanical Air Intake To the Dwelling, Shrubs and Trees 5 Distance from Gas and Electrical Meters 3 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx 1 D. Additional Requirements for Diesel and Gasoline Engines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 2 diesel or gasoline powered generators shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from any 3 lot line. 4 5 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 6 Exhibit A – Permanent Generator Permits Issued or Rejected 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Generator KW Size 2017 Yr. Ending 2018 thru July 5 Total Permits 2017 Total thru KW 30 2018 Total thru KW 30 Total Combined % of all permits 7.5 1 0 1 8 1 0 1 11 1 0 1 12 1 3 4 14 0 1 1 15 1 0 1 16 3 5 8 19.5 1 0 1 20 62 119 181 34.6 22 88 135 223 42.6 23 0 0 0 24 4 5 9 25 1 4 5 27 7 5 12 30 8 12 20 179 289 468 89.5 32 3 5 8 36 1 2 3 38 5 9 14 40 0 4 4 45 2 0 2 48 9 8 17 60 2 3 5 80 1 0 1 100 0 1 1 Totals 202 321 523 Missing size information, rejected or lacking other information 78 Exhibit B – Manufacturers’ Surrounding Clearances 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Generator Manufacturer 14 to 30 KW Briggs/Stratton 17 /20 -25 Air-Liquid Cooled Champion 14 Air Cooled Kohler Res14/20 Air Cooled Kohler RCL24 Liquid Cooled Generac 16/20/22 Air Cooled Generac 22/25/30 Liquid Cooled Generac 22/27 Spark Ignited Cummins RS22 Air Cooled Dimension Width 34”-30” 30.1” 26.2” 32.9 “ 25” 30.6” 29” 34” Clearances Exhaust Outlet 5’ 5’ 4’ 8’ 5’ Overhead 5’ 5’ 5’ Shrubs 5’ 4’ SWRI-Rated 18” 18” 18” 1 Hour- Fire Rated 17.7” 3’ Non-Rated 5’ Total Clearance and Width (Inches) Encroachment SWRI-Rated 52-48 44.2 50.9 43 48.6 47 52 Fire Rated 52-48 47.8 62.2 68.9 61 66.6 65 70 Non-Rated 94-90 90.1 86.2 92.9 85 90.6 89 94 Exhibit Based on Generac’s Site Selection Installation Guidelines Exhibit C – Other Florida Communities Research 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Community Setbacks Zoning Districts Side Rear Distance to Property Line (PL) County Brevard1 All Residential 4’ into required side and rear yard. Not Addressed (N/A) Miami-Dade2 Residential Urban 3’ 5’ Residential Estates 5’ 5’ Orange3 All Residential 10’ 5’ or rear ½ of lot or parcel Palm Beach4 Single-Family 3’ 5’ Zero lot line 5’ Sarasota All districts except Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD) Exempt from setback requirements when located at above ground level or elevated due to FEMA elevation requirements. No closer than 3’ SKOD Same as side yard setback. City Boca Raton All Residential Districts Anywhere within side or rear yard. N/A Boynton Beach5 3’ plus 1 foot for every 1 foot above height of 6 feet but not greater than the minimum principal structure setback. Key Biscayne6 Single-Family and Two-Family 5’ Lighthouse Point7 All Residential Districts 5’ Not allowed. 5’ Naples Same as principal structure (SPS). N/A North Miami8 5’ 5’ or 15’ from rear street PL. Ocean Ridge SPS 5’ Marco Island 4’ into required side or rear yard. N/A Miami Springs Anywhere within side or rear yard. Town of Palm Beach 5’ 5’ 5’ Palmetto Bay9 5’ 5’ N/A Plantation10 2.5’ from side or rear property line and 7.5’ from sidewalk, bikeway, or street right-of-way lines. Redington Beach Anywhere within side or rear yard. N/A Sanibel Anywhere within side or rear yard. 10’ South Miami 12.5’ 12.5’ 12.5’ Footnotes and Additional Criteria: 1- Encroachment is not subject to separation distances between structures. 2- 10’ setback from street property line. 3- 15’ setback from side street. 4- Encroachment is limited to 10% of setback requirement and generators less than 4’ in height. 5- Not allowed in front yard or corner side yard unless approved by administrative adjustment and no other on-site location is feasible or there is a finding the location and use or design of the abutting property would not have negative impact. 6- None in a yard facing any street. Propane gas tanks – 5 feet to side property line, limited to 500 gallons above ground and 1,000 gallons underground. 7- If not 5 feet from property line, then generator must be placed lengthwise and 1 foot from building. 8- 15’ from rear street property line. 9- 10’ from rear street. 10- Generators above 5.5’ height must comply with same setback as principal structure. Exhibit D – Illustrations 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Exhibit D – Illustrations 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Exhibit D – Illustrations 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx Exhibit E- GMP Consistency Review 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 1-22- 19.docx 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 1-22-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002632 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes standards for new outdoor lighting associated with single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units, and duplexes. These standards are intended to prevent high-intensity outdoor lighting from negatively impacting neighboring residential properties. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND Currently, there are no limitations with respect to outdoor lighting on residential properties with single- family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplexes. However, the variety and intensity of lighting fixtures available to homeowners at retail outlets presents an opportunity for outdoor lighting to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. As a result, the GMD has been unable to resolve complaints received by the Code Enforcement Division regarding residential outdoor lighting shining toward neighboring homes, which are typically received up to several times a year. At the March 13, 2018, Board of County Commissioners (Board) meeting, a member of the public requested an ordinance to address significant nuisance lighting on single-family properties (See Item 7). At the June 21, 2018, Budget Workshop, one Commissioner noted an awareness of lighting problems on residential properties, suggesting a need for County Staff to address the issue. As a remedy, this amendment requires single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, or duplex homeowners who install lights or fixtures having an aggregate of 60 watts or 800 lumens or more to shield or aim those lights away from abutting residential properties. The amendment does not apply to lighting on multi-family residential development (three or more units). The brightness and energy usage measurements correspond with the types of floodlights or other outdoor lights which have the potential to impact neighbors (See Figures 1 and 2) and can be applied to both traditional incandescent lights and LEDs. Outdoor lighting standards for single-family residences vary throughout the state (See Exhibit A). These proposed standards are designed so that compliance and enforcement are simple and do not require any special knowledge or tools. A building permit is not required to install most lighting fixtures. Therefore, this standard will primarily be implemented through the code enforcement process when a complaint is issued. If a code violation is 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 1-22-19.docx reported, homeowners could remedy a potential violation by repositioning the lights, using shielding, or installing new lighting fixtures that comply with the proposed standard. Figure 1. Lumen levels for typical outdoor lights Source: https://gamasonic.com/how-many-lumens-do-you-need-for-outdoor-lighting/ Figure 2. Department of Energy comparison of lumens and traditional incandescent watts. Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/lumens_placard-black.pdf FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS This amendment could result in additional unexpected costs for homeowners to replace light bulbs with lower lumens or to replace fixtures. There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County associated with this amendment. The amendment will allow code enforcement to resolve some complaints regarding outdoor lighting. GMP CONSISTENCY In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan (GMP) does address outdoor lighting, there is no specificity provided. Only the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) policies pertaining to wildlife protection, e.g. Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 regarding sea turtles, may have applicability to the dwelling unit types addressed in this LDC amendment but, again, there is no specificity provided. Further, such lighting would have to comply with both this new LDC provision and the CCME policies. EXHIBITS: A) Lighting Standards in Other Communities DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 1-22-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.08 - Outside Lighting Requirements 1 2 A. Lights on golf courses shall be located and designed so that no light is aimed directly 3 toward property designated residential, which is located within 200 feet of the source of 4 the light. 5 6 B. Specific height requirements in zoning districts. 7 1. GC—Twenty-five (25) feet 8 2. C-1—Twenty-five (25) feet 9 3. CF—Twenty-five (25) feet 10 11 C. Lights on lots with single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplexes. Lights or 12 fixtures having an aggregate of 60 watts or 800 lumens or more shall be shielded or aimed 13 away from abutting residential properties. 14 # # # # # # # # # # # # #15 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 1-22-19.docx Community Standard Citation Lee County (Upper Captiva Planning Area) “All outdoor lighting, including lighting on docks and bulkheads, must be designed, installed, located, and maintained to be hooded, shielded, and/or aimed downward.” Art. XI Division 4 Sec. 33-1736 City of Sanibel “All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to prevent glare and light trespass. Light shall not be allowed to cause glare affecting motorists, bicyclists, or other users of roads, driveways and bicycle paths. Light shall not trespass over property lines.” (More detailed standards follow this section) Art. XIV Div. 4 Sec. 12-997 (c) City of Naples “(a) Permitted exterior lighting. Exterior lighting or light fixtures may be utilized at grade and at the 1st habitable floor of multifamily structures, provided that: (1) The lighting is confined to a front yard facing a public street, or to that portion of the facade facing a public street; and (2) The light source is directed only at the facade of the building. Lighting may also be utilized at grade to enhance landscape features. Exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged or shielded in such manner that all adjacent properties and the public roadways are protected from direct glare. (b) Prohibited lighting. The use of exterior lighting or light fixtures on any portion of the facade or roof of a multifamily structure above the 1st habitable floor shall not be permitted. (c) Exemptions. Warning lights, as required by state or federal agencies, and exterior lights used exclusively for and associated with outdoor walkways, stairs, hallways, pool areas, and living spaces such as balconies, terraces, screened porches, and similar spaces shall be exempt from the requirement as listed in subsection (b) of this section. Nonpermanent lighting, used exclusively during the holiday period from November 15 to January 15, is also excluded from this prohibition. (d) Nonconforming lighting. Nonconforming multifamily structures shall be brought into conformance with this section by April 30, 1998.” Chapter 56 Art. III Sec. 56-89 City of Bonita Springs “All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plan (sic)” Chapter 10 Art. III. Div. 3 Sec. 10-102 (d)(1)(a) Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 1-22-19.docx Marco Island “(a) Regulation of the intensity and glare of outdoor lighting shall be as follows: (1) No lighting source shall cause more than 1.0 footcandle of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family (RSF) zoned property.” (Additional shielding standards follow this section) Chapter 6 Art. V Sec. 6-145 Volusia County No person may install, construct, erect, maintain, or control any outdoor lighting or outdoor lighting fixture on a residential structure, or on its surrounding premises, which directly illuminates beyond the adjacent residential structure's property line, between sunset and sunrise. For the purposes of this section, adjacent property shall include all property within 360 degrees of the subject property, notwithstanding an intervening right-of-way. For the purposes of this section, property line shall be an invisible plane extending vertically at a 90-degree angle from ground level to a point above the height of the highest structure on either the subject property or the adjacent property. Sec. 50-480 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1-22-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002769 SUMMARY This Board directed amendment places new restrictions on the replacement and removal of required landscaping trees at commercial shopping centers. The amendment seeks to maintain mature canopy trees at shopping centers and their value to the surrounding neighborhood. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with Changes DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On January 23, 2018, the Board directed staff to draft LDC standards that maintain the ability to change existing landscaping plans while also ensuring those changes would retain mature canopy trees and maintain an aesthetically pleasing community appearance. This amendment makes four modifications to the landscaping requirements for shopping centers to minimize the impact of mature landscaping being replaced with minimum sized trees: 1. Allows additional spacing in Type D buffers for improved visibility into shopping centers. 2. Prohibits slash pine and bald cypress in new landscaping plans or existing landscaping plans that are removing trees from the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer. 3. Limits the large-scale removal or replacement of required trees in the VUA and Type D Buffer to 50 percent of the required trees within a period of 15 years. 4. Provides an exemption for trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. See Exhibit A for additional background, justification, and other considerations. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment on October 16, 2018, and made the following comments: 1. The current requirements for shopping centers already require plantings to be larger than typical development. Creating a new standard that only applies to shopping centers is unnecessary. 2. The provisions related to visibility should be removed as it will not improve visibility for cars passing by at high speeds. Additionally, cell phones are commonly used for navigation so creating a different buffer standard only for Type D buffers won’t necessarily improve visibility. 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1-22-19.docx Consider focusing on signage instead of limits on plantings. Changing sign standards so they don’t interfere with landscaping would be more beneficial. 3. The slash pine and bald cypress prohibition should clearly state that they can’t be used for proposed landscaping but that it doesn’t affect existing trees. Protections for existing slash pine and bald cypress in parking lots would be preferable. 4. One of the shopping centers that gained attention for its landscaping changes was trying to address tree roots damaging the parking lot and lighting that was too close to trees. Not allowing the removal of landscaping forces property owners to be liable for trip and fall hazards when roots are damaging pavement or prevents them from updating developments that were built to out-dated standards. The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment a second time on December 18, 2018 and stated that the amendment is not necessary and furthermore that the limitation on removing a maximum of 50 percent of the landscaping within 15 years is too restrictive. However, the Subcommittee recommended that if the Board were to approve the amendment, the 50 percent limitation should be removed, and the timeframe reduced to ten years. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The amendment will increase costs for shopping center owners when proposing to replace or remove more than 50 percent of the required trees and may result in unexpected costs when proposals trigger the limitation. There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts to Collier County. GMP CONSISTENCY Based upon the attached analysis, the proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP (See Exhibit B). EXHIBITS: A) Additional Background and Justification B) GMP Consistency Review DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 C. Types of buffers. Within a required buffer strip, the following types of buffers shall be used 5 based on the matrix in table 2.4. (See Figure 4.06.02.C-1) 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 4. Type D Buffer: A landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of-9 way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads 10 internal to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be consistent 11 with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is 12 incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape 13 buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right-of-way. Where 14 the ultimate width of the right-of-way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding 15 landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width 16 of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall 17 measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 acres or more and 18 developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer 19 of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. Activity center 20 right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not be applicable to roadways internal 21 to the development. 22 23 a. Trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape 24 buffer abutting a right-of-way or primary access road internal to a 25 commercial development. As an alternative for shopping centers, the 26 following tree spacing may be allowed through a landscaping plan change 27 to provide additional visibility into shopping centers: 28 29 i. Trees may be spaced no more than 60 feet on center, and 30 31 ii. There shall be at least three consecutive trees on both sides of the 32 60-foot spacing. Said trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet 33 on center with at least a 30-foot crown spread per tree at the time 34 of the alternative spacing approval. 35 36 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 37 38 4.06.05 – General Landscaping Requirements 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 D. Plant Material Standards 42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 2. Trees and palms. All required new individual trees, shall be species having an 44 average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area 45 and having trunk(s) which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of 46 clear wood. Trees adjacent to walkways, bike paths and rights-of-way shall be 47 maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood. Trees having an 48 average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread. For code-required 1 trees, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon, ten feet 2 in height, have a 1¾-inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground) and a four-foot 3 spread. 4 5 a. A grouping of three palm trees will be the equivalent of one canopy tree. 6 Exceptions will be made for Roystonea spp. and Phoenix spp. (not 7 including roebelenii) which shall count one palm for one canopy tree. Palms 8 may be substituted for up to 30 percent of required canopy trees with the 9 following exceptions. No more than 30% percent of canopy trees may be 10 substituted by palms (or palm equivalent) within the interior of a vehicular 11 use area and within each individual Type D road right-of-way landscape 12 buffer. Palms must have a minimum of 10 feet of clear trunk at planting. 13 14 b. All new trees, including palms, shall be of a species having an average 15 mature height of 15 feet or greater. 16 17 c. As of {Effective date of this Ordinance}, new landscaping plans shall not 18 include slash pine (Pinus elliottii) or bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) 19 within the vehicular use areas or Type D buffers. 20 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 O. Tree replacement or removal in shopping centers. 23 24 1. Purpose and intent. This section is intended to apply to the removal or replacement 25 of existing, mature, canopy trees within Type D buffers and vehicular use areas at 26 shopping centers. Extensive changes to mature landscaping have the potential to 27 impact aesthetic appearance, native plant preservation, buffering, and shade. This 28 section is not intended to prohibit other activities related to the development, 29 redevelopment, or maintenance of shopping centers. 30 31 2. Standards for tree replacement or removal within Type D buffers and vehicular use 32 areas at shopping centers. 33 34 a. A maximum of 50 percent of the required trees per 15-year period may be 35 replaced or removed through a landscaping plan change. 36 37 b. Replacement trees within Type D buffers and vehicular use areas at 38 shopping centers shall not include slash pine (Pinus elliottii) or bald cypress 39 (Taxodium distichum). 40 41 c. Replaced or removed trees shall not be located entirely within one 42 contiguous area and shall be evenly dispersed throughout the Type D 43 buffers and vehicular use areas. 44 45 3. Exemption. These standards shall not apply to removal of trees through a 46 cultivated tree removal permit or to replace diseased or dead trees. 47 48 4. Applicants may request a PUD deviation or variance, as applicable, to the limitation 49 on replacement or removal of required trees. 50 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 51 Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx Amendment History Over several years, residents have petitioned the Board regarding perceived aesthetic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods when mature canopy trees are removed from shopping centers and replaced with the LDC’s minimum tree planting requirements. On January 23, 2018, Zoning Division staff presented background information to the Board regarding landscaping changes in shopping centers, and potential LDC changes that could mitigate the perceived impacts on the surrounding community from the loss of mature canopy trees. The Board directed staff to draft LDC standards that maintain the ability to change existing landscaping plans while also ensuring any changes would retain mature canopy trees and maintain an aesthetically pleasing community appearance. A previous version of this amendment which proposed a requirement for larger replacement trees was reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). On June 21, 2018, staff presented price and availability data for trees with a five to six-inch caliper to the CCPC. In response to the increased costs and limited availability, the CCPC unanimously recommended not to adopt the proposed amendment, and to direct staff to review a new LDC amendment to be further refined with the following elements: 1. A limitation on the percentage of trees that may be removed or replaced within a given period of time. a. The trees removed should not be clustered in one area but should be spread throughout the project. b. The period of time established should be based on the expected life and canopy growth rates of removed and replaced tree species. 2. A limitation on the use of Slash pine and Bald Cypress trees within the Type D buffer for: a. New landscaping plans, and b. Existing landscaping plans when replacing or removing required trees from the Type D buffer or VUA. 3. An allowance for additional spacing between buffer trees in certain instances to allow for improved visibility into shopping centers. Existing Standards For many types of development, when trees are replaced in the VUAs or Type D buffers, the replacement trees are required to meet the same minimum standards for landscaping material required for new developments. The minimum tree height, caliper, and canopy spread required at the time of installation are: • Height: 10 feet, • Caliper: 1 ¾ inches, and • Canopy spread: four feet. However, when trees are replaced in the VUAs or Type D buffers at shopping centers, the replacement trees are required to meet the minimum standards in LDC section 4.06.03 B.9: • Height: 14 to 16 feet, Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx • Caliper: three to four inches, • Canopy spread: six to eight feet, and • Clear trunk height: six feet high. These larger trees are only required at shopping centers, which are defined in LDC Section 1.08.02: “A group of unified commercial establishments built on a site which is planned, developed, owned or managed as an operating unit and related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves. It consists of eight or more retail business or service establishments containing a minimum total of 20,000 square feet of floor area. No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent. A marina, hotel, or motel with accessory retail shops is not considered a shopping center.” Additionally, trees within Type D buffers are required to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center. This amendment does not propose any changes to the minimum height, caliper, canopy spread, or clear trunk height of trees planted at shopping centers. Proposed Standards The proposed standards are intended to balance the value of mature canopy trees to the surrounding neighborhoods and property owners with the need to redesign and update the appearance of shopping centers. The standards are intended to allow for regular updates to shopping centers while maintaining existing mature trees. Proposed Changes to LDC Section 4.06.05 C.4.a.i: Changes to this section establish new tree spacing standards within Type D buffers to provide better visibility to shopping center buildings and wall signage. This new standard would allow increased tree spacing from 30 feet on-center to 60 feet on-center when at least three trees on both sides of the 60 feet on-center spacing have a minimum of a 30-foot crown spread per tree. This arrangement is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of proposed visibility spacing within Type D buffers. Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx Proposed Changes to LDC Section 4.06.02 D.2.c: Changes to this section prohibit slash pine and bald cypress trees within the VUA and Type D buffer area in new landscape plans because they do not provide adequate canopy or flourish in irrigated areas of a site. The inadequate canopy and visual buffer are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2: Bald cypress trees do not provide adequate canopy when leaves fall. Figure 3: Slash pine trees do not provide an adequate visual buffer. Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx Proposed New LDC Section 4.06.05 O.: This new section limits the large-scale removal or replacement of mature canopy trees through a restriction on removing or replacing more than 50 percent of required trees within the VUA or Type D buffer within each 15-year period. For example, Figure 1 demonstrates one potential distribution of replaced or removed trees throughout the site. The limitation is based on public input during the amendment vetting process and a review of tree growth rates described in the Tree Growth Analysis section below. Figure 1. Example Distribution of Replaced or Removed Trees Throughout the Site This section also prohibits the use of slash pine or bald cypress trees as replacement trees within VUAs or Type D buffers and requires removal and replacement of trees to be evenly dispersed throughout the VUA and Type D buffers. Additionally, an exemption is provided for the trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. Since the applicability of the proposed standards is limited to VUAs and Type D buffers, this section would not apply to building foundation plantings or any other required landscaping. Implementation The proposed changes will be implemented through the existing Landscaping Plan review process. Landscaping plans for commercial shopping centers are approved through a Site Development Plan (SDP) and changes to an SDP (SDPA or SDPI). Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx SDPs are administratively approved by the Growth Management Department and do not require public notice or a public hearing. Proposals to replace or remove trees within the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer would require the landscaping plan to include a calculation of the percentage of required trees proposed to be removed or replaced. The determination whether trees may be removed or replaced through a landscaping plan change will function similar to the cultivated tree removal permit review. When a landscape plan change is submitted, landscape plan review staff will review the percentage of trees removed or replaced within the past 15 years. The landscaping plan change would only be approved if all landscaping plan changes within the past 15 years do not exceed 50 percent of required trees. Shopping centers may request relief from the 50 percent limitation through the PUD Deviation or Variance processes, as applicable. Both processes provide for public notice and public hearings. Tree Growth Analysis On June 21, 2018, the CCPC recommended that the limitations in the proposed amendment should be based on growth rates of canopy trees. To satisfy this request, staff consulted the Native Trees for South Florida1 published by the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), which includes growth rate information for a variety of tree species. Growth rates are reproduced in the following table for those species that currently qualify as canopy trees in Collier County. Table 1. Tree Growth Rates from UF IFAS Extension Common Name Natural Height (ft) Growth Rate Growth per year (ft) Red maple 35-50 Fast >2 Gumbo limbo, tourist tree 40 - 60 Medium 1 to 2 Fiddlewood 25 - 30 Slow <1 Sea grape 15 - 30 Medium 1 to 2 Willow-leaved bustic 30 - 50 Medium 1 to 2 Wild tamarind 40 - 50 Fast >2 Sweetbay 40 - 60 Medium 1 to 2 False mastic 45 - 70 Slow <1 South Florida slash 80 - 100 Fast >2 Jamaican dogwood, fish-poison tree 35 - 50 Fast >2 Sycamore 70 - 110 Fast >2 West Indian cherry 15 - 40 Medium 1 to 2 Laurel oak 60 - 100 Fast >2 Live oak 50 - 80 Medium 1 to 2 Royal palm 60 - 125 Medium 1 to 2 1 Meerow, A.W., Broschat, T.K, and Donselman, H.M. (2017). Native Trees for South Florida. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Document EES-57. Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 1- 22-19.docx Soapberry 35 - 45 Medium 1 to 2 Paradise tree 35 - 50 Slow <1 Mahogany 35 - 60 Fast >2 Bald cypress 60 - 100 Medium 1 to 2 Wild lime 20 - 30 Medium 1 to 2 It is important to note that growth rates may be influenced by a variety of factors such as soil, drainage, water, fertility, light, exposure. These conditions may vary from site to site and year to year. The IFAS growth rates were used to determine the potential time required for newly planted trees to grow from the code minimum canopy spread of 6 to 8 feet, to the code “mature” canopy spread of 20 feet. For the purposes of this amendment, growth rates of tree height were assumed to be the same as growth rates of canopy spread. Using this methodology, the canopy trees listed above require a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 14 years to reach a “mature” canopy spread. Given that trees in parking lots may not represent ideal growing conditions, this amendment establishes a limitation of 15 years before additional trees can be removed or replaced to ensure adequate time for canopy growth. Exhibit B –GMP Consistency Analysis 11 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, Manager, Land Development Code Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: September 14, 2018 Subject: Growth Management Plan (GMP) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: LDCA-PL20180002769 REV:1 PETITION NAME: LDC Sec. 4.06.02 & 4.06.05, Commercial Landscaping REQUEST: Amend LDC Sections 4.06.02 & 4.06.05, Commercial Landscaping, by making three modifications to the landscaping requirements for shopping centers to minimize the impact of mature landscaping being replaced with minimum sized trees: 1. Allows additional spacing in Type D buffers for improved visibility into shopping centers. 2. Prohibits slash pine and bald cypress in new landscaping plans or existing landscaping plans that are removing trees from the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer. 3. Limits the large-scale removal or replacement of required trees in the VUA and Type D Buffer to 50 percent of the required trees within a period of 15 years. 4. Provides an exemption for trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan’s (GMP) land use elements (Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Immokalee Area Master Plan) address landscaping, there is no specificity provided that would conflict with the proposed Land Development Code (LDC) amendment. In the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), Policy 6.1.7 states, in relevant part: “The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water conservation. This shall be accomplished by: (1) Providing incentives for retaining existing native vegetation in landscaped areas; (2) Establishing minimum native vegetation requirements for new landscaping.” The proposed changes in this LDC amendment are not in conflict with this policy. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. IN CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director LDCA-PL20180002769 Sec. 4.06.02 & 4.06.05 Coml Landscaping R1 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2018\LDCA dw/9-14-18 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003669 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment modifies standards for ground signs for facilities with fuel pumps. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification 5.06.06 Prohibited Signs ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On December 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to address signage visibility for facilities with fuel pumps (See Exhibit A). Section 553.79(20)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes, was recently amended to prohibit any requirement on gasoline pricing signs that, “prevents the sign from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from…any lane of traffic...” (See Exhibit B). In coordination with local developers of facilities with fuel pumps, Staff has developed alternative standards for signs at facilities with fuel pumps which are consistent with Section 553.79(20)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes. The attached LDC amendment proposes the following changes to current standards for fuel pricing signs only: • One ground or pole sign on each major road frontage with a maximum of two signs, instead of only one ground sign per site. • A maximum sign height of 15 feet instead of 8 feet. • Each such sign may include an “Electronic Message Board” (EMB) only for advertising fuel prices. These EMB’s are subject to limitations on the movement of images, brightness, resolution, and other design standards and which are allowed on arterial and collector roadways. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. -DW EXHIBITS: A) Executive Summary Providing Board Direction B) F.S. 553.79(20) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 5.05.05 - Facilities with Fuel Pumps 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 C. Building architecture, site design, lighting, and signage requirements. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 4. Signage for facilities with fuel pumps. The following are the only signs allowed in 9 facilities with fuel pumps and convenience stores with fuel pumps. 10 11 a. Window, Wall, and other signs: As allowed in LDC section 5.06.00. 12 13 b. An illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of 12 square feet shall 14 be allowed on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or 15 highway. Otherwise accent lighting and back lighting are prohibited on 16 canopy structures. Color accent banding on canopies may be approved as 17 established in LDC section 5.05.05 C.1.b.iv.(b), above. 18 19 c. One ground sign shall be permitted for each site and shall be placed within 20 a 200 square foot landscaped area. Height is limited so that the top edge 21 of the sign face is less than eight feet above grade. Maximum permitted 22 area is 60 square feet. Said sign shall be consistent with the color scheme 23 and architectural design of the principal structure. 24 25 c. Each facility with fuel pumps will be limited to a maximum of two ground 26 signs, two pole signs or one ground and one pole sign that advertise the 27 retail price of fuel in accordance with Section 553.79(20)(a)2., F.S. 28 29 i. One fuel pricing ground or pole sign will be permitted on a frontage 30 of a parcel that abuts an arterial or collector road right -of-way. The 31 maximum height is limited to fifteen feet, measured from grade to 32 the uppermost portion of the sign structure. Maximum sign copy 33 area is 65 square feet. The sign must maintain a minimum setback 34 of 10 feet from a ny property line or road right-of-way. A minimum 35 of a 200 square foot landscaped area shall be provided around the 36 base of the sign. The sign structure shall be consistent with the 37 color scheme and architectural design of the principal structure. 38 An electronic message board (EMB) may be part of the sign area, 39 subject to the standards in 5.05.05 C.4.c.iii. 40 41 ii. One fuel pricing ground sign will be permitted on a frontage of a 42 parcel that abuts a road right-of-way other than an arterial or 43 collector road right-of-way. The maximum height is limited to eight 44 feet, measured from grade to the uppermost portion of the sign 45 structure. Maximum sign copy area is 60 square feet. The sign must 46 maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from any property line or 47 road right-of-way. A minimum of a 200 square foot landscaped area 48 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx shall be provided around the base of the sign. The sign structure 1 shall be consistent with the color scheme and architectural design 2 of the principal structure. An electronic message board will not be 3 part of the sign. 4 5 iii. If an electronic message board (EMB) is used as allowed in 6 5.05.05 C.4.c.i., each of the following apply: 7 8 a) The EMB is limited to fuel prices only. 9 10 b) Changes to the EMB shall occur instantaneously. The EMB 11 shall remain static without scroll, fade, flash, zoom, 12 sparkle, color change, or any illusion of movement. 13 14 c) Such signs shall be constructed with a photocell to 15 compensate for all conditions, day or nighttime hours, and 16 shall adjust the display's brightness to a leve l that is not in 17 excess of 0.3 foot -candles above ambient light levels, as 18 measured from the most restrictive of the nearest abutting 19 property line or a distance equal to the square root of [the 20 EMB sign copy area multiplied by 100]. 21 22 d) Exposed lamps, bulbs, or LEDs that are not covered by a 23 lens, filter, or sunscreen are prohibited. 24 25 d. Signage is prohibited above fuel pumps. 26 27 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 28 29 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 30 31 A. Definitions. The definitions of the following terms shall apply to the requirements of the 32 Land Development Code, in particular this section 5.06.00, to be known as the "Collier 33 County Sign Code." 34 35 Activated sign: Any sign which contains or uses for illumination any light, lighting 36 device, or lights which change color, flash, or alternate; or change appearance of said sign 37 or any part thereof automatically; any sign which contains moving parts as part of its 38 normal operation, such as rotating signs, shall be considered an activated sign. 39 40 Animated/Activated sign: A sign depicting or involving action, motion, through 41 electrical or mechanical means. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 Continued on next page DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 5.06.06 - Prohibited Signs 1 2 A. Prohibited. Any sign not specifically permitted by this sign code shall be prohibited. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6. Animated signs /activated or Activated signs. Except see Section 5.05.05 C.4 for 6 fuel pricing signs when located along an arterial or collector road right-of-way. 7 8 7. Clear or uncovered neon and exposed LED signs. Except see Section 5.05.05 C.4 9 for fuel pricing signs when located along an arterial or collector road right-of-way. 10 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # #12 Exhibit A – Executive Summary Providing Board Direction 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx Exhibit A – Executive Summary Providing Board Direction 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx Exhibit B – F.S. 553.79(20) 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 553.79 Permits; applications; issuance; inspections. * * * * * * * * * * * * * (20)(a) A political subdivision of this state may not adopt or enforce any ordinance or impose any building permit or other development order requirement that: 1. Contains any building, construction, or aesthetic requirement or condition that conflicts with or impairs corporate trademarks, service marks, trade dress, logos, color patterns, design scheme insignia, image standards, or other features of corporate branding identity on real property or improvements thereon used in activities conducted under chapter 526 or in carrying out business activities defined as a franchise by Federal Trade Commission regulations in 16 C.F.R. ss. 436.1, et. seq.; or 2. Imposes any requirement on the design, construction, or location of signage advertising the retail price of gasoline in accordance with the requirements of ss. 526.111 and 526.121 which prevents the signage from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from a vantage point on any lane of traffic in either direction on a roadway abuttin g the gas station premises and meets height, width, and spacing standards for Series C, D, or E signs, as applicable, published in the latest edition of Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs published by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Highway Safety. (b) This subsection does not affect any requirement for design and construction in the Florida Building Code. (c) All such ordinances and requirements are hereby preempted and superseded by general law. This subsection shall apply retroactively. (d) This subsection does not apply to property located in a designated historic district. Link: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String= &URL=0500-0599/0553/Sections/0553.79.html