The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 03/02/2022C o TerCounty Growth Management Department Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, March 2, 2022 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Department Conference Room 609/610 If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff, please contact Trish Mill at 252-8214 C OICT C01414t y Growth Management Department Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, March 2, 2022 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Building, Conference Rooms 609/610 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 Registration Form", list the topic they wish to address and hand it to the Staff member 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. 1. Call to order - Chairman 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: a. DSAC Meeting— February 2, 2022 b. DSAC LDR Subcommittee Meeting— October 19, 2021 4. Public Speakers 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook] b. Code Enforcement Division — [Mike Ossorio] c. Public Utilities Department— [Designee] d. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee] e. Collier County Fire Review — [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal] f. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz or Deputy Director Daniel Zunzunegui] g. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Ken Kovensky] h. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi] For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia. Mill@colIiercountyfLgov 6. New Business 7. Old Business 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: April 6, 2022 — 3:00 pm May 4, 2022 — 3:00 pm June 1, 2022 — 3:00 pm For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia.MiII@colliercountyfl.gov February 2, 2022 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, February 2, 2022 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 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker (excused) Chris Mitchell (excused) Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Norman Gentry Marco Espinar Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn Jeremy Sterk Jeff Curl John English Mark McLean ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Deputy Department Head, GMD Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager, Public Utilities Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning Michael Ossorio, Director, Code Enforcement Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner, Transportation Planning Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review Eric Johnson, Zoning Planning Manager Rich Long, Building Director Rich Henderlong, Principal Planner Jonathan Walsh, Building Official Patricia Mill, Operations Analyst/Staff Liaison February 2, 2022 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. 1. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. A quorum consisting of 12 members was convened. (A 13th member arrived late.) 2. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the agenda. Second by Vice Chair Foley. Carried unanimously, 12-0. 3. Approval of Minutes a. DSAC Meeting — Dec. 1, 2021 Vice Chair Foley moved to approve the minutes of the January S, 2022 meeting. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 12-0. 4. Public Speakers None 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook, Director] Ms. Cook provided several updates: • Interviewing for the vacant senior planner position was completed and a candidate was selected. The candidate will help Mark Templeton with landscape reviews because he does both the zoning and site -development sides. • Interviews for the vacant environmental specialist position were finished this week and we hope to have that person hired and working by next month. • Three KeyStaff temp agency employees were hired to help Cormac Giblin's group with zoning and planning reviews. • Right -of -Way Handbook: The handbook is being updated. The Development Review team has held meetings to work through issues that our reviewers and inspectors are seeing that may be added to the handbook. Once we come to a consensus on the changes, we will work with the transportation side under Trinity Scott's group and then an outside consultant before we bring it back to the DSAC-LDR subcommittee and the full DSAC committee before it moves forward. • Last month, Eric Fey and I discussed the water and wastewater DEP permits that are required. She took some of DSAC's suggestions to staff and we discussed the Utilities Pre -Con meeting. Ultimately, the Pre -Con meeting is what authorizes people to move forward with utilities construction. The DEP, water and wastewater permits will be needed by the Pre -Construction Meeting per the DEP consent order. We're updating the affidavit the engineer signs off on to include a question on whether DEP permits are required or not. If they are required and you don't have them, he won't be able to schedule your Pre -Construction Meeting. Mr. Foley asked for a copy of the DEP consent order that talks about the requirement. He noted that there's sometimes a significant delay in the sewer construction and utility construction. Ms. Lantz said she would provide one to Ms. Mills to distribute to the DSAC. 2 February 2, 2022 b. Code Enforcement Division — [Mike Ossorio, Director] (None) c. Public Utilities Department — [Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager] Mr. Fey provided his monthly report on response times, "Letters ofAvailability, Utility Deviations and FDEP Permits," for informational purposes, and stated: • Availability letters fell behind again but we expect to get caught up again this month. • Workload is moderate. • Utility deviations are climbing again. They had been declining in volume over the last five months but we're getting a lot of requests again. Response times remain reasonable for those, despite the loss of our workflow and that's thanks to Jennifer Rainey, our senior operations analyst, who has kept it going. • DEP permit volume declined through November and climbed again after the holidays. • Response times were a little higher on DEP permits in December due to availability. Those are handled by Stantec, our vendor. I did a change -order to extend Stantec's work order through the end of the fiscal year. I also met to discuss expanding their staff capabilities to provide further assistance to utility planning. Mr. Fey told the committee that progress on that may fall short again due to his resignation. He resigned yesterday and is taking a job as a water and wastewater engineer and senior project manager with Tetra Tech on Jan. 28. He had a great time working for GMD and PU and has learned more in this job than the rest of his career. Due to staffing issues within the county, he expects he may return here as a consultant. d. Growth Management Dept. Transportation or Engineering Division — [Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner, Transportation Planning] Ms. Lantz provided several a dp ates: • Wilson Boulevard Project: Wilson Boulevard, from Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Boulevard, is being widened from two to four lanes and was approved by the BCC on Jan. 25. We did a very expedited study and it's moving to Transportation Engineering. They will move it out to an RFP so they can get a design completed by summer. They're expediting that. • Immokalee Area Network Study: Transit route, sidewalk and roadway gaps are being identified so we can look for funding sources. This would be identifying what should be prioritized to see what would make the most sense in filling those gaps. Mr. Curl asked if the Wilson Boulevard lighting project was approved. Ms. Lantz said the recommendation in the report was to continue public involvement as it moves toward design. About 55% of the surveys that came back wanted all lighting throughout the entire corridor and 45% did not. She called it a close call, saying that's why we recommend moving forward with additional public involvement to determine what should be done. The Sheriff's Office wants street lighting throughout the entire corridor, so the recommendation is for safety. Wilson Boulevard currently has lighting only at intersections, the minimum required for any corridor. But we are putting in a sidewalk and a shared -use path for additional safety because people are using Wilson Boulevard for active transportation. Lighting would increase safety. February 2, 2022 e. Collier County Fire Review — [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal] (None) f. North Collier Fire Review — [Deputy Director Daniel Zunzunegui] Mr. Zunzunegui provided several updates: • There's a three-day turnaround time for building review, two-day turn -around time for planning. Our team is hustling because on top of plans coming in, many people are coming in to ask for help, almost like a consulting service, so my staff is working with GMD staff to get things out as quickly as they can. • We reviewed 499 plans last month, which is typical for January; 470 of those were building construction permits; and 29 were planning reviews. • We're still next day. Being a fire district, we're very cautious with video inspections. It might come up, based on a particular inspector and what they're looking at. If you're running into issues with that, please reach out to us. • The fire alarm industry says they're still running into component shortages. Weatherproof devices are hard to come by, as are panels involving voice-evac systems. He recommended that anyone building a major project order those components well in advance. • We're monitoring legislation involving alarms, House Bill 669 and Senate Bill 1140. It's an amendment to Florida statutes 553.7932, where you can do an over-the-counter permit arrangement for any fire -alarm monitoring or any fire -alarm system. This involves an existing system being renovated and work involves 20 or fewer devices or appliances. There wouldn't be a thorough plan review for those. When it comes to the device issue, it could be a situation where out in the field, it could be problematic for inspectors trying to inspect and review. It appears the bills will pass. I discussed the bills this morning in a meeting with some of the GMD team and they agreed that would definitely change business processes, intake and other processes. Our district hired consultants to work on a 10-year master plan and a new five-year strategic plan. The consultants came in yesterday for site visits at stations and facilities and will be here through tomorrow afternoon. Trish Mills provided me with DSAC's contact information, so I asked the consultants to include DSAC in the external stakeholder surveys and you will see an email from Dynamics Consulting Group. Please feel free to weigh in with your experiences or things you'd like to see regarding problems with services. I came to the GMD building for about four hours on Jan. 22 due to the portal changes. A lot of staff was working to vet those changes and test the system. He commended the employees' dedication and hard work. He cited Danny Condomina, Amy Cooper and other staff members. He said customers will be happy with the changes. El February 2, 2022 g. Operations & Regulatory Management Division — [Ken Kovensky, Director] Mr. Kovenskyprovided several updates about the new portal: • The self -issuing permits app was successfully implemented the weekend of Jan. 22. A full team came in after many months of testing. They made sure that Go Live was successful by testing all the changes. Large teams were led by Jason Regula and Jason Badge and there were testers from all areas of the GMD building. We could not have been successful without them, and the leadership that allowed them to work the extra hours. Self -issuing permits has been working well since we went live. We've done over 160 permits. We're working through some normal post -implementation issues. Everything seems to be fine. This is the first phase and we'll be going into our next phase after some cleanup of apps. Permits Phase 2 will bring even more changes and streamline the process. Mr. Kovenskv also presented a report, "January 2022 Statistics, " which outlined building plan and development review activities. He noted the following • Last month, applied -for permits jumped up about 10% over last month and year -over -year since last January. New construction issued permits for last month jumped up almost 20%. Staff has been performing well and keeping up. We're working on permits from the 31 st, so we're just a few days behind working through the queues. Even with staff working over that weekend, they are still working early morning hours, late nights and weekends to meet the demand. Mr. Kovenskv gave an update on staffing: • Two planning technicians arc being hired from KeyStaff and received job offers today; they'll be starting officially in two weeks, so all our planning -tech positions are filled. • A fiscal tech position is in the process of getting filled in the cashier section. • One of three permitting supervisor positions is still vacant and posted. The posting will close Friday and interviews will probably begin next week. • We're well -staffed, except for a few positions. One is the leader in the record room, which is in flux. We tried to reclassify the position to a higher -level supervisor, but that's stuck in the HR Office with no movement. We're still trying to move it through. • KeyStaff temp agency employees: We have had some setbacks with KeyStaff. When the company removed the yearly five days of paid time -off benefit, several left. Some leave their badges and walk out without notifying staff. The quality of candidates is not up to par. [Mario Valle joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m.] KeyStaff make up 100% of the Call Center, so that took a hit. Last month, we were averaging about 5,000 calls a month, but 7,300 calls came in and abandoned calls shot up significantly. We had an eight -to nine -person Call Center staff and we're down to 11/2 to two people. We normally try to fill in from other areas or client services. Staff stepped up and took calls, some of them supervisory staff. We're constantly asking KeyStaff recruiters to give us anybody they can, and then go through the interview process, so that's been a big challenge. We're also stretched because we service satellite offices — Orange Blossom, Everglades City, Immokalee — and that takes away from people coming here and processing permits or petitions. We're going to have another satellite office, Heritage Bay, at Immokalee Road and February 2, 2022 SR 951, which is having a soft opening now. They'll announce when they're officially open for business. They'll have a couple of planning technicians that can take in permits. Chairman Varian said he used the new portal for condos and it took time to figure out that you have to find the multi -family button first. He said that wasn't very clear. He said he hadn't considered condos "multifamily," although they are. He suggested labeling the button multifamily/condo for clarity. Mr. Kovensky said it's a learning process and they're trying to improve it. They also have a permitting guide and send out emails with instructions. They understand there will be pain points but we want the customer base to be educated. We are looking into fine-tuning things, so he will pass that suggestion on to staff. Mr. Kovensky updated DSAC on the Skype issue brought up at the last meeting. He said IT's position now is to move to Microsoft Teams. However, there seems to be a block on staff accessing teams with external customers, so one of my managers has been trying repeatedly to get a firm answer from IT, whether to go with Teams or Zoom. If we go with Zoom, we will have to purchase several licenses because we've got the client services staff who set up the Pre -Op Meetings, but the zoning or planning sections run the meetings and contact the customers. He said he's been asking about this every day. We're getting error messages with Teams and we're stuck with Skype for now. Mr. Mulhere said he likes Zoom but uses Teams and that's fine. But he and many others have a problem with Skype because it sucks. h. Zoning Division — [Eric Johnson, Zoning Planning Manager] Mr. Johnson reported that Mr. Bosi is working on an issue with an upcoming BCC agenda, coordinating with the County Managers Office, so he has nothing to report on his behalf, except to say that after seven years, he was recently promoted to Zoning Planning Manager and is taking over where Jeremy Frantz left off. If anyone has questions related to the LDC, he can answer them. 6. New Business a. Review times — NOC and Spot Survey [Requested by Mario Valle] Mr. Valle asked about review times with notice of commencement spot surveys. Spot surveys were taking over 15 days to get reviewed and he wanted to see what the county was doing to mitigate that. Mr. Long reported that spot surveys are 10 days out and there are 358 in the queue. With the NOCs, we had a staffing problem, but we are now caught up. Whatever comes in today will be processed tomorrow. We're looking at spot surveys now, the inspection hold and the final spot, which interferes with COs. We met with Pulte Homes because they have a lot going on. Their pain point is the COs. They're not so much concerned with the inspection hold because the block is 10 days out, so it's not really impacting their production that much. We're going to look at the system to see if we can go in and separate those out and try to attack the 358 in the queue in a more appropriate manner, one that prioritizes the needs of the industry rather than just first -in -first -out. I think they have two staff. n February 2, 2022 Mr. Mulhere asked about the final spot survey that's holding up the CO. Is that a survey that shows the corners of whatever the improvement is or something like that? Mr. Long said that typically it's for the screen cages around pools. Mr. Mulhere asked if someone needs to go out and say, "Here's the survey" and in the field it's accurate. Mr. Long said no, the surveyor actually uploads the survey and the staff reviews it to the setbacks. b. Policy re2ardin2 plans/permits on iob site during inspections and how the electronic versions can be used by inspectors and contractor staff [Requested by Chairman Bill Varianl Chairman Varian said we're doing electronic plans and have found it's not consistent with what inspectors want in the field. He's been failing some inspections because they don't have the paperwork, but some inspectors accept what he has. He wanted to know why. Mr. Walsh said inspectors can't be 100% consistent due to workload, technical aptitude, the size of the file and other factors. The direction is that the code says plans must be on the job site. Collier County made a small adjustment to that requirement when it adopted its exemption ordinance, which allowed digital copies to be accepted. The presumption is that everyone would eventually be going to all digital, which is occurring now submission -wise. That works great for a window, a door or a kitchen remodel, but when you get into residential, where you're doing an addition or a second floor, you start to get into the weeds. In addition, there may be Wi-Fi connection problems. If it's a condo in Bay Colony, it might work, but in some areas, such as east of 951, the connection is poor. He said they can't be consistent. However, the code is clear that plans must be on the job site. Chairman Varian said he was never asked for that by any other inspector in any of the rough stages and both times, it was a final building inspection. He went six months with no questions asked about that until a final kitchen remodel in a condo, which was frustrating. Mr. Walsh said most trades are what's built in the field. For a kitchen remodel, a rough inspection is relatively easy. It's what's out there. You might have a rough inspection from a structural inspector looking for a set of plans for details, but you might not have the same request for a plan for a mechanical or electrical trade. It's what's built versus what's approved. Structural guys look more to see what's approved so they can compare it to what's built. You're going to have more on the final from a building inspector than you will on the other trades. Due to the sheer volume, the size of an iPad, and the connectivity, we can't be consistent. c. PL20210001560 LDCA-Golden Gate Lot Divisions [Rich Henderlong - Presentation] Mr. Henderlong provided a brief overview of the proposed amendment with recommended changes made by the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee highlighted in yellow. Blue highlighted text was at the recommendation of John Houldsworth and some staff, who wanted to ensure that when a new driveway is constructed, that it's inspected and that it occurs prior to the plat recording. We are asking DSAC today to accept the new language. • The purpose of the access driveway is to deal with vacant Golden Gate Estate platted lots that are not located on an existing roadway but are being subdivided into lots for connection to an existing roadway frontage lot. 7 February 2, 2022 • Staff identified 44-plus vacant lots that are 6.75 acres or more that could be subdivided into three or more lots. • Over the past 30 years, the county has approved minor subdivisions with differing improvement requirements. • With this amendment, these tracts will be exempted from the construction -plat, final - subdivision plat process, where there are no required subdivision improvements for the purposes of this minor subdivision. • There are four examples in the LDC. Additionally, these tracts can be divided from the front of the tract into an additional lot behind the abutting front lot on an existing right-of-way. This access also will include a utility and drainage easement and a constructed 20-foot wide, dust -free gravel driveway and a cul de sac or turnaround improvement. The design for the dust -free gravel driveway is related to the Golden Gate access easement and is added as an exhibit in Appendix D. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • There is no minimum tract size. • To pull a permit in Golden Gate Estates, you must have 2'/4 acres. • Larger tracts are subdividing into smaller tracts to meet the 2'/4-acre requirement for zoning purposes. • This does not require a PPL. • This is just a lot -split. • The driveway shall be installed and inspected prior to recording the plat. • There are properties that are zoned Golden Gate Estates that are not platted in the Estates Subdivision. This is only applicable to the Estates Subdivision. Mr. Mulhere moved to recommend approval of the amendments and changes suggested by the DSAC-LDR subcommittee. Second by Mr. English. Carried unanimously, 13-0. 7. Old Business Mr. French provided an update on staffing and other issues: • Year -over -year, Collier County issued more than 63,000 building permits, the largest number the county has ever seen. This is actual permits issued from January to January, something that would not be possible without this team and its commitment. • When he arrived here nine months ago, he announced short-term fixes. However, short-term has turned into long-term and the fixes are not working. Employees are offered overtime pay but are not accepting it. They're just tired. • There are more than 20 vacant FTEs now and some positions are being filled. • Rose Burke plans to retire, so a new business center manager will be needed. Kirsten Wilkie, an 18-year employee, agreed to step in, shadow Rose for a month and fill in for the interim. That results in Wilkie's position opening up in Jaime Cook's section. February 2, 2022 • Last month, he told the CBIA he will have to take down Cityview on weekends because the county can't handle the volume. When employees returned to work the Tuesday after Martin Luther King Day, there were more than 800 submittals. • There was pushback from the CBIA, so he agreed to stay open Saturdays, but can't agree to do Sundays and holidays. • The level of service will be reduced on March 1. From midnight Saturday through 7 a.m. Monday, people will not be able to submit land -use petitions and right-of-way permits. The system will be available, but not for building permit applications. We're looking at a way to keep the self -issuing permits. • It's worth attacking areas where the most rejections occur on intake. This is our biggest critical need based on volume. • He told the CBIA. he might be able to reopen on Sundays and holidays after six or seven months, depending on staffing. But the county may decide to follow government holidays and not allow submittals on holidays. For now, it's building permits, self -issuing and over-the- counter applications. This may curb some of the behavior and will allow us to look at the reason they were rejected. • Nearly 20% of submittals coming through the door are being rejected because they're not complete. He believes it's mostly out-of-town contractors causing problems, but the county has an obligation to not reject those submissions and to serve them due to the statute. • We might go back to the way it used to be, submit three times and you cannot submit again. • We spend many hours answering clients' phone calls because the contractor is blaming the county. We often determine that the contractor hasn't submitted anything, or they submitted and didn't pay and it sat there for 11/2 months. • Right now, we're at about 20 empty positions and we're equal to 20 positions on KeyStaff. We had six KeyStaff walk out the week that KeyStaff took away their five annual paid days off. • Principal Planner Anita Jenkins left to become CRA director for the City of Naples. Her position is open, so we may be at 21 vacant positions now and are very short-staffed. • We're asking for nine employees. That's based on 3- 4-month-old data. He asked DSAC and staff to show up and support this during the BCC meeting. The executive summary now totals 12-13 pages and the "ask" is the highest countywide, nine employees, followed by Public Utilities and possibly Conservation Collier, all seeking Enterprise Fund money. • We're doing what we can to fill in the gaps during the county manager's time of need. We'll continue to ask for support from HR, but they're taxed as well. 6 February 2, 2022 • We are happy about the commitment by the BCC and County Manager Mark Isackson, who will be leaving in five months. He's committed to working out his term and holding us accountable. He will continue to provide us with enough autonomy to run this division. Chairman Varian said he goes on sales calls and many people ask about their remodels: "Do you really need a permit? I hear it's a nightmare down there." He said that bothers him because he knows the county is busy. He tells them if they submit it correctly, it's completed very quickly. Mr. French said people try any excuse. Currently, Jamie Cook is running about 20 days behind. Even though Rich Long's group, Building Permitting & Inspections, is caught up, Cormac Giblin's volume is up on the planning and zoning side because he's not only doing site -development plan work, he's doing building permits. His employees are hammered and are usually 18-20 days behind. They're doing setbacks and 10-day spot reviews. We're looking at that and are trying to move around some inspections. • Silt Fences: There's a lot of activity with silt fences. We just had a major freeze. Two years ago we had a major freeze, then we had rain falls and then big complaints coming out of Pine Ridge Estates because they didn't have silt fences around the sites, so they got fined. Most of this is occurring in the Estates. They all require silt fencing. That's been in the code forever. This is not new. • Illegal Culverts: There are a lot of illegal culverts. We're seeing them in Willoughby Acres, North Naples, and the Estates. They're just dropping in culvert pipes because they want a wider driveway to park their RV. That is a life -safety issue. We plan to address that with the BCC, Pollution Control and Stormwater because as we see that continue, we must address it. If you want it, apply for a permit. But most are not allowed. • Easement Vacations: Unless it provides a valid public purpose and a public benefit, there will be a staff recommendation of denial. He spoke with the County Attorney's Office and the County Manager's Office about that today. If there's a reason to swap, if there's valid public purpose, that's OK. We recognize some things are unique, but the County Attorney's Office has said unequivocally that there's no real reason to do these. Mr. Mulhere asked how the employee compensation study was addressed. Mr. French said they looked at the scale, the adjustments and job grades. If you were at a starting salary, you were able to gain more ground than someone who was above that starting salary. It put those salaries closer together. On average, employees saw an 8% increase, while some received a 10% raise, such as an architect, whose job requires the same level of education as an engineer and may require certification. Because Collier County has only a few architects, it was never addressed, so they were at a lower job grade than an engineer. The intent was to go back and revisit it, not just regionally, and to look at other governments to see why we're losing staff. Mr. Mulhere noted that some public agencies provide a housing stipend. Mr. French said affordable housing has always been a hot topic. It's not going to go away. I've asked to have more of a hand in the long-range planning aspect. It should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 10 February 2, 2022 Ms. Spurgeon said the Housing Department is trying to push forward some housing initiatives and changes to the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. They're working their way through GMD review. Mr. French said there's a lot of work that needs to occur. We're behind, especially with LDC amendments. We'll be bringing back LDC amendments on how we address those going forward. Years ago, we only brought forward LDC amendments that were privately sponsored, sponsored by DSAC or when the board directed it. We may have to return to that. We've got to gain better control and try to train our board on hot topics to get them up to speed. Live entertainment permits will be brought to DSAC next. 8. Committee Member Comments (None) 9. Adjourn Future Meeting Dates: March 2, 2022,3 p.m. April 6, 2022, 3 p.m. May 4, 2022, 3 p.m. Mr. Mulhere made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Gentry. The motion carried unanimously, 13-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman, William Varian These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on as presented (choose one) , or as amended October 19, 2021 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 19, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee — Land Development Review Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM 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 Blair Foley Robert Mulhere (Excused) Jeff Curl Mark McLean ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Sean Kingston, Senior Planner Josey Medina, Principal Planner Debrah Forester, CRA Director Cormac Giblin, Planning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning Director Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner 1 October 19, 2021 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 — Planning and Regulation building. 1. Call to Order Mr. Brooker called the meeting to order at 9:00am and a quorum was established. 2. Approve agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. McLean. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. 3. Old Business a. 2021 Comprehensive Administrative Code Update Mr. Henderlong provided the update noting the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed Staff to address 6 — 7 items in the Code update. The issues mainly revolved around the type of Land Use Petitions that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission versus the Hearing Examiner. It is anticipated the item will be re -heard by the CCPC in January of 2022. 4. New Business a. LDC Amendments i. PL20210002455 — Soils -Inert Waste Materials LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 6.01.03 Soils Presenters: Richard Henderlong. The amendment is to regulate the re -use of inert waste materials and prohibit the disposal, burying below original grade, importing and stockpiling onsite of inert waster material, except when approved by Conditionals Use within a Mixed -Use PUD, Commercial or Industrial Zoning District. It prohibits the onsite crushing of inert waste materials from an offsite source. It establishes the use and minimum development criteria and design standards for clean, imported, and crushed inert waste materials stockpiled and utilized on -site for fill material or burying. It serves to recycle inert waste materials as a recoverable resource and reduce solid waste disposal in the County's landfills. It limits a stockpile height to 35 feet on a minimum parcel size of 10 or more acres. • It limits the re -use of material to developable impervious areas with a maximum coverage of 40% of the property. • It requires 20 feet of setback to wetlands and preserves and 150 feet to residential zoned property and any property boundary line. • It requires the installation of 6 feet high fence screened with geotextile fabric as a visual buffer to surrounding properties. • It requires stabilization of the imported inert waste material. • It requires a valid building permit and geotechnical investigation when the material is buried and/or placed beneath a building or structure. • It prohibits the use of clean or crushed inert waster material for fill within a County maintained easement or right-of-way. This would for adequate installation of public utilities and infrastructure without having to increase the expense to extract such material and replace it with other acceptable soils. The following was noted during Subcommittee discussions with Staff: 2 October 19, 2021 • Material delivered to the property from an off -site source is only allowed to be stockpiled and/or reused on site. Crushing or processing of the material onsite is prohibited. Section 6.01.03 B.3 states the offsite, stockpiled material may be located no closer to 150 feet to any property boundary line and residentially zoned district — Discussion occurred noting it may be beneficial to incorporate commercially zoned districts into the language or just cite the requirement applies to any boundary line. Staff noted those requirements for commercial uses could be addressed during the conditional use permit process, if necessary. • Section 6.01.03 — Amend the language "The stockpiling and burying of fill shall be no closer than 20 feet to onsite wetlands or preserves" to a setback requirement of 25 feet in accordance with existing buffer requirements. • Section 6.01.03 13.3 - Consideration should be given to amending the fence language to require an "opaque" fence and incorporating the height requirements to state the "fence shall be 6 feet high from crest of roadway or grade, whichever is higher" to limit visibility of the material from and adjacent roadway or lands. • It should be clarified the language addressing setbacks from any property boundary line is intended to apply to the external boundary lines of a PUD, not the internal individual parcels. • Section 6.01.03 B.3 — The language should read "The proposed area of inert waste materials for stockpiling or re -use fill shall be no greater than 40 percent of the developable impervious areas of the property. " Mr. Brooker moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment subject to the following: 1. Section 6.01.03 13.2 — The language "The disposal, burying below original grade, importing and stockpiling of inert waste materials is prohibited onsite except when approved by Conditional Use in Mixed Use PUD, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts" to read "The disposal, burying below original grade, importing and stockpiling of inert waste materials is prohibited onsite except when approved by Conditional Use in mixed use PUD, Commercial PUD, Industrial PUD and traditional commercial and residential zoning districts. " 2. Section 6.01.03 13.3- Change text to read " The nronosed area or inert waste materials for stockpiling or re -use fill shall be no greater than 40 percent of the developable impervious areas of the property" rather than ".... 40 percent to the ...". 3. Section 6.01.03 13.3 — The language "The stockpiling shall be no higher than 35 feet and only allowed on a minimum parcel size of 10 or more acres. It shall be located no closer than 150 feet to any property boundary line and residentially zoned district" to read "The stockpiling shall be no higher than 35 feet and only allowed on a minimum parcel size of 10 or more acres. It shall be located no closer than 150 feet to any property boundary line. " 4. Section 6.01.03 B.3 - The stockpiling and burying of fill shall be no closer than 20 feet to onsite wetlands or preserves to be amended to read "...no closer than 25 feet to onsite wetlands or preserves." 5. Section 6.01.03 13.3 — The language "To buffer neighboring uses, the site shall be screened with geotextile fabric and installed on a minimum 6 feet high fence around the stockpile and fill area." be amended to remove "screened with geotextile fabric" and substituted by "screened with 100 percent opaque fence and incorporate the height requirement to 6 feet high from the adjacent crest of roadway or grade, whichever is higher." Second by Mr. McLean. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. 3 October 19, 2021 Mr. Henderlong noted a new section will be added to clarify the allowed use of the inert material in each of the zoning districts and the language will be presented to DSAC when the item is heard by the Committee. The proposed amendment would not apply to the ongoing and existing activities at Taormina. ii. PL20210002450 — Murals in the BGTCRA (includes Administrative Code amendment) LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 1.08.01 - Abbreviations 2.03.07 - Overlay Zoning Districts 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 10.03.06 - Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions Presenters: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Marina Guirguis of Johnson Engineering Debrah Forester, CRA Director Rich Henderlong, Principal Planner The amendment updates the mural provisions in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (BGTCRA). The significant changes include but are not limited to the following: • Requires certain murals, depending on their proposed location, visibility to the public, and funding source, are subject to the BGTCRA Public Art Pilot Plan Mural Guidelines. • Allows murals to be either temporary or permanent —the current text forbids temporary murals. • Eliminates the restriction that limits one mural per building. • Eliminates the restriction that limits murals to 200 square feet unless otherwise approved by the CRA Advisory Board. • Eliminates the restriction that murals are only permitted on building facades that lack windows and doors. • Requires a mural maintenance plan. • Establishes a review and approval process consistent with the Public Art Pilot Plan, including a review and approval by the Public Art Committee that will be established by the Board • Establishing a definition of a mural. He presented a new document revised since the meeting package was disseminated to the Committee with changes highlighted in yellow. He noted there is a companion item which incorporates changes to the Administrative Code. Marina Guirguis from Johnson Engineering and Debrah Forester, CRA Director explained the history and issues of murals in the BGTCRA. The following was noted during Subcommittee discussions with Staff: • The proposed amendment included convening of workshops with the CRA and CRA Advisory Board to gain input on the matter. C! October 19, 2021 • One of the major issues was the violations associated with the installed murals including paintings inconsistent with the diagrams submitted, walls painted with windows which is currently prohibited but allowed under the proposed amendment, etc. • Other issues include no provisions for maintenance, lack of enforcement of violations and murals installed without the owner's approval. • It was recognized there was a need regulate the process to ensure the activity meets the goals of the CRA. • It would be beneficial to clarify if more than one mural is allowed on a wall, or one mural is allowed on multiple walls. • It is envisioned the murals are not to be a substitute or interfere with any required Architectural Standards, landscaping requirements, etc. given the mural may be removed eventually. • If any of the treatments are envisioned to be utilized to satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Standards (Section 5.05.08), it should be amended if necessary. • Clarify if any other treatments besides paint is allowed in cases where the artist may want to create a mosaic of tile, etc. • Section 2.03.07.1.8 — The Section deals with the application and review process and would be better suited for the Administrative Code. • Section 1.08.02 - Cross reference the definition of a sign mural in the mural definition to clarify the sign murals must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and are not applicable to this section on murals. Mr. Brooker moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment revised by Staff since the item was sent to the Subcommittee prior to the meeting (said revisions containing yellow highlighted areas) subject to the following comments: 1. Section 2.03.07.1.8 —Relocate this language to the Administrative Code. 2. Section ].08.02 "Mural" -Cross reference the definition of a Mural Sign found in the Sign Ordinance. The definition of mural shall include "affixed or adhered to." Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. iii. PL20210002604 — 2021 Scrivener's Errors and Correction LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 1.07.00 LAWS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE 1.08.02 Definitions 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 4.02.03 Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures 5.05.04 Group Housing 6.06.01 Street System Requirements 10.01.02 Development Orders Required 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 5 October 19, 2021 Presenter: Sean Kingston, Senior Planner The amendment corrects scrivener's errors and updates cross references related to various Land Development Code (LDC) sections, including the Florida Building Code (FBC), the Florida Fire Prevention Code (FPC), the Florida Statues (F.S.) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapter and Rule citations. Mr. Curl moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment as presented by Staff. Second by Mr. McLean. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. b. Administrative Code Amendments i. Easement Use Agreements -Chapter 5 I EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT Presenters: Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner Mr. Henderlong reported the Board of County Commissioners directed Staff to prepare amendments to the County's Administrative Code to address the Easement Use Agreements. He provided a copy of the proposed language for Chapter 5 I, Easement Use Agreement for the Subcommittees review. During Subcommittee discussion it was noted landscaping is not considered a minor structure and any references in the proposed Code to "file" any documents with the County Clerk should be amended to read "record." Mr. Curl moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Administrative Code as proposed by Staff subject to any references in the proposed Code to "file" any documents with the County Clerk should be amended to read "record." Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. 5. Public comments None 6. 2021 DSAC-LDR Subcommittee schedule reminder a. December 7, 2021 The next meeting will be convened on December 7, 2021. b. Discussion of meeting dates for 2022 Mr. Johnson noted the meetings will continue to be held on a quarterly basis and Staff will determine the available dates and notify the Subcommittee to confirm. n October 19, 2021 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:40AM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE These Minutes were approved by the Subcommittee on , as presented , or as amended 7 Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 Highlights • Cases opened: 641 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 402 • Property inspections: 2508 • Lien searches requested: 1711 Trends Cases Opened Per Month 900 809 800 732 755 761 702 700 617 632 644 652 665 604 642 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Code Inspections Per Month 3500 3198 3012 3000 2863 2780 2873 2635 2649 2566 2508 2416 2352 2500 2274 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 This report reflects monthly data from January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category 4181 4009 4500 4000 - Origin of Case 3500 -- - — ■ Code Div. Initiated Cases 3000 2500 ■ Complaint Initiated Cases 2000 - 1500 609 636 1000 500 0 2021 2022 0111111 eWIr 2000 1500 1000 50o 0 Bayshore 1636 -go 2502 Immokalee CRA Case Opened Monthly • Monthly Open Cases Total Opened Cases to Date (Report initiated September 2018) This report reflects monthly data from January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category Site Development 13% Right of Way 2% Temporary Use Animals Vegetation Requirements 1% 1% 3% M" Property Maintenance 9% Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type isance Abatement 26% Occupational Licensing Parking Enforcement 6% 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 January 22, 2022 — February 21, 2022 December 22, 2021— January 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category Site Development in, Signs 2 Right of Way 4% Vegetation Requirements 4% \ Property Maintenance 11% Animals 1% Accessory Use ii/ 2% Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type Land Use / 10% Noise 4% Nuisance Abatement 27% Occupational Licensing ,Qt Parking Enforcement 4% 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,tc. 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 January 22, 2021— February 21, 2022 November 22, 2021— December 21, 2021 Code Cases by Category -)ite Development 9% cln Vegetation Requirements An ma s Accessory Use Property Maintenance 9% Parking Enforcement 6% Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type Land Use 9% Nuisance Abatement 3G% Occupational Licensing 1% 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,tc. 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 January 22, 2021— February 21, 2022 80 70 60 50 m v 40 Co Co 30 20 10 0 Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Response Time - Letters of Availability Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Requests Completed � Minimum � Average � Maximum +Requests Received 20 15 10 I .0 6 5 4 2 1 0 Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Response Time - Utility Deviations Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 � Requests Completed Sufficiency Review Time Substantive Review Time Requests Received 30 25 20 10 5 0 40 35 30 25 m 0 20 c m 15 10 5 0 Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Response Time - FDEP Permits Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Requests Completed Initial Review Time Revision Review Time Director Approval Time tRequests Received 20 15 5 0 ell-r County FebruaYy 2022 .�Monthcy statistics - — ---- zeoo". W W- - ----- COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2/2022 Growth Management Department 1 Building Plan Review Statistics All Permits Applied by Month 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 O O O O O O O O O O O r � � r � � T- � r r T- r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i V a M i L >, a Q "r i V C M LL Q Q 0 0 Z 0 n U- 2 W 0 Z o n LL Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied Solar, 101 / Roof, 474 Sign/Flagpole, 54 Mechanical, 558 Bldg New 1 & 2 Res, 270 Electrical, Plumbing, 318 315 Gas, 260 Bldg Add/Alt, 289 Fence, 177 Pool, 168 Aluminum Structure, 244 ROW Residential, 136 Well Permits, 105 Building Plan Review Statistics Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N O ca O O cv O O LL Q Z U_ Q Z LL ♦ 1 &2 Family Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 Monthly Multi -family & Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 �. „ $_ �L 0 0 0 0 cq N N N N N N N N N >+ > > > —0 N ca O O c6 O O IL 2 Q Z LL 2 Q Z LL (Multi -family Commercial O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q >, C 5 O 0- U > U C Q �, C O Q U > U C -0 N M Z3 -) Z3 0)0 N (6 N M 7 7 a)O N (6 N LL Q Q (n O Z ❑ � U_ Q 2i � Q (n O Z ❑ LL ♦ 1 &2 Family f Multi -family Commercial Building Plan Review Statistics 500 -- 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month O O O O O O O O O O O r T— T— � T— r r T— T— r r T— N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M i L �, i t! Q — i V C M L i >, i � 0 Q— i V C .0 d fC a)U O 0 M d a)� � M z M U O d M 0 LL a a 0 O z 0 n LL a 2 a W O z 0 n LL Feb 20 Mar 1 20 Apr- 1 20 May 20 Jun 20 Jul- Aug- 20 20 Sep- 20 Oct- Nov 20 j 20 Dec- 1 20 Jan- 21 Feb- 21 Mar -,Apr- 21 1 21 May- 21 Jun 1 21 Jul- 21 Aug- 21 Sep- 1 21 Oct- 1 21 Nov- 21 Dec- 21 Jan- 22 Feb- 22 ■ Commercial 4 7 4 5 7 5 6 3 3 3 6 7 5 11 8 12 9 6 13 13 3 4 8 5 7 ■ Multi family 9 9 9 5 2 10 10 11 1 7 7 11 19 11 6 6 17 11 15 5 6 12 9 10 12 ■ 1&2Family 234 250 192 205 196 234 296 248 352 244 314 357 195 386 412 460 445 374 403 218 330 286 295 346 217 New Multi -family Building Permits Issued by Month P II�II��I II■II■III IIIAII�III llll ll�Illll New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month 18 16 - 14 i - 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL a� Q 0 0 LL a� Q 0 0 LL Building Inspections Statistics Building Inspections 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -0 " Q >+ C 5 O) 0-U > U C -0 " Q >+ C 5 O) 0-U > U C -0 a)M D D a)O a)m N m D D N O N m N IL 2 Q g� Q 0 0 z 0-5 LL 2 Q g� Q 0 0 z 0-, LL Types of Building Inspections ROW, 386 Gas, 716 ?II, 87 Septic, 168 Land Development Services 250 200 150 100 50 60C 200 100 0 Statistics All Land Development Applications Applied by Month O O O O O O O O O O O � T- r T- r T- � T- r T- � T- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M i L >, C al Q "-' > V C M i L >, C al Q "-' > V C M d M Q R 3 d V 0 d R a)R 3 d V 0 d M d LL 2 Q M Q to 0 Z 0 A LL Q g Q to 0 Z 0 n LL Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months 614 Short -Term Vacation Rental Registration 180 Zoning Verification Letter 148 Garage Sale Permit 134 I[] Special Event Permit 114 Vegetation Removal Permit Land Development Services 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 120 100 80 60 40 20 Statistics Pre -application Meetings by Month O O O O O O O O O O O r T- r r T- T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q. "'' > V C M C 0 Q "'' > V C M d c6 d v O G) 0 a) ca M d v O a) M d U_ Q Q fn 0 Z 0 � U_ Q n Q w 0 Z 0 n LL Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month O O O O O O O O O (D O r r � T- T- r � T- T- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "� > V C -0 L i A C Is Cf Q "� > L) C M Q Q Cn 0 z 0 nLL Q 2 Q 0 0 z 0 n LL ■ Temporary Use Commercial Certificates i I CA 5 �a 4 O 3 E M 2 z 1 W 60 50 `) 40 Land Development Services Statistics Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q. �' > U a M L L >1 C O Q "� > U a-0 a) v O d O Q 3 O a) v O d O 0 LL Q n Q 0 0 z o -) LL M Q 2 n Q 0 0 z o -) U- Plat Pages Recorded per Month 9 54 a� a 0 30 28 a� E 21 2 Z 20 17 1415 17 9 13 9 9 10 11 9 11 10 7 8 5 7 1 0 ■ ' 1 1 2 0 � E O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ca c3 d V O 0 O N O d M 0 LL. Q g Q 00 z 0 n LL. Q Q WO z o n LL. Yearly Totals 2020 - 25 2021— 33 2022 - 4 Yearly Totals 2020 - 152 2021— 188 2022 - 22 Land Development Services Statistics Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Of a- > 0 C m a m o 0 cC m a cv m LL Q Q Ch 0 z o-) LL 2 Q g Q U) 0 Z o n LL 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M L i >, C M a "'' > 0 C M i L >, C M a > V C M a) a M d V 0 0 ca a) a M 0)v 0 0 R 0)LL Q 2 Q w 0 Z 0 � LL Q n Q N 0 Z 0 n LL Land Development Services 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Statistics Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -0 L i >, C 0 0."r i 0 C M i L >, C � O Q i u c .0 0 M 0.R � � 3 d V O 0 M d M am = = d V O N M d LL 2 Q 2 Q to 0 z 0 n LL 2 Q 2 Q CO 0 z 0 n LL Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i u C -0 L L >% C 0 Q 41 i u C .0 O CD m N m Q M d V O w M 0 LL Q Q 0 z 0 n LL 2 Q E Q 0 0 z o n LL Reviews for Land Development Services Number of Land Development Reviews 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 O O O O O O O O O O O T r T T r r T T T r T T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C al CL "-' i V C M C al CL "'' i 0 C M ca = = d v 0 d M a) cC d v 0 d M a) LL 2 a n" a W O z 0 nU- a a cn O z 0 n U- Percentage Ontime for the Month ).3 0 Ontime 0 Late Land Development Services Statistics Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate $30,000,000 — $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -0 L i >, C 5� 0 a- > 0 C M L i >, C 0 a- > U C M 0 M a CD0 o w M m M a R == W V o w M N LL Q Q w O z o n LL 2 Q E n Q N O z o n LL ■ Construction Estimate Utility Estimate Site & Utility Inspections 80 FEB 0 50 E 40 j 0 30 UU Q 20 Ln 10 0 O O O O O O O O O O O -1 -1 -1 - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i L T C w Q +' > U C -0qA i T C Q +' > U U -0 LL Q Q LN O z 0 LPL Q G � Q (n O z LL ■ Final Subdivision Inspection ■ Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Preliminary Utility Inspection ■ Tie In Inspection Fire Review Statistics Building Fire Review Average Number of Days 10 9 8 7 6 0 5 4 — 3 2 1 0 fl O O O O O O O O O O O r-I ri ri ri c-I r-1 -4 c-I e-I ri r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rV N i L C t]A Q -U > u C -0 L C t o CL +� > u C -0 LL Q Q O z 0 - LL Q Q O Z LL Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 ■ North Collier 458 633 565 510 642 645 564 558 588 429 586 427 482 630 706 741 1044 687 775 608 654 504 449 470 503 Collier County (Greater Naples) 361 397 355 324 462 418 409 400 439 403 446 460 475 451 473 456 586 401 480 382 411 409 393 323 503 Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days 10 9 8 7 6 5 C 4 3 2 1 - 0 O O N N O O O O O O O O O ri r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 a-1 ri "1 ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r-1 N r-1 N N N N N - L L T C 75to Q +- i u C -0 L L i C OA a —U i u C -0 Qj L.L Q — Q (n O z 0 — L.L 2 Q 2 Q N O z Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 ■ North Collier 39 48 38 36 33 42 33 47 44 37 32 25 33 37 39 39 55 32 43 23 48 41 49 29 31 Collier County(Greater Naples) 72 62 48 62 62 52 61 59 62 61 51 44 53 71 72 60 74 61 39 53 80 70 68 56 56 1 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26-2022.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20210001560 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes design requirements for when existing Golden Gate Estates (GGE) tracts of land are subdivided into three or more lots. It requires an access driveway, utility and drainage easement when a GGE tract that isn’t located on an existing right-of-way is subdivided. It further allows a GGE tract to be subdivided without any subdivision improvements when all of the lots front on an existing right-of-way or road easement. ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED BCC TBD 4.03.06 Appendix B Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards CCPC TBD DSAC 02/02/22 DSAC-LDR 01/19/22 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approved with change DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND This amendment seeks to clarify and require an access driveway and improvements’ to other lots when vacant GGE tracts, that are not located on an existing roadway, are subdivided into lots which must connect through an existing roadway frontage lot. Currently, when subdividing a GGE platted tract into three or more lots, the Land Development Code (LDC) requires construction plans and plat approval (PPL) for the re-plat of a Golden Gate Estates land tract. In GGE, Casthely Place and Chesser Subdivisions are examples of a subdivision re-plat that did not require any subdivision or infrastructure improvements for the replat of a portion of Tract 8 and Tract 3 of Golden Gate Estates, Unit 1. Rustling Pines and McCarthy Subdivisions are an example of subdividing a tract into 3 lots from the front of the tract to the back of the tract which does require an access easement and driveway and cul-de-sac or turnaround improvement between the second and third lot or solely on the third lot. (See Exhibit A-Subdivisions and Minor Replats). The replating of a tract or subdivision for the landowner is an expensive, time consuming process and requires Board approval prior to recording the replat. This amendment shall exempt certain GGE tracts of land from Construction Plan and Final Subdivision Plat (PPL), the “plans and plat” process, when there are no required subdivision or infrastructure improvements. However, for those GGE tracts of land that are subdivided from the front of the tract into additional lots that are behind the front lot abutting an existing right-of-way, it shall require an access, utility and drainage easement, a constructed driveway and cul-de-sac or turnaround improvement. The Golden Gate Estates tract landowner shall benefit by not having the added expense of a replat in one case and in the other, the future lot owners shall have the subdivider’s assurance of a perpetual access, utility and drainage easement with the benefit of the construction of a driveway improvement in accordance with the design standards stipulated in Appendix B-7. Currently, the Collier County Public Utilities Department as a matter of policy, for the Estates (E) zoned 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022) 2 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26-2022.docx lots has no mandatory utility connections regardless of the main size. Estates zoned lots are prohibited from connection to transmission mains. The design requirements shall be implemented through the process and procedure set forth in LDC section 10.02.04 D. and Chapter 5 F of the Administrative Code. An applicant would request a pre- application meeting unless waived by the County Manager or his designee and file a “Minor Subdivision Plat Application” with the Development Review Division. In general, a minor final subdivision plat (FP) does not require improvements, a construction maintenance agreement, a security performance bond, a landscape buffer, or phasing. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendations The subcommittee unanimously recommended approval on January 19, 2022 with the following change to LDC section 4.03.06 A. 2.: “ When platted Golden Gate Estates tracts are subdivided into three or more lots from front to back and one or more such lots do not front on an existing right-of-way, the owner or subdivider of the tract shall be responsible to provide access to all lots by constructing a 20 feet wide driveway...”. This recommendation has been incorporated in the LDC text. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Subdivisions and Minor Replats 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 2 3 A. Applicability: Lot Divisions for Residential Use in Golden Gate Estates. 4 5 1. When a 5 acre parcel in Golden Gate Estates is subdivided into 2 lots, 6 where one of the lots is not on the existing right-of-way, the owner may shall 7 create an access easement to and through the parcel which is not on the right-of-8 way. The easement must be at least 20 feet in width and extend at least 150 feet 9 into the otherwise landlocked lot and shall serve as an access, utility, and 10 drainage easement. The easement shall provide for access to the lot and satisfy 11 the frontage requirement. 12 13 2. When platted Golden Gate Estates tracts are subdivided into three or more lots 14 from front to back and one or more such lots do not front on an existing right-of-15 way, the owner or subdivider of the tract shall be responsible to provide access 16 to all lots by constructing a 20 feet wide driveway with a minimum 6 inches 17 compacted lime rock over 12 inches stabilized subgrade and a minimum 3 inches 18 of dust-free gravel surface course within a 30-foot wide access, utility and 19 drainage easement (See Appendix B-7) and a cul-de-sac or turnaround 20 acceptable to the local fire district. The easement shall provide for access to the 21 rear lots and satisfy the frontage requirement. The driveway shall be installed 22 and inspected prior to plat recording. For this subsection, the aggregate platted 23 Golden Gate Estates tracts being subdivided shall not exceed 20 acres. When 24 the requirements of this subsection are met, there shall be no required 25 subdivision improvements. 26 27 3. When Golden Gate Estates tracts are subdivided into three or more lots, all of 28 which front on an existing right-of-way, there shall be no required subdivision 29 improvements. 30 31 32 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 33 34 APPENDIX B- TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-0F-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS 35 36 Cul-De-Sac B-2 Local Street B-3 Commercial/Industrial B-4 Minor Collector B-5 Major Collector B-6 Dustless Gravel Driveway-GGE Access Easement B-7 37 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx 1 2 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx 1 2 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022) Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 6 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx Existing ROW 14.A.2Packet Pg. 188Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 7 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx 14.A.2Packet Pg. 189Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 8 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx Tract 3 14.A.2Packet Pg. 190Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 9 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx Driveway REAR LOT 3 14.A.2Packet Pg. 191Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 10 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx Driveway Existing ROW REAR LOT 3 14.A.2Packet Pg. 192Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - Exhibit A – Subdivisions and Minor Replats 11 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Feb 02\4.03.06 Golden Gate Estates Lot Divisions 01-26- 2022.docx FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY: LDC section 1.08.02 Definitions. Tract: An area of land, public or private, occupied or intended to be occupied, by or for a lawful purpose, including a street, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, storm drainageway, water main, sanitary or storm sewer main, canal, landscape buffer, or for similar use. The term "tract," when used for land platting purposes, means an area separate and distinct from platted lots or parcels and not included within the dimensions or areas of such lots or parcels. Unless otherwise expressly stated, the dedication of a tract on a plat reflects an intention of the dedicator(s) to dedicate such tract as a fee simple interest in land, subject to any easement(s) stated on the plat or otherwise of record. Right-of-way (ROW): Land in which the state, a county, or a municipality owns the fee simple title or has an easement dedicated or required for a transportation or utility use. Subdivision: The division of land, whether improved or unimproved, into 3 or more contiguous lots, parcels, tracts, tiers, blocks, sites, units, or any other division of land any of which do not equal or exceed 10 acres, for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or development; or any division of land if the extension of an existing street or the establishment of a new street is involved to provide access to the land. The term includes resubdivision, the division of land into 3 or more horizontal condominium parcels or horizontal cooperative parcels, and the division or development of residential or nonresidential zoned land, whether by deed, metes and bounds description, devise, intestacy, map, plat, horizontal condominium parcels, horizontal cooperative parcels, or other recorded instrument, and, when appropriate to the context, means the process of subdividing or to the lands or areas subdivided 14.A.2 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: DSAC 2-2-2022 Agenda Packet - FINAL (21264 : Development Services Advisory Committee - February 2, 2022)