Loading...
DSAC Agenda 12/06/2023 Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, December 6, 2023 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 Julie Chardon at 252-2413 For more information, please contact Julie Chardon at (239) 252-2413 or at Julie.Chardon@CollierCountyFL.gov Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, December 6, 2023 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610 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 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 - November 1st, 2023 b. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting – October 17th, 2023 c. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting – April 18th, 2023 4. Public Speakers 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook] b. Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino] c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division- [Christopher Mason] d. Public Utilities Department – [Matt McLean or designee ] e. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division. - [Cormac Giblin] For more information, please contact Julie Chardon at (239) 252-2413 or at Julie.Chardon@CollierCountyFL.gov f. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division – [Jay Ahmad or designee] g. Collier County Fire Review – [Michael Cruz, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal] h. North Collier Fire Review – [Chief Sean Lintz] i. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division – [Michael Stark] j. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi] 6. New Business 7. Old Business 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: January 4, 2024- 3:00 pm February 7, 2024- 3:00 pm March 6, 2024 – 3:00 pm November 1, 2023 Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida November 1, 2023 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 Community Growth Management Community 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 James E. Boughton (excused) Clay Brooker Jeff Curl David Dunnavant John English Marco Espinar Norman Gentry Mark McLean (excused) Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn Jeremy Sterk Mario Valle Hannah Roberts (AHAC-non-voting) ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Department Head, GMCD Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review Thomas Iandimarino, Director, Code Enforcement Drew Cody, Senior Project Manager, Utilities Planning Cormac Giblin, Director, Housing Policy & Economic Development Michael Sawyer, Project Manager II, Transportation Engineering Michael Stark, Director, Operations & Regulatory Mgt. Division Jason Badge, Supervisor of Project Management, Operations & Regulatory Mgt. Doug Sposito, Deputy Building Official, GMCD Michael Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning, GMCD Marissa Fewell, Planner III, GMCD Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD Richard Henderlong, Planner III, GMCD Diane Lynch, Management Analyst I/Staff Liaison GMCD Julie Chardon, Ops Support Specialist II, GMCD November 1, 2023 Page 2 of 20 Any persons needing the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Community Department. 1. Call to Order – Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. A quorum of 10 was present in the boardroom; two members joined later. 2. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair Foley seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 10-0. 3. Approval of Minutes a. DSAC Meeting – October 4, 2023 Vice Chair Foley made a motion to approve the October 4, 2023, DSAC meeting minutes. Mr. Curl seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 10-0. 4. Public Speakers (None) 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook, Director] Ms. Cook told the DSAC: • We finished the interviews for Cormac Giblin’s replacement and are working through the HR process. We hope to have a new manager in place within the next month. Hopefully, at the December meeting, she’ll be able to introduce that person to the DSAC. • We finished the interviews for the environmental manager position (Sarah Harrington’s former position) and it’s worked its way through the HR process so that one will soon be confirmed. b. Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] Mr. Iandimarino provided a September update: • We had a slight steady decrease in cases that were opened, from 500 down to 490 for the last couple of months as you. • If you look at the history, October and November tend to be a bit slower for cases that are being opened. • The vast majority of cases are called in and we respond, so for the next couple of months, we will be more proactive getting out there and opening new cases. That’s the direction we’ve got going forward for the next couple of months. • He’ll tell them in January how that’s going. [Mr. Gentry joined the meeting at 3:03 p.m.] Mr. Curl asked if the self-initiated checks will include Golden Gate Estates. November 1, 2023 Page 3 of 20 [Ms. DeJohn joined the meeting at 3:04 p.m.] Mr. Iandimarino said countywide. We’re not discriminating. Supervisors will be tasked with kicking it up and opening more cases. We have a policy that we’re allowed to do whatever we can to go in and get it done. [Mr. Dunnavant joined the meeting at 3:04 p.m.] Mr. Curl said he’s giving you a list that is easily seen. Mr. Iandimarino said he’s welcome to call in and identify properties and we will initiate all that you give us a call on. That’s perfectly allowable. Mr. Curl said when you’re fighting traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard and trying to get somewhere, you don’t really have time to sit there and figure out what the (address) is. Unfortunately, he can’t tell him unless he’s onsite. c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division [Chris Mason, Director] (No report) d. Public Utilities Department [Drew Cody, Senior Project Manager] Mr. Cody provided a September update: • The chart is unexciting, which is great and shows work is going well. • We no longer have a consultant helping us with FDEP permits. Those are in-house entirely. • For any resubmissions, we’re going to be forcing those on to the new templates and the new process, not the revision process. We’re completely done with that older, more drawn-out review process on the FDEP permits. • We’re seeing an uptick in utility planning. A lot of emails are coming into individual employees. Going into the holidays, please make sure you’re sending requests to the utility planning email box because a lot of us are going to be out for periods of time and you’re going to get work delays unless it goes to the utility planning box. e. Housing Policy & Economic Development [Cormac Giblin, Director] Mr. Giblin said he had no updates but could answer questions. Mr. Brooker asked if they were seeing many Live Local Act submissions. Mr. Giblin said two to four are currently being evaluated. f. GMD Transportation Engineering Division [Mike Sawyer, Project II] Mr. Sawyer said the only new thing occurring now is the AUIR, which will be going to the Planning Commission for the first hearing tomorrow and to the BCC on December 12. g. Collier County Fire Review [Michael Cruz, Captain] Mr. Cruz detailed the October report: • For future projects coming up in the next 12 months involve Tesla, which is building an 8,000-square-foot addition and some warehouse projects. • Inspections are going smoothly. • Reviews are taking two days. November 1, 2023 Page 4 of 20 • Planning review turnaround is about two days. • There were 210 self-issued permits for (over-the-counter) fire-alarm system projects. • There were 22 sprinkler permits. h. North Collier Fire Review [Linda Naples, Senior Fire Plans Examiner] Ms. Naples detailed the October report: • 616 building permits were reviewed, with an average turnaround of four days. • 52 planning reviews were done, with an average four-day turnaround. i. Operations & Regulatory Management Division – [Michael Stark, Director] Mr. Stark provided an update on the CityView software application testing feature enhancement, private provider administrative fees, and division upgrades: • At the DSAC’s request and under Jamie French’s direction, our team, led by project manager Jason Badge, coordinated with the vendor to obtain a quote for a feature enhancement to CityView. The first quote was $18,000 and we continued to move forward. • We went back to our software vendor because there was a $2,400 annual fee associated with that. We were able to coordinate with the vendor to remove that fee, lessening the overall cost. • We’re looking at separate variable costs associated with the texting feature from Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. Every month is calculated by usage. For 12 months, it’s $1.15 per text, so the average cost is 0.00634 cents. • For September, when there were 446 text messages, that amount would have cost $180.38 annually. Historically, it would be between $1,700 to $2,700 annually for the 450,000 estimated texts. • After discussion with our team and leadership, we’re recommending capping text messages to three cellphone numbers, a primary and two secondary numbers. The justification stems from maintaining the fees at the current rates and the estimated time frame for the feature enhancements. • It normally would take 90 days to look at this for a feature enhancement. Our goal for the scope of work, obtaining a purchase order authorizing the changes, and then the rollout and testing is May 2024. • We’re open to comments and feedback. Mr. Badge and Mr. French also can answer questions. • Significant programming must go into the CityView application. Rather than a feature enhancement, this is an upgrade. • The justification by removing the $2,400 was because this would be a feature benefit for all other CityView customers. • May is the completion date in a perfect world. We still must go back to the vendor and some programming must occur. If we can do this sooner, we will, but want to ensure it’s tested properly. During questions by the DSAC, the following points were made. • 28,000 is the number based on this month’s actual usage. • Everyone won’t be able to use the feature if it’s limited to three cell phone numbers. November 1, 2023 Page 5 of 20 • Not all customers will add three numbers for texts. This is the worst-case scenario. • Getting the feature finished sooner rather than later is best. • The DSAC asked for a timeline and some level of accountability to show when each phase is completed. • Sprint will be the first provider added through a purchase order. Mr. Badge told the DSAC: • This feature change requires a version update from our software vendor. It’s not a service pack that’s quick and easy to test. It’s a whole new version that we must test. We’re not just testing a feature, we’re testing the software’s entire functionality to ensure it’s still working and not introducing new bugs into the system. • That’s why it’s taking more time for development. They must do their own development of the version, add a feature and do their own QA/QC. • Once we get it, we also must test all those features, which takes about a month, depending on the number of features. It could take 1-1½ months of testing. • If we have to wait to fix bugs, it could take longer because they have to take it back to their programmers to fix the bugs. They rerun it through QA/QC, and then we get it back and validate it. • That’s why there’s a longer timeline. It’s an overall enhancement to the version of the software and requires a major version update versus just a service-pack software update. • We want to make sure we’re not breaking anything when we’re deploying the updates and creating a worse experience for customers. We want to leave it in a better spot than it was before. [No vote was needed and staff is proceeding with the upgrade.] Mr. Stark introduced Doug Sposito, Deputy Building Official, and said he’d be involved with the next item. Mr. Stark told the DSAC: • On November 14, staff will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to implement changes to the Private Provider Administrative Fees. • Per Florida Statute 553.791, Section 2B, local jurisdictions may only charge a reasonable administrative fee for licensed and private provider inspections that are calculated on the flat fee or percentage of construction cost based on the cost incurred by the personnel providing the services. • To reflect these changes, per the statute, a $40 administrative fee per identified inspection will be implemented in the fee schedule, which is our resolution for November 14. • The Private Provider Administrative Fee is a reduction from the $45 fee that was collected for the building inspection fee, which is an 11% reduction. • The fee reduction will be applied to the building trade provider, only the Private Provider Administrative Fee. • The new administrative fee is based on reductions in operating costs from field activities compared with increased office activities for tracking project progress, software enhancements, overall document processing and document storage. November 1, 2023 Page 6 of 20 Chairman Varian asked if there were any questions, noting that it’s self-explanatory, state law and you making it work. Mr. Stark detailed the October monthly report: • There were 3,966 permit applications through the CityView software portal. Compared with October FY23, it’s a 6.9% increase, 273 permit applications. • 386 permit applications were related to Hurricane Ian. • The Business Center intake team assisted 1,189 walk-in customers. • The satellite locations handled 121 walk-in customers. • The Call Center received 5,800 calls to the main number, with an average call lasting under three minutes. • There were 272 permits and 265 spot surveys, of which 157 are CO-holds. • 36 pre-application meetings were scheduled. • We have 320 full-time employees and 27 positions in the hiring pipeline. Chairman Varian said about a year ago, you suspended submittals on Sundays and holidays because you were falling way behind. When can you start that again? We all agreed that had to be done due to the hurricane but can it start again? Mr. French told the DSAC: • Legislation is currently tracking and if it passes, it requires three to five days to turn around all applications and I think we will see critical failure throughout Florida if we allowed that again. • Some communities went back to an 8-5 p.m. schedule, got rid of all fees and paid for this through taxpayer dollars, not industry clients. • We don’t believe, especially when you look at something as complicated as Great Wolf Lodge or the Ritz-Carlton, there’s no way any of you could have provided a cursory review within three days. • Single-family homes are easier, but when you get into the complicated nature of some structures, plus topography, planning and zoning considerations within setbacks and certain criteria, we’re monitoring that. • Based on the way the board has looked at their budget, we have captured as many efficiencies as possible, but as costs go up, our costs also go up. We’ve held strong on not raising fees and have reduced fees. We’re the only one in the county and state that has reduced fees unless others eliminated programs. • To bring that back now, we’d be happy to look at it, but it will require more staff, different working hours and more money. • If that’s what this industry wants, he will need the DSAC’s help to speak to commissioners and management about an increase in operating costs. Chairman Varian thanked him and said he just wanted to ask. Mr. Mulhere asked how many satellite offices there were and how many worked out of Everglades City and Copeland. November 1, 2023 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Stark said there are satellite offices in Everglades City, Heritage Bay, Immokalee, and Orange Tree. Staff are in Everglades City and Copeland about three times a week. Mr. French answered questions and the following points were made: • If you submitted Friday after 5 p.m., all permits that come in on the weekend would be considered a Monday submittal and staff won’t get to Tuesday submittals for three or four days. That adds up and we spent about $2.5 million on overtime. • Would it make sense to increase intake staff? No, we’re staffed accordingly, but our costs have gone up and we’ve been losing employees to the City of Naples, Lee County, other government agencies and private providers, so there was a push from the industry and the agency to retain staff. • About 40% of staff still commute from Lee County, so we offer building inspectors a take-home vehicle option, which increases productivity. The overall cost is around $70,000 yearly and an inspector is still over $200,000 a year. • When you look at intake, it’s the availability of staff. After you train them, they get recruited away. We had an average of a 12-13% increase in starting salaries just to be competitive with other government agencies. We’re not even competing with the industry. • We still have vacancies that are two to three years out for building inspectors. The staff aren’t available. • The reason we’re hiring our own HR manager and HR staff is to offer some corrections so we can be in better control, but the volume stacks up. • If we don’t have staff to review plans, the only way we can manage is to run it like an online service, with employees working on plan reviews out of Everglades City, Orange Blossom, Heritage Bay and Immokalee. • We’ve maximized technology so we don’t have an employee sitting idle. We just need a physical presence on the retail side and that increases productivity. • If they can work in satellite offices, we don’t need to shrink cubicles here. • More staff equates to higher fees. • Applications submitted over the weekend will push work back. • The queue is about two days. We’re getting behind on spot surveys because the same people who deal with satellite office customers answer planning questions and review spot surveys because they don’t need a license. • If we pull a licensed plans reviewer or an engineer for that, it takes them off more complicated work that may set your project back in other areas. • Digital is where the efficiencies are. • With the new legislation, we expect more rejections, especially with glass and glazing. We’ll see more failed in the field because they’re not going to be licensed in Collier. We’re going to have a lot more infiltration of what we consider an unlicensed contractor from other areas. That will change our work. • We’re going to have a lot more corrections in the field. Doug Sposito and Fred Clum may not be as available by phone because they’re in the field. • If you’re looking at the DSAC reports, we’re down in costs and commodities are starting to balance out. • If this market doesn’t pick up again, we won’t even be purchasing replacement vehicles because we’re concerned about the economy. November 1, 2023 Page 8 of 20 • We need to ensure we’ve got staff to fulfill the obligation that we’ve made to the industry. We’ve collected the money, so we owe you the work within a reasonable time. We don’t want the level of service to drop. We’d like to improve it, but now may not be the right time. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Intake usually takes two to three days. • There’s often missing documentation and that slows the process. • Collier County is one of the fastest in processing in the state and the country, according to the Plante Moran study, which cost the county $330,000. Collier was compared to Las Vegas because it put a lot of money into its system, but the study said we had a number of efficiencies and they learned something. They also identified areas for opportunity. • It sounds like there are no efficiencies that can be improved. It’s a staffing issue, which is a cost. • It also could be the quality of staff, so we’re struggling with that. Mr. Stark told the DSAC: • We are now sustainable with our workforce and the training program. • If you go past employees’ desks, you’re going to see reports up and they’re monitoring them regularly throughout the day to ensure the numbers are coming down. • If there are different efficiencies that we can capture from that, a lot of conversation and information sharing goes on. It takes an army to do this. • A lot of information must flow through different areas depending on the type of permit application and what we’re trying to accomplish. j. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi, Director] Mr. Bosi told the DSAC: • The industry continues to have an insatiable appetite for entitlement to new development through pre-app requests. • The Board of County Commissioners’ public hearing schedule has 22 items between November 14 and February 13. • For the Planning Commission, 14 items will be heard between November and the first December meeting, so we continue to have a strong workload. • For the first time since he returned 2½ years ago, zoning is fully staffed. He had to take a couple of employees from the front-counter zoning desk to get to that point. • The AUIR will go to the Planning Commission in November or December 12. There’s a big hole in AUIR in terms of unfunded needs. We’re close to $600-$650 million over the next five years. Identified projects are needed to maintain a level of service, but funds aren’t available. • There will be a need to identify alternative revenue sources or rearrangements within the fiscal structure to address all those needs moving into the future. • We receive yearly population projections from the University of Florida Bureau of Business Research and have had a steady decline. This is the lowest we’ve had in November 1, 2023 Page 9 of 20 the 15 years he’s been doing the AUIR. Our pace of growth is slowing. He believes it has a lot to do with housing affordability. • We were at about a 1.1% annual growth rate. Three years ago, it was around 1.9 or 1.95, so we’re seeing less population move here over the five-year period. That helps with the lack of funding and lack of funding sources within our capital improvement programming. • Everyone expects us to grow more, but our pace continues to slow. The population is over 400,000, a large number, so to get a percentage, the whole number must rise. Our percentage has been going down since about 2018. • The Board of County Commissioners on November 14 will also hear the final four affordable housing initiatives, the last from the 2017 Community Housing Plan that ULI conducted for us. • Every month or two months, we will have a project with a significant 20-35% of affordable housing proposed, so the industry is responding to the need and the number of units we’ve set aside since 2019. • Over 3,000 units have been set aside as income-restricted so we’re doing an adequate job of trying to keep pace. When you have such a deficit, if we’re not approving 1,000 units, we’re falling behind. • We just finished three Public Information Meetings about affordable housing in the Urban Estates. The board asked us to talk to the Urban Estates community to see if they’d be interested in a program of renting guest houses. Currently there’s a restriction on renting guest houses for commercial benefit. • The meetings were lukewarm in terms of response. We sent out 3,558 postcards to all the Urban Estates zoned lots and didn’t get the turnout we hoped for, but early returns show a favorable appetite for renting out guest houses short- or long term. • The state has tied our hands with short-term rentals. If guest houses become rentals, you could have a guest house that’s a short-term rental next door. • The majority of residents are interested in the program. • We plan to go to the AHAC in December to provide them with our findings, and then will go to the BCC in February. • Not many were in favor of renting out guest houses if it’s only for income-restricted units. He told the AHAC early on about that and the AHAC recognized that even if it’s not targeted toward income-restricted tenants, allowing guest house rentals helps with the supply and demand imbalance. • We’re putting together our findings. Surveys for Urban Estates residents will still be available on our website for three weeks. • We hope to get positive direction from the Board of County Commissioners to start a program. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • These are for residential, not commercial use. Collier has a restrictive LDC home- occupation standard, while state statutes are more permissive. • Many people at the Public Information Meetings said they knew of residents renting out their guest houses, but they’d like to open it up to legitimize it. • This committee should review Growth Management Plan Amendments before they go to the BBC because once they’re adopted, it’s meaningless. November 1, 2023 Page 10 of 20 • For land-use petitions that go to the CCPC and then the BCC, it might be worth looking at converting that to the HEX, the hearing examiner, rather than a public hearing. Because the BCC doesn’t hear anything controversial over the summer, the delay becomes burdensome on private property owners and developers. • Mr. Bosi understood, but it requires an amendment to do that. A hearing examiner’s powers are limited. • We have a backlog because the BCC doesn’t hear controversial items in the summer. • Mr. Brooker had what was considered a controversial item that was delayed five months and it turned out not to be controversial. • For almost any petition seeking an increase in residential density that has a comp plan and even some that don’t, the bar has been raised in terms of the expectation of delivery of affordable workforce housing. • Bank financing terms are problematic, and developers now have to go to private equity, which is at 10-12% interest. • Insurance rates also are up 15-20% and construction costs are up 20% so a project is 30-40% more expensive than two years ago. • A lot of projects have been approved. The one on Airport Road in which the developer let the contract expire probably due to costs. • Close to 3,000 units are coming out of the ground in three to five years. • Developers are going to be paying a higher margin now. The county understands that and is working with developers. • Staff tends to be greedy in terms of the percentage of affordable housing we’re asking for and it’s the industry’s task to bring in the knowledge and financials to push back. • There’s going to be a glitch bill with the Live Local Act. It’s uncertain yet what will change. The bill says 65% of square footage must be allocated to residential use, so if you want mixed-use, it becomes a problem. It probably would work well on parcels that are 10 acres or larger. • Those are the types of parcels the county has seen that indicate they’ll move forward with the SDP. With the standards we’re seeing, you have to utilize the RMF-16 (residential multifamily district) to have the ability and it starts to become cumbersome, especially when you’re trying to fit everything on a site that might satisfy all the requirements. • There’s not that much commercial in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and there’s a 200-foot setback requirement. Development standards cause problems. • On the BCC’s February or March agenda, Noel Davies (of the Urban Land Institute) has challenged county staff’s interpretation of a mixed-use project. Staff says only the commercially designated portion of a mixed-use project is available for Live Local. Davies says it’s a mixed-use PUD so everything within it is eligible. The BCC can provide arbitration on that. • An amendment to reduce the minimum unit size will go before the BCC on December 12 and involves the Golden Gate Inn conversion. The county has a minimum housing standard for two people, 450 square feet for an efficiency unit. We have a provision that would modify that standard that says if you’re in the process of an adaptive reuse of the existing building and it has at least 20% affordable housing, you can qualify for a 250- November 1, 2023 Page 11 of 20 square-foot efficiency, recognizing that sometimes creative solutions require it. That could drive the Live Local Act. • A lot of people go to the Planning Commission and BCC meetings and speak against that because they can’t envision how their family could fit within a 250-square-foot dwelling unit. Staff’s response is it’s not for a family of four, it’s for one or two people, a couple or someone downsizing. • Flexibility and making sure that we provide a variety of housing choices is what we’re always trying to promote. 6. New Business a. DSAC Position vacancy Review and Vote (four-year seats) i. Blair Foley – Civil Engineer Mr. Mulhere made a motion to nominate Blair Foley to the civil engineer seat on the DSAC. Mr. Curl seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 12-0. ii. John English – Civil Engineer Mr. Brooker made a motion to nominate John English to the civil engineer seat on the DSAC. Mr. Mulhere seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. iii. Marco Espinar – Environmental Consultant/Biologist Mr. Curl made a motion to nominate Marco Espinar to the environmental consultant/biologist seat on the DSAC. Mr. Valle seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. iv. Norman Gentry – General Contractor Mr. Valle made a motion to nominate Norm Gentry to the general contractor seat on the DSAC. Vice Chair Foley seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. v. Laura DeJohn – Land Planner Mr. Mulhere made a motion to nominate Laura DeJohn to the land planner seat on the DSAC. Mr. Curl seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. vi. Mario Valle – Residential/Commercial Construction Mr. Mulhere made a motion to nominate Mario Valle to the residential/commercial construction seat on the DSAC. Mr. English seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. b. PL20220005067 – Scrivener’s Errors Ms. Fewell introduced herself as a new LDC team planner and asked about her background, she said she’s new to Collier County and came from Inglewood, a city in California. Before that she was a planner in Lee County and before that, she was a planner in Dallas, Texas. She grew up in Cleveland. Ms. Fewell told the DSAC: • The first item involves a Scrivener’s errors amendment. This amendment corrects errors and updates various citations and references throughout the code. November 1, 2023 Page 12 of 20 • A previous version of this amendment was brought to staff on November 2, 2022, where it was given a recommendation of approval. • Since then, additional items have been added and are highlighted in yellow. • The DSAC subcommittee recommended approval of this amendment last month. • We are requesting a recommendation of approval. Mr. Brooker made a motion to approve PL20220005067 – Scrivener’s Errors. Second by Mr. Curl. The motion passed unanimously, 12-0. c. PL20220006373 – Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles and Food Truck Parks Mr. Henderlong outlined a PowerPoint presentation and told the subcommittee: • This amendment was directed by the Board of Zoning Appeals in October 2021. It is a new LDC section 5.05.16, Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles and Food Truck Parks. • An Administrative Code amendment also goes with the new section of code, Chapter 4 R. • This overview covers the amendment’s history; current statutory regulations; procedures relating to licensing for mobile food dispensing vehicles, operations and food permits, including definitions; staff research and findings on other community standards; details of the proposed amendment, and textual changes added since the last initial packet. • In October of 2021, the Board of Zoning Appeals prohibited mobile food truck applications permanently located with other entertaining activities, such as a bar, dance pavilion, or music and outdoor seating. • The BZA directed staff to bring back an amendment to allow for the conditional use of mobile food trucks within base-zoning districts on a specific parcel of land. They also directed staff to look at the use so it would not require a Zoning Verification Letter of Approval by the Board or a Comparable-Use Determination. • Concerns expressed that would affect the surrounding neighborhood were noise, glare, odor, traffic and setback requirements. Staff were tasked with identifying similar characteristics with other permitted uses within the base-zoning districts and looking at hours of operation, traffic volume, number of vehicles, types of parking spaces and other best practice activities. • Florida Statues, Chapter 509.102 is the driving force for mobile food dispensing vehicles and their preemption. There are three significant subsections. The first defines what a mobile food dispensing vehicle (MFDV) is – any vehicle that’s a public service food establishment. The key is public-service establishment, self- propelled, or otherwise moveable from place to place, and it includes self- contained utilities, including, but not limited to, gas, water, electric, or liquid- waste disposal. • Subsection 2 specifically says the regulations preempted to the state are limited to licensing, registrations, permits and fees. Local governments cannot prohibit mobile food dispensing vehicles from operating within the entirety of a county or other local governmental jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions do prohibit them. November 1, 2023 Page 13 of 20 • The last section of the statute states the statue may not affect the local government jurisdiction’s authority to regulate the operation of the vehicles, other than the regulations in Subsection 2. These are the guiding principles to follow. • A second provision relates to the food product regulations of what is being sold. Pursuant to Food Product-Statutory Regulations, Chapter 500.12, all mobile food trucks, food establishments and retail food stores must apply for and receive a food permit. It is no different for a mobile food dispensing vehicle-truck. By this chapter, the food permit is subject to a “mobile food establishment” as defined by statue. • The Florida administrative code gives a definition for mobile food establishments – “food establishments that are self-propelled or otherwise moving from place to place, such as a truck, trailer or similar self-propelled conveyance or a non-permanent kiosk or a table where prepackaged food products are sold”. An indication is a watercraft that on waterways has to have a food permit from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. • The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the agency that issues the permit before any operation can begin. The food permit must be pulled first and it may be associated or operating in conjunction with another permitted food establishment, such as a common restaurant. • The last primary permitting agency for licensing is the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulations, which is responsible for issuing a mobile food dispensing license. It licenses and regulates all businesses, including all types of public food establishments. The license is issued under the department’s Division of Hotels and Restaurants. There are seven different types of food establishments and we’re focusing on mobile food dispensing vehicle licenses. • Other common code elements were studied in 20 Florida communities, of which five were Florida counties and five were out-of-state, and also current permitted and licensed establishments within Collier County. • Last week, Lee County opened “Backyard Social” food truck park located in Trade Port Center off of Ben Hill Griffin and Alico Road. The project has eight food trucks, on 1.93 acres, under an 8,500 square foot roof, with a bar, outdoor entertainment and games. The operating hours are seven days a week compared with Celebration Park’s six days a week. • Staff looked at definitions and in what type of zoning district mobile food dispensing vehicles would be allowed, either, by right, special exception or conditional use. Typically, they are located in Commercial, Business or Industrial zoning districts. • Also, staff looked at the minimum parcel and lot area, maximum number of mobile food dispensing vehicles related to a park, parking spaces on private property, generator noise and odor, stabilized surfaces, and minimum number of MFDVs. Staff is recommending five food trucks per one acre for a food truck park’s density. • Because of the Live Local Act, other criteria considered were not included as it would be more burdensome or restrictive. Setbacks to property lines would remain the same as for the base-zoning districts, fire hydrants, schools, separation distance between vehicles. The fire code requires 10 feet between November 1, 2023 Page 14 of 20 vehicles and the same for fire hydrants. Most research supports a 15 foot distance separation from fire hydrants. • Other criteria are access to restrooms and outdoor seating. When a mobile food truck’s operational hours are four hours or more, patrons and the operator employees should have access to an existing public restroom or Port-a-John with a sink and toilet. If not, then an access agreement to another retailer’s restroom within a strip center should be obtained. • Duration of hours of operation of food trucks were studied. They recognized there had to be a limit for transient sales hours. Those are trucks that stay four hours or less in duration. • They studied time periods and the number of days allowed during the calendar year under a temporary-use permit or by special events as a sales and promotional event. Event sales are limited to 28 days in a calendar year, unless there is an extension. Staff determined anything after 28 days would be considered a permanent use. • Daily removal of a mobile-food dispensing vehicle. Mobile food trucks are typically moved off-site within 24 hours, by statue, unless it is a self-sufficient mobile food truck or they have onsite access to a hookup to utilities and a sanitary waste facility. • There are no alcohol or drive-through sales and restrictions on amplified sound and outdoor entertainment with an exception for a special event. • There are parking, sign and lighting requirements. • MFDVs will be allowed as an accessory use or permanently when located in a park. • MFDV will be a permanent use in a food truck park only by conditional use when associated with the sale of alcohol or amplified sound that provides outdoor entertainment. The zoning districts include: C-3, C-4, C-5, Commercial, Business Parks, Industrial, Public-Use areas, and all PUDs, such as Community Facilities, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use districts will be allowed to have MFDVs by right or conditional use. • Generators are limited to operating no closer than 20 feet to a property line unless there is an intervening six-foot high wall. • Trash receptacles and access to restrooms for the operator and patrons are required. • Operations are limited on a temporary basis for no longer than 28 days in a calendar year for special events and temporary use permits. Trucks that are transient and do not stop for longer than 4 hours are exempt. The four hours include one hour for setup and one hour for breakdown. • Prohibitions: o No placement of food truck on a vacant or unimproved lot unless associated with a food truck park. o No placement in required setbacks or parking spaces, open space, preserves, landscape buffers, conservation and drainage easement, public or private road right-of-was or access easements. November 1, 2023 Page 15 of 20 They cannot operate in a manner that block access ways, walkways, driveways, loading zones, or interfere with vehicular or pedestrian circulation. I o Alcohol sales and amplified sound are prohibited unless approved or associated with a special event or temporary use permit. The state Division of Alcohol, Beverages & Tobacco issues for governmental entities or non- profit groups, a three-day license for consumption on-premises for special events. o Operating longer hours than the primary business hours, unless approved for a permanent location or by special event. A brief overview of design standards was provided: • SDP approval and permanently stabilized base were mentioned earlier. • One change replaces the term of a “pad” with a “designated area”. A pad tends to suggest a dimensional standard that staff found on average would be 535 square feet and because trucks vary in size, a designated area would be required rather than a dimensional average size. • Fire officials, if an optional central propane tank is proposed, want the tank to be installed underground and not aboveground. • The parking space standard is three per MFDV and one space per four outdoor seats and two bicycle parking for each MFDV pad. • Light fixtures are to be shielded and directed away from neighboring properties. No flashing or strobe lights would be allowed. • The last criterion is light fixtures shall be directed away from neighboring properties or shall be fully shielded, and that no nuisance lights, such as flashing or strobe lights, will be allowed. • He asked if there were any recommendations and comments. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Mr. Mulhere noted that he had to leave the subcommittee meeting early, but on page 11, d.2, which discusses reducing the potential impact, it should say “unless there is a concrete or masonry wall of at least 6 feet in height”. Mr. Henderlong said that’s fine. • Mr. Mulhere wanted the section about amplified sound and live entertainment next to residential clarified because it seems like an overkill. The way it’s worded is that the conditional use is applied when food truck parks serve alcohol. That should probably be for on-premises consumption. That’s how we worded the code everywhere else, serving alcohol for on-premises consumption with alcohol. • Where it says outdoor amplified sound providing outdoor entertainment, amplified sound by itself does not generate a conditional use. Mr. Henderlong said the amplified sound was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, which added “with outdoor entertainment.” It’s all three independent conditions. • Mr. Mulhere noted that you can crank up speakers to the allowed decibel level. Mr. Henderlong said that was correct. Staff had proposed a more restrictive measurement from generators and outdoor sound than the current ordinance, based on Code November 1, 2023 Page 16 of 20 Enforcement complaints received at Celebration Place. Because of Live Local Act, it would be more restrictive. • Ms. DeJohn stated she read it to say “ amplified sound that is providing entertainment”, so if outdoor she is entertained as distinguished from amplified sound that might be projected when calling out a customer’s name. If you are being entertained then it would require a conditional use. • Mr. Curl noted that the subcommittee approved some adjustments to the language, but they don’t appear to be here. Mr. Henderlong said they were incorporated as mentioned in the narrative. Different wording was used for full shielded lighting, and replaced by your wording for full cut-off lighting. The subcommittee recommendations were incorporated after their vote and staff have a few additional changes highlighted in yellow. • Mr. Mitchell said he’s not a fan of having to get a temporary use permit extension because time is limited and you have to renew it for a fee like a right-of-way permit. It seems onerous. • Mr. Mitchell noted it says a food truck can’t be on a private road or right-of-way, so how does that affect food trucks that deliver food at construction sites? Mr. Henderlong said they have to comply with the statute for the Code of Laws and Ordinances that regulate roadside sales. • Committee members discussed slight changes and word deletions, as well as clarifications to ensure there are no other interpretations of language. • Mr. Booker mentioned the slide presentation said mobile food trucks would be permitted in PUDs. However, the amendment does not expressly allow them in a PUD. He said it may not be necessary to allow them in PUDs and if so, would they be allowed by conditional use in a PUD? • Mr. Henderlong said it would be administratively reviewed by staff and allowed by right as a comparable use. • Up to two MFDV will be allowed in the base zoning districts: commercial, business park, etc. • Does anything in this amendment render Celebration Park non-conforming? This food truck park was approved through a conditional-use approval. If the use stopped, they would lose their rights and become nonconforming. They will remain conforming based on the current rules. In terms of the proposed standards, there are some elements that would not conform but we are not able to retroactively go back to make them conforming. • Mr. Brooker suggested the amendment should be applicable only to food truck parks that don’t exist today. Mr. Henderlong said it would affective for new food truck parks after the effective date of adoption of the ordinance. • Using a food truck for catering at a private home or venue involves a separate license/permit from the DBPR’s Division of Hotels and food trucks can qualify. • For amplified sound, they can get a temporary use permit, no more than 28 days throughout the whole year. • Ms. DeJohn sought clarification to the question what happens in PUDs. • Mr. Henderlong said staff will look to compare it with similar uses within the PUD, such as a restaurant, and allow it by right. Otherwise it would be by conditional use. November 1, 2023 Page 17 of 20 • Ms. DeJohn suggested considering code section 2.03.06 specific to PUDs that says “ the following commercial uses are allowed in PUD districts”. It might help. • Mr. Henderlong said he’d like to review that with the County Attorney’s Office. Mr. Mulhere suggested cross-referencing the code section. • Mr. Henderlong said an answer to the question will go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mulhere made a motion to recommend approval subject to staff agreeing to look at Section 2.03.06 to see if there’s an opportunity to add language that would cross-reference whether this would be allowed in a PUD and to insert this is only effective for food truck parks approved after the adoption date of this ordinance. Second by Mr. Valle. The motion passed unanimously, 12-0. d. PL20230013966 – Wireless Communication Facilities Ms. Fewell detailed a PowerPoint presentation and told the DSAC: • The first regulations for communication powers were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1992. • On January 24, 2023, the board directed staff to develop amendments to the current LDC regulations to promote a stronger wireless communication network countywide. • Staff contracted with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) to assist with the updated provisions. Margaret Emblidge, ABB’s planning director, is here to help answer questions. • Since receiving board direction in January, staff and the consultant reviewed current regulations and best practices statewide and engaged with industry experts, including a wireless service provider and a tower company. • The research helped staff determine that the current LDC provisions are outdated compared with current industry practices. • This amendment modernizes the text and simplifies the application and review processes. Most of the current LDC provisions would be deleted and replaced with new text. • Elements of some existing regulations are in the draft, including design requirements, bird and wildlife considerations, and some existing landscaping and inspection requirements. • Corresponding cross-references were added to maintain consistency throughout the code. • Substantive changes to the amendment include updating the nomenclature of “communication towers” to “wireless communication facilities” to include all facility types. • It also provides definitions and establishes regulations for various facility types; updates the use and conditional-use list for zoning districts to allow new facilities countywide; removes shared tower requirements to instead encourage co-location by allowing an increase in tower height; and entirely reorganizes the section to provide an easier interpretation of the regulations. • The DSAC-LDR subcommittee reviewed the amendment two weeks ago and recommended approval, subject to three minor revisions that are in yellow highlighted text. • Staff is working with the County Attorney’s Office to finalize some text and formatting. • We’re asking for a recommendation of approval. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The email with suggestions from an attorney who specializes in wireless communications was not incorporated into the amendments. She represents SBA Tower Co. November 1, 2023 Page 18 of 20 • The subcommittee didn’t have time to review that last-minute email but heard from a Verizon representative. • Verizon was the principal carrier that helped county staff. • Staff felt some of the SBA attorney’s suggestions were too restrictive and we’re trying to be more permissive. No one had the ability to say no to telephone poles years ago. • In 1996, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Act, privatized the deployment of the wireless facilities and now 91% of all communications are through cellphones, so this is a health, safety and welfare issue. • Some of the changes requested by Katie Berkey, for SBA Communications, were more restrictive. They’re free to come to the Planning Commission, here or the BCC to advocate for that, but we tried to balance it. We felt we’ve got to work with them. • P. 32 is missing the word “except.” These rules apply to the following within the county, “except” for the following. Staff agreed to add that. • Ms. DeJohn said it’s cool how you added a table because it summarizes for each zoning district what’s permitted, conditional and not permitted. But there could be confusion. If you look at the RMF-12 zoning district, it says wireless facilities permitted subject to this section, but then you learn that in RMF-12, the only thing permitted is a rooftop mounted antenna, so should it say that. • Ms. DeJohn said the table is clear, but they have that dilemma that this whole other section of the code lists what is permitted and what’s conditional. • The very heavy separation requirements in Golden Gate Estates have changed. • Ms. DeJohn said when it talks about separations, it talks about separating from a use, and she’s worried that it will cause struggles because if the tower is coming in and there’s separation from the residential use, does that mean you’re separating from that residence, the building, or the property line? Ms. Fewell said they’re working on that with the County Attorney’s Office. It’s separating from the property line, not the structure. • Mr. Bosi said we’re adding a provision for Estates lots because 2½ times separation requires conditional use. We’ve reduced that separation requirement but recognize there will still be occasions when a variance would be needed, so we have incorporated the conditional use to allow for variance considerations so they don’t have to file two separate petitions for one tower. It will be more straightforward in that the compatibility analysis of the conditional-use process can help alleviate any separation and setback issues. • Mr. English said he has a client with a lot of agricultural property and he’s been approached to allow cellphone tower. How would the county be applying this to a 500-acre farm field that’s allowed by right. Mr. Bosi said the tower company is going to lease a 100- by-100 space on that land and the buffering and wall would be around the compound itself, so it doesn’t have to be on a property line. You will have the luxury of identifying a project area associated with the equipment shelter and everything on the ground level. It details that in the LDC section 5.05.09 F.2.g.iii-b. • We don’t think that landscaping in the compound on a utility site has any real value that could be displaced to a further buffer. • The buffer and screening does not have to occur in the property boundary. • Mr. Johnson said the definition for “wireless communication facility site” means tracts of real property, either owned or leased, on which the wireless communication facility, support facility and related improvements are located. November 1, 2023 Page 19 of 20 • The buffer could go away based on the designee saying there’s enough at the periphery that screens it. • The attorney representing SBA Communications wanted extra clarification about the requirement for generators. One of her concerns was that the way it’s written indicated to her that a generator would be required for each carrier. The wording is now clear that it’s per site. We said we’d clarify it at the meeting. Vice Chairman Foley made a motion to recommend approval of PL20230013966 – Wireless Communication Facilities, with the three items the DSAC-LDR subcommittee added; add a correction at the top of page 32 to add the word “except” prior to listing the five elements; review the zoning district language that allows these facilities versus the table that’s been provided on p. 34 for clarification; and confirm that the separation requirement is not to the building of the surrounding use, but the property line. Second by Mr. Curl. The motion passed unanimously, 12-0. 7. Old Business Mr. French told the DSAC: • This may be a topic of discussion at our county commissioners meeting. We’ve discussed this here before. • There was a public petition that represents over two years of emails. • We talked about efficiency and probably well over 1,000-man hours over two years were spent on one person who has provided blatantly false testimony and opinions on other engineers’ work, inspectors and others out in the field. • There is an ordinance, 2009-42, that says if you blatantly call in a false complaint, you’re subject to a $500 fine. He spoke to Blair earlier about this, saying there must be something in their code of ethics that says when you’re providing false testimony, especially in a public fashion, or provide false testimony to a public agency about blatantly false information or your opinions on how the water management district should work, that is a violation of the state’s code of ethics of engineers. • If you want more productivity, this happens every day. (He pointed to the white binders). Every one of those represents a separate email that came to his office. • We do not interact with this person, but he is complaining. He’s complaining about your jobs. Thank God for John DeAngelis (co-founder of DeAngelis Diamond). He’s been a wonderful partner and really helped us. He spoke to every commissioner. He told me the Jewish Federation has restraining orders for cyberstalking that were issued against this man by Mark Saperstein, of the Jewish Federation. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • There should be a point where this is all handed over to the County Attorney’s Office. • Staff was told by email by the prior county manager to ignore this, but it becomes a 119 public records request. • This man buried someone with public records requests. Poor Alex is the only one who talks to him. He’s identified me, Jamie Cook and several lawsuits have been thrown out. There have been at least two. • Somebody had to go out there several times for environmental complaints. That’s just the county and that doesn’t involve all the regulatory agencies. November 1, 2023 Page 20 of 20 • One email says Marco Espinar is deceased. • When will this be resolved? • The man came in and provided testimony and now he’s complaining that he wants 2- by-4s versus 1-by-2s or 1-by-1s, although the DOT manual clearly points out that 1-by- 1s and 1-by-2s are fine. • Randy Johns at Phoenix is doing a job on Santa Barbara behind CVS. The man has called three times on that one, and we haven’t been able to find anything wrong. The contractor is fed up. This is just one job and he’s had multiple jobs. • Mr. French just wanted the DSAC to know where 1,000 hours of your money has been spent. 8. Committee Member Comments (None) 9. Adjourn Future Meeting Dates: 3 p.m. Dec. 6, 2023 3 p.m. Jan. 4, 2024 3 p.m. Feb. 7, 2024 Mr. Curl made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Espinar. The motion passed unanimously, 12-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 5 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE __________________________________ William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on ___________, as presented (choose one) ______, or as amended _____. October 17, 2023 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, October 17, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee-LDR Subcommittee, 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 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker (excused) Robert Mulhere Mark McLean Jeff Curl Blair Foley ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Planner III Marissa Fewell, Planner III October 17, 2023 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. 1. Call to Order - Chairman Acting Chairman Foley called the meeting to order at 3 p.m.; a quorum of three members was present; a fourth arrived later. 2. Approve Agenda (No changes) Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Mulhere. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. 3. Old Business (None) 4. New Business 5. PL20220005067 – Scrivener’s Errors Ms. Fewell introduced herself as a new LDC team planner and said the first item involves a Scrivener’s errors amendment. The DSAC-LDR previously reviewed some of these errors and updates on August 24, 2022, and approved them. They were taken to the full DSAC November 2022 and approved. Since then, updates and errors were added to the amendments. Those changes are in yellow highlighted text. Mr. Mulhere said they all seem to be updates, not Scrivener’s errors, just cleanup and nothing substantive. Mr. Mulhere made a motion to approve the Scrivener’s errors and other changes. Second by Mr. Curl. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. a. PL20220006373 – Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles and Food Truck Parks Mr. Henderlong told the subcommittee: • This amendment was directed by the Board of Zoning Appeals in October 2021. It is a new LDC section 5.05.16, Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles and Food Truck Parks. • There’s also an Administrative Code amendment that goes with the new section of code, Chapter 4 R. • He gave an outline to a PowerPoint presentation. The overview covers: the amendment’s history, the current statutory regulations, procedures relating to licensing for mobile food dispensing vehicles, operations and food permits, including definitions, followed by staff research and findings of other communities’ standards, details of the proposed amendment, and some textual changes added since the last initial packet. • In October of 2021, the Board of Zoning Appeals prohibited mobile food truck applications permanently located with other entertaining activities, such as a bar, dance pavilion, or music and outdoor seating. • The BZA directed staff to bring back an amendment to allow for the conditional use of mobile food trucks within base-zoning districts on a specific parcel of land. They also directed staff to look at the use so it would not require a Zoning Verification Letter of Approval by the board or a Comparable-Use Determination. • Concerns expressed that would affect the surrounding neighborhood were: noise, glare, odor, traffic and setback requirements. Staff were tasked with identifying similar characteristics with other permitted uses within the base-zoning districts and look at hours of operation, traffic volume, number of vehicles, types of parking spaces and other best practice activities. October 17, 2023 3 Mr. Mulhere said the BZA directed staff to make food truck parks a conditional use. Obviously, you’re made them both permitted and conditional. Mr. Henderlong said correct, we’ll talk about that and go into the specifics between the two. Mr. Henderlong continued his presentation: • Florida Statues, Chapter 509.102 is the driving force for mobile food dispensing vehicles and their preemption. There are three significant subsections. The first defines what a MFDV (mobile food dispensing vehicle) is – any vehicle that’s a public service food establishment. The key is public-service establishment, self-propelled, or otherwise moveable from place to place, and it includes self-contained utilities, including, but not limited to, gas, water, electric, or liquid-waste disposal. • Subsection 2 specifically says the regulations preempted to the state are limited to licensing, registrations, permits and fees. Local governments cannot prohibit mobile food dispensing vehicles from operating within the entirety of a county or other local governmental jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions do prohibit them. • The last section of the statute states the statue may not affect the local government jurisdiction’s authority to regulate the operation of the vehicles, other than the regulations in Subsection 2. These are the guiding principles to follow. Mr. Mulhere said the way he understands that is that the government preempts the local government from that, whether some do or not, they’re just taking a chance that they don’t get challenged. The statute limits prohibiting the use throughout the entirety of the local jurisdiction. Mr. Henderlong said that’s correct. Mr. Henderlong continued his presentation: • A second provision relates to the food product regulations of what is being sold. It is one that some staffers on some permits were not aware of, Food Product-Statutory Regulations, Chapter 500.12. All mobile food trucks, food establishments and retail food stores must apply for and receive a food permit. It is no different for a mobile food dispensing vehicle-truck. By this chapter, the food permit is subject to a “mobile food establishment” as defined by statue. • The Florida administrative code gives a definition for mobile food establishments – food establishments that are self-propelled, otherwise moving from place to place, such as a truck, trailer or similar self-propelled conveyance or a non-permanent kiosk or a table where prepackaged food products are sold. An indication is a watercraft that on waterways has to have a food permit from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. • The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the agency that issues the permit before any operation can begin. The food permit must be pulled first and it may be associated or operating in conjunction with another permitted food establishment, such as a common restaurant. You can have a restaurant (for example, Texas Tony’s Rib & Brewhouse or Stevie Tomato’s Sports Page) and a mobile food establishment that are issued under the same (blended) permit. • The last primary permitting agency is the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulations, which is responsible for issuing a mobile food dispensing license. It licenses and regulates all businesses, including all types of public food establishments. The license is issued under the department’s Division of Hotels and Restaurants. There are seven different types of food establishments and we’re focusing on mobile food dispensing vehicles. Mr. Mulhere asked if the DBPR license includes the inspection and sanitary requirements. Mr. Henderlong said the Department of Health would look at that. He’ll discuss hotels and restaurants later. That is a division of DBPR. October 17, 2023 4 Mr. Henderlong continued his presentation: • Other common code elements were studied in 20 Florida communities, of which five were Florida counties and five were out-of-state, and also current permitted and licensed establishments within Collier County. We took a broader look at Texas, California, North Carolina, Arkansas and Oregon. North Carolina and Texas have some unique and very good regulations. • Staff looked at definitions and in what type of zoning district mobile food dispensing vehicles would be allowed, either, by right, special exception or conditional use. Typically, they are located in Commercial, Business or Industrial zoning districts. He has a seven-page spreadsheet of about 30 different communities that go through that, but we’re not going to go into detail. From those, food truck parks and mobile food-dispensing vehicles are either regulated in commercial, business and/or industrial zoning districts. That is the primary principle, three-based districts that food truck parks are located in. • Next, staff looked at the minimum parcel and lot area, number of mobile food dispensing vehicle related to a park, and parking spaces on private property. It was interesting looking at cross- shared parking easement agreements and whether they have to disclose that they have private authorization, even on a temporary basis. • Generator noise and odor was an important part because some are very restrictive, more so than Collier County does for generator noise. A couple have done that, so we felt that’s unique to that community and not worth trying to craft a regulation on that, other than to say that it could not violate our noise regulations. • Stabilized surfaces. There are a variety of reasons why stabilized surfaces because if you have multiple types of mobile food trucks, such as a trailer, trucks motored by four wheels or a concession trailer with two vendors, they park and the exhausts come in on temporary basis. If under grass, it can start fires, so staff agreed we were not going to set a standard for the size. Originally, they were contemplating the size of the pad, but decided against that when they looked at the variable types of trucks and trailers sizes. He has a spreadsheet that details how that works, what’s typical and what isn’t. • The minimum and maximum number of trucks allowed is detailed on another sheet for density. Staff is recommending a density of five food trucks per one acre for a food truck park. • Setbacks for the base-zoning district. The majority of communities prohibit mobile food- dispensing vehicles being in any setbacks within the front, side, or rear, which was surprising, even in commercial districts. Even different distances from property lines. We have a recommendation we think is reasonable for the subcommittee to consider. • The proximity of setbacks to residential uses or dwelling unit and setbacks of fire hydrants, schools, streets, and other dispensaries internal within the design itself. Setbacks are for the building setback. • Access to restrooms and outdoor seating. There are three types, temporary, semi-permanent, or permanent placement, which Miami-Dade calls it “stationary.” They regulate stationary, 24 hours, limited to 2 or 3 times a weekend and food truck park is not allowed. • Time periods and duration of hours of operation of food trucks. We recognized there had to be a limit for transient sales hours. Those are trucks we define in our code as four hours or less in duration. Four hours are defined as a one-hour setup and a one-hour breakdown, so it’s really a two-hour window of operation. • Number of times during calendar year. We looked at how many times they’re allowed during the calendar year under a temporary-use permit. Our code allows placement for 28 days in a calendar year. We decided internally with staff that anything after 28 days could be defined as permanent use. There’s an extension provision in the temporary-use permit that allows it to go beyond 28 days. There’s a smaller period that they can be granted, but it requires Board approval. • Daily removal of a mobile-food dispensing vehicle. This is very complicated. See the exhibit for the definition in your document on what is a “self-sufficient mobile food-dispensing vehicle.” It October 17, 2023 5 means that if it’s on-site and not self-sufficient, it must have a hookup to utilities and a sanitary waste facility. If it’s self-sufficient, it’s going to leave the site to go somewhere to a commissary to disperse and get rid of waste, grease, any hazardous materials, etc. That’s the importance of understanding how a commissary functions. A commissary can be another restaurant or an industrial location where water and sewer by the state Department of Health is allowed to accept. We’re cleaning that up in our applications to help define the business operations. After all this is identified, we want to move it forward in our applications. • Restrictions. No alcohol sales, drive-thru sales, restrictions on amplified sound and outdoor entertainment, with an exception for a special event. This was the thrust of Celebration Park’s problem. The combination of alcohol sales, some activities for drive-thru and some with loud noise. There were a lot of code violations (see exhibits) for amplified sound. All those factors combined with outdoor entertainment and stage entertainment prompted objections from many surrounding residents. That could be resolved with the proposed amendment. • Parking requirements, signs and lighting for a food truck park were studied. • The amendment allows the placement, operation and permitting of each mobile food dispensing vehicle as an accessory use. It means it’s a primary use for 24 hours or less, and it’s not self- sufficient, so it must return to a commissary. We can allow that and issue a permitted use for that, but that truck cannot be there overnight. It has to report, by statutory requirement, on a daily basis to the commissary. • Permanent use. The truck would become a permanent use in a park only through a conditional use if it’s associated with the sale of alcohol or an amplified sound and provides outdoor entertainment. We targeted the following districts: C-3, C-4, C-5, Commercial, Business Parks, Industrial, Public-Use areas, and all PUDs that are Community Facilities, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use districts. • In Section 1.08.00, there is a mobile food dispensing vehicle definition, which follows the state statute, word-for-word. We have a good definition for a food truck park that we think is reasonable. We’re also clarifying the temporary, semi-permanent, permanent and accessory use. Those are four actual elements rather than three, crafted in guidelines used to craft the language. • Generator options. We limited operating generators closer than 20 feet from a property line, unless there is an intervening six-foot wall. We had more restrictive language that was closer in other areas with decibels and other communities do that. Some of them are highly restrictive – 100 feet or 50 feet from residential. It varies for different communities, but we narrowed it down for a food truck park to 20 feet. These are permanent, distinguished separately from temporary special events, which get some relief. • Trash and Access to Restrooms. There should be a trash receptacle and access to restrooms for the operator and patrons. Staff realized that with some permits approved in the past, including the Hitching Post (one of three Jeff Curl worked on), there must be a way for patrons or vendors, particularly when they go past the four-hour window, people need to know where they can go to a bathroom. Staff’s position was not to allow Port-a-Johns. If it’s near a retail strip center, staff would ask an applicant to provide a letter of agreement demonstrating one of the tenants will allow them to use their restroom, so a vendor who’s permanently placed there can direct patrons to the restroom. • Temporary basis. Staff confirmed MFDVs can operate on a temporary basis for no longer than 28 days. This was a gray area that business operations had struggled with. Most permits in the past were done by temporary-use permits or special event. • MFDV numbers. There were over 60,000 permits for food establishments issued in the state within seven regions. Of those, 7,300 are mobile food dispensing vehicle licenses. We have the fourth largest number of mobile food dispensing units for our region, which covers a five, six, or seven county area. The demand is high. The top category is for seating restaurants at 49%. The next largest category is mobile food dispensing vehicles at 12.5% for statewide licenses. • The amendment exempts mobile food trucks that are transient and do not stop for more than four hours at a location. As a principal use, it’s important to make sure, they don’t extend beyond the October 17, 2023 6 operating hours when there is an accessory-use associated with the retail center. They must shut down and close doors as a security issue, life and safety. • Prohibitions: o No placement for a food truck, except in a food truck park, on a vacant or unimproved lot. Staff received feedback about fire concerns, life and safety. That’s consistent with most other communities. o No placement in required setbacks or parking spaces, unless dedicated to a separate site. If there are accessory spaces, it’s fine for parking. If not, a pad or dedicated area must be identified. o Parking is prohibited on open-space preserves, landscape buffers, conservation or drainage easements, public or private rights-of-way or access easements. They cannot operate in a manner that would block access ways, walkways, driveways, loading zones, or interfere with vehicular or pedestrian circulation. It is a life, safety and welfare issue. o Alcohol sales, and amplified sound are prohibited unless approved for a special event or temporary use. The Division of Alcohol, Beverages & Tobacco (DABT) under the state DBPR issues a three-day license for consumption on-premises for special events. (He passed out an informational package on food establishment special events state guidelines.) County Business Operations found some vendors come in with events, but they’ve never applied for or received a permit. They do not allow special events until they get this three-day permit for licensed sales and consumption. Only one Florida City, Gainesville, by special state legislative act, allows consumption on premises 24/7. There are different levels of licenses issued by DABT and the City of Gainesville license is called a “Mobile Food Dispensing Alcohol License.” Any MFDV can sell alcohol, restricted within the city. o Operating longer hours than the primary business location, unless approved for a permanent location or by special event. That will allow a threshold for hours. Paradise Coast Sports Park’s night activities is why this provision is there. A brief overview of design standards was given: • SDP approval and permits. We came up with a density of five pads per acre. Gainesville is at two per half-acre, four for 1 acre and is the most restrictive. They have a provision for special exception for six pads or more, and a special exception for up to 12. Fort Myers is very limited. We feel we’re generous. • Celebration Park has eight mobile food trucks with offsite parking is 1.68 total acres so it’s within the threshold. We felt it’s a reasonable number that could work. • At the Hitching Post, we estimated three trucks per half-acre. (Mr. Curl noted that in one area there’s one truck by the road). Staff was unable to figure it out. We just did some general numbers on it. It’s a full estimate, but technically we can’t put a density on it because of the whole tract. • Mother Trucker has one on 1.4 acres. KD2 (a gas station convenience store at 9555 Tamiami Trail East, aka Flash Car Wash & Convenience) is one on a total of 3.91 acres. Collier Area Transit is one in Immokalee is on a total of 8.84 acres. We don’t have an acreage requirement for Airport-Estey Avenue. • The Brewing Company, which Blair and Jeff both worked on, has a 1.4-acre site. Isles of Capri had nine trucks on a total of 2.21 acres. Rooftop of Riverside in Bonita Springs, which is under construction, is on two parcels. One is on 0.45 acres, which has the restaurants, bar, etc., and there’s a second 0.45 acres to handle parking, so it’s six on 0.9 acres, which is pretty intense in an inner city. We thought that countywide, you’d have to seek a deviation if you come in closer and are more intense and it was needed. That’s the best way to handle it. Mr. Henderlong presented a slide on density from other communities that are identified in bold criteria. It supported staff’s recommended density at five vehicles per acre. October 17, 2023 7 • Last week, Lee County opened the “BackYard Social” food truck park located in Trade Port Center off of Ben Hill Griffin and Alico Road. The project has eight food trucks under an 8,000 square foot roof, a bar, outdoor entertainment and games. The operating hours are seven days a week compared with Celebration Park’s six days a week. • Because of the Live Local Act, other criteria considered were not included as it would be more burdensome or restrictive. Setbacks to property lines would remain the same as for the base- zoning districts, fire hydrants, schools, separation distance between vehicles by fire code at 10 feet, and the same for fire hydrants. Most research supports 15-foot distance separation from fire hydrants. • Other criteria are access to restrooms and outdoor seating. When a mobile food truck’s operational hours are four hours or more, patrons and the operator employees should have access to a public restroom or Port-a-John with a sink and tank or an access agreement with another retailer’s restrooms within a strip center. • Any recommendations and comments? Mr. Mulhere responded that: • Density is probably OK. It’s tough to use Celebration Park as an example. For whatever reason, they were approved with 10 or 12 parking spaces and obviously there was a need to add more parking and then they got the off-site parking across the street. He worked on that part of the project. She originally had eight to 10 at one point, but it functions OK now for density. He’s not talking about noise or amplified sound. • He thought five was low when he first looked at it, but based on everything sent him, it seems like that’s probably OK. • He doesn’t understand the connection with amplified sound or alcohol. The problems are generally related to amplified sound and proximity to residents. He doesn’t know how having a beer with a hot dog creates problems. If there’s no amplified sound, you could have someone out there playing guitar. There’s probably some amplification of noise without amplified sound just from having people drinking, partying and getting louder. • Did you think about or consider, particularly where it’s permitted by right? C-3 is probably the district that has the most residential closest to it. C-4 a little less and C-5 a little less than that bigger commercial parcel. Did you consider saying where it’s permitted by right, then you’d have to have a distance separation from any residentially zoned property? We do it for gas stations and establishments selling alcohol for on-premise consumption if they’re in proximity to a school, park or public playground. • Amplified sound is clearly a trigger in proximity to residential, even if that noise doesn’t cross that decibel threshold. There should be a process if you’re going to have amplified sound. Any large food truck park is going to want to have amplified sound, like Estey Avenue. • He’s not sure no alcohol should be the measure that says whether it’s going to be permitted or conditioned. The greater impact is amplified sound, but he’s open to hearing the rationale for that. If you serve alcohol, does that necessarily create a problem because you do have restaurants with outdoor seats that sell alcohol. Mr. Curl said that alcohol usually ends in noise complaints. Stevie Tomato’s is a good example. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Distance to the residential property is usually the criteria and what causes the complaints. • Those criteria have been in there for decades so the county should review that. • With a conditional use, you could look at four or five criteria and make an argument on those, compatible or not compatible. October 17, 2023 8 • We’re considering a permitted use in C-3 because we can’t be more restrictive due to Senate Bill 250. We were more restrictive at one time. We don’t have pending provisions on the books for food truck parks, so that’s why legal staff made that decision to proceed. • There are parallels for amplified sound outside. That came up with Sports Page at Immokalee and 951 about 10 years ago when Mark Strain was involved. They did an outdoor area on the south end of the building. Pebblebrooke Lakes is next door and it caused a fiasco. They had to go through several iterations to get that figured out. You already have some language within the code that governs proximity to residential: 20 feet for amplified sound, but no way unless you have a 12-foot wall. • That’s why staff came up with the six-foot wall and the County Attorney agreed to it. • It’s not allowed as a permitted use by right. You cannot have any alcohol or amplified sound. For alcohol or amplified sound, you have to go through a public-hearing process for a conditional use and those conditions would be assessed. • Mr. Mulhere stated that under the conditional use process there are requirements and asked if there should be some criteria for consideration that are not expressly stated in the three or four conditional use criteria, such as impact on … or is it already implied in the conditional use criteria? Maybe they should be stated. • Mr. Johnson said the County Attorney’s Office advised us that we shouldn’t touch that. • Mr. Henderlong said we had three other conditions we couldn’t add due to Senate Bill 250. • We can come back after October 2024. The amendment isn’t as restrictive as the county wanted it to be. • Code Enforcement wants a standard for measuring generator noise. Under the current noise ordinance, they’re limited to where they can go and it depends upon the date, time, etc. Some communities have good regulations, such as measuring 10 feet or 20 feet from the property line. We’d like to see more restrictive language but we can’t due to Senate Bill 250. • Jeff Curl asked how they are measured for gas stations and thought generator decibel regulations were set after Hurricane Irma. We should lean on similar amplified sound measures for conditional use. • There were decibel regulations for generators for fueling stations and restrictions for lighting. Staff would like stronger restrictions for generators and even on how they are oriented for gas and fumes and between two trucks. Staff had a greater separation between two trucks so the rear of the truck’s exhaust was separated, so if you have a trailer, you pull the trailer up and need a longer distance between another trailer to get it in and out, particularly if there’s a fire. • That’s not as crucial because the Fire Marshal does a walk through and they would determine where they are in relation to flammable materials, the distance between spaces, emergency, egress, etc. • Some fire officials are here today and monitoring the discussion. The fire official’s violations cited at Celebration Park are a constant problem, most recently where picnic tables are located. • The County Attorney’s Office says if it’s not in the LDC, it falls to the Building Department or the Fire Department for enforcement. On the other hand, how far can we go to implement it into the LDC and then what is the penal recourse if a Code Enforcement officer finds violations? • It’s an interesting parallel, the difference between an operator versus a business owner. One bad actor in the food truck park does not comply. The parallel is an Airbnb registration with the county. • Food truck parks should register their operators, just like short-term and vacation rental registrations. There should be a contact person on-site at all times to call in case of problems or emergencies because at Celebration, there was no one to go to and call the police. (Mr. Mulhere said there was a manager there.). • The Administrative Code requires a contact person. October 17, 2023 9 • Mr. Mulhere asked if these would be approved beyond a 28-day temporary use through an insubstantial change to the SDP, when you have excess parking spaces, SDPA? Staff responded, yes. • Staff or the Fire Department can put any conditions into that approval, such as something unique to ensure public health, safety and welfare, such as related to propane tanks. That could be a condition or stipulation. Then you’d have recourse because that’s a life-safety issue. Mr. Curl noted the Hitching Post isn’t really a food truck park. They didn’t dedicate parking spaces, they don’t have port-a-potties, they have a pull behind that is ADA accessible while port-a-potties are not. When activity happens at night, the businesses are closed and they’re using the parking spaces for their business. Mr. Mulhere noted there are two different discussions: the number of spaces required for a food truck and where you locate a food truck you cannot occupy a required space but can occupy an excess parking space. Mr. Johnson said we’re talking about required parking spaces. There’s also a difference between accessory use, accessory to a principal use, or a bonafide food truck park, which in itself is a principal use. Mr. Henderlong detailed how it works in terms of the Hitching Post’s permit: • It’s one space per 80 square feet for public use areas, including outdoor eating areas or one per two seats, whichever is greater. • For non-public use areas: kitchen, storage or a freezer, it’s one per 200 square feet. • Cormac Giblin preferred this standard rather than one per three spaces per mobile food truck. He explained to Cormac that you cannot measure some of them because they do not have kitchens or storage and some are trailers of different types. But you’re still going to attract the same number of people for eating and other communities have codified three spaces per one truck Mr. Mulhere said he thought he saw one with four. Mr. Henderlong said there is another one for four and some are even higher. The one space per four applies to outdoor seats. See page 9. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Five mobile food trucks on 1 acre, you would have 15 parking spaces without seating. • If you had 100 seats, you’d need another 25 parking spaces. • Mr. Curl said there are times in Bayshore where you have to park across the street at the marina to go to Ankrolab Brewing Co. Half the time, it’s full, with a food truck in the back. • Bonita Springs’ code for Rooftop at Riverside food truck park is three spaces per mobile vendor, plus three spaces per 1,000 square feet of a restaurant/bar, plus one space per 24 outdoor seats, plus 10% of the standard parking requirements for handicap spaces. It’s in the downtown core area, where shared parking can occur. • Mr. Foley said we are discussing different components of the amendment and asked if staff wants them to go through line by line. What are you looking for from us today as an action? • Staff is looking for a recommendation today, “as is” or with conditions. • The reference to 5.05.16 is the new code section and criteria. • It’s broken down into standards applicable to all MFDVs and standards applicable to food-truck parks. It has been the Board’s direction to require conditional use approval for any that have alcohol, amplified sound with outdoor entertainment. October 17, 2023 10 • Mr. Mulhere said there could be more changes but understands the county is limited by the State Statutes, (Section 14, Chapter 2023-304, aka Senate Bill 250), which prohibits adopting anything more restrictive. A discussion ensued over access to restrooms on E.2 on page 10 and utilizing an adjacent space. Mr. Henderlong said a building, as the primary business, must have a restroom. As an accessory use, when they apply for the MFDV, they just need to show they have access for the employees and patrons of the MFDV to have access to the restroom. Mr. McLean said the bigger issue is from a design standard and noted: • He’s always pressed by building officials or building departments when designing a restaurant, the “potty parity” of plumbing codes and X number of patrons has X number of fixtures. • If he has a food truck pull up next to it, the plumbing codes says X number of patrons has X number of fixtures and that usually constrains him because although he needs to hit 150 patrons to get a liquor license for the restaurant, if he hits 151, he’s getting into additional toilet fixtures. • If he hits 150 and his toilet fixtures are right, now we’re going to allow them to park at a building next door and over utilize that? • What happens if that building sells? Does the agreement have to be renewed? Mr. Henderlong said that’s a good question. He’ll talk to the Building Department to find out if you add an additional number of patrons from food trucks. He doesn’t think it would be an issue since it did not rise to the occasion at Hitching Post. It was a non-issue. We are looking for a statement that they’re not going to prohibit a food truck operator from directing patrons to use the restroom. Mr. McLean noted that the Hitching Post has mobile port-a-potties that are ADA compliant, with ramps to a mobile platform for a pull behind trailer. There is a concern that the operating hours are not the same as the Hitching Post. Access to the facility next door may be available at lunch time but not at dinner. Mr. Johnson said the question is a Florida building code type of question. This is a Land Development Code amendment that says an accessory unit must have some sort of access to a bathroom. Mr. Foley said if you ran short, it would not be from a sanitary perspective, the lateral would be sufficient but the water meter may have to be upsized. Mr. McLean asked if we are opening up a Pandora’s box. He has a restaurant client who is contemplating an outdoor terrace (patio) to an existing restaurant at the end of a plaza that increases the capacity of the restrooms. They have to cut up the floor and provide additional plumbing. If a food truck was parked outside and next to the restaurant, he asked if the restroom would have to be upgraded. Mr. Henderlong responded not when it’s allowed by a temporary-use permit and the land owner is in agreement with the use. Mr. Curl asked what is the trash enclosure or facility for a food truck park, 12 x 24? Mr. Henderlong said a trash receptacle is required for each mobile food truck that is an accessory use. The size would be determined at the time of SDP approval by the Solid Waste Department. Mr. Curl made a motion to approve PL20220006373 – Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles and Food Truck Parks, to incorporate the term “full cutoff” lighting fixtures on page 11 and that an operator is introduced as a point of contact, on-site at all times to address restroom availability, fire and emergency situations. Second by Mr. McLean. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. Mr. Johnson said this will go to the full DSAC in November. October 17, 2023 11 c. PL20230013966 – Wireless Communication Facilities Mr. Johnson said this amendment would change several sections of the code. Marissa will be the primary person on this item. He noted that Margaret Emblidge (director of planning for ABB, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage) is sitting in the audience, as is Zoning Director Mike Bosi. Ms. Fewell told the subcommittee: • In January, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to develop amendments to our current Section 5.05.09, the regulations for communication towers. • We’re proposing to change that nomenclature to “wireless communication facilities.” • Staff hired consultant Margaret Emblidge to assist us with researching and rewriting the code. Mr. Bosi asked to add some information and told the subcommittee: • We also received assistance from Verizon and SBA, a tower company and a wireless communication provider, that both were integral with the drafts, developing how to rewrite the code, trying to understand issues the industry faces in terms of their system deployment, and trying to find the right amount of flexibility we need to provide for wireless communication facilities throughout the county. • Anyone in the Estates knows the issues that we have with some spotty coverage. • With 90% of all emergency service calls coming from cell phones, it’s critically important that this is a service that we get right and that we have a robust system, so we appreciate the contribution from those partners, who helped create the basis and a lot of the direction for the draft. Mr. Johnson said the way the draft is set up is that we’d be amending multiple zoning districts to include the term “wireless communication facilities.” Page 30 is where most of the new regulations are. We’d be replacing the existing language for “communication towers” with “wireless communication facilities.” If there’s anything you want to discuss, we can answer your questions. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Everything once was tied to a specific height when communication towers were involved and there were always exceptions for height for towers within the zoning district. • Now there’s a specific section within the code that enumerates allowable heights within the various commercial, agricultural, industrial and residential districts. • There’s a difference between towers on the ground and building mounted. The school board allowed towers to be leased on school property and there’s a Fifth Avenue South building with a mounted tower. You can’t screen that with trees and a 6-foot wall. • That’s covered under a screening section, G, on p. 37. • There’s a provision for adding communication towers to the utility site within the Orange Blossom Ranch. We said it makes no sense to have a concrete wall landscaped outside of that. There’s also another regulation underneath screening 3.B, at the discretion of the County Manager. “Some or all of these landscape buffering requirements may be displaced to the road right-of-way landscape buffer located in a parcel, when it better screens the tower,” so that gives the county the flexibility to displace all this. • Screening in the Estates says, “The wall or fence shall be 100% opaque, with a minimum height of 8 feet, with a maximum height of 10 feet. A minimum 10-foot-wide Type-A Buffer along the outside perimeter of the wall or fence shall be required. Tree plantings within the buffer shall be 12 feet in height at the time of planting.” • Developers are going to put in the cheapest wall they can and if I’m a neighbor, I don’t want to look at the wall and tree trunks. I’d rather have something at the base to screen part of the wall. • That could be a subcommittee recommendation. • We used to have trees every 25 feet on center, too. In the old code it’s fine. October 17, 2023 12 • A Type-A Buffer is: trees every 30 feet on the center. It does not have a hedge, so it would not screen the wall. A neighbor in the Estates would be looking at a wall at ground level. • There needs to be a buffer, a 3- or 4-foot continuous hedge, except for an access gate. Mr. Johnson suggested the subcommittee could incorporate that into a motion. Public Comment: Attorney James Johnston of Shutts & Bowen in Orlando, representing Verizon Wireless, and Jonathan Montenegro, real estate manager for Verizon Wireless, introduced themselves. Attorney Johnston told the subcommittee: • We appreciate getting to work with staff on this. We like the latest version, but there are a few things we were hoping to discuss. • The overarching comment was ensuring the processes for each situation are clear. • For a tower that’s permitted in a zoning category, is that directly a building permit or is it a Site Development Plan, plus a building permit? • For conditional use, is it just conditional use to a building permit, or is there a Site Development Plan permit? • On page 33, it talks about a situation. Any new WCF that requires both a Site Development Plan and building permit may be processed concurrently but at the applicant’s risk, so is there a time when you wouldn’t need both? Mr. Bosi said the Site Development Plan, or a Site Development Plan Amendment always will be required. If you need the conditional-use, you need a Site Development Plan and a building permit in all instances. Attorney Johnston said that’s what they thought. They just wanted to make sure. Acting Chairman Foley said it just gives you the ability to move forward with those processes concurrently, but if there are comments or changes as part of the Site Development Plan, it may affect that. Attorney Johnston responded that: • We understand you’re at risk for doing that. The way the language read made it sound like there might be a situation when they were both not required. • In F (Design and Development Standards) 1.g, p. 33-34, we discussed that the zoning manager has the ability to move the landscaping out to the perimeter of the property instead of having it around just the wall, which makes sense. We’ve also seen in a lot of other codes where if there are portions of the tower compound that are facing away from any public viewing – facing property that’s not developable, etc. – it gives the zoning manager the ability to waive providing landscaping on those sides of the tower compound where it’s not serving any purpose. • If we could request the ability for the zoning manager to do that added into the provision to allow them to move it away from around the tower compound or could be request that and do we have to get a conditional use for that request? • If so, then it should be added to the F.1.g section involving conditional Mr. Curl said if a tower was set off the road in the Estates, where the roads are low and were never constructed at the correct elevation, that would elevate the base of your tower because he assumes FEMA would come into play so you could have power. A buffer at the property lines by the road would depress the visual shielding of the wall. He’d support keeping the landscape around the base of the wall, which may sound ridiculous to you, but it would be better visually. As far as facing an undeveloped lot, there are many lots that are undeveloped that could be developed into homes, so just because you’re there first, it wouldn’t preclude you having to meet those requirements to screen on that side. October 17, 2023 13 Attorney Johnston asked what would occur if an undeveloped site is already fenced in. Mr. Curl said that’s covered. Mr. Bosi said that would be up to the discretion of the County Manager or designee. Some or all of these landscape requirements may be displaced if it would better screen the tower if located within the parcel. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • That addresses most of Verizon’s issues. • If it’s on a piece of property that’s already fenced in, you could eliminate the need for landscaping. • Attorney Johnston said it would be good to have that as part of a conditional use request to reduce separation. You can get a conditional use to reduce separation, if you want to go higher than the height, etc., so this would add to that or if we wanted to request eliminating some landscaping for those reasons. • Mr. Bosi noted that a footnote on page 36 involving Table 3 was added unintentionally. • On p. 38, 3.c says, “Facilities shall be set back from the closest outer edge of a roof a distance of not less than 10% of the rooftop length and width, but not less than 5 feet.” Attorney Johnston said that should refer to rooftop-mounted facilities because you could still have a parapet mounted at the top of the building, as long as there’s a screen that’s provided for in that section. They wouldn’t be setback to the anterior of the roof. • Attorney Johnston said he believed p. 38 Section 3.c’s intent was that under these provisions, you have the ability to go on the rooftop setback as provided and to add “roof-top mounted facilities,” as outlined in the standards applicable to all rooftop or building mounted facilities. • Mr. Bosi said that would clear it up. • Attorney Johnston thanked staff for its hard work, calling it a good process. [Ms. Fewell passed out an email from Katie O. Berkley, AICP, of Becker & Polakoff, Fort Myers, which represented the SBA comments, with suggested language and deletions received this morning.] A discussion ensued over the suggested language, text changes and comments in the margins. Mr. Bosi said the county had discussions and would not be entertaining those suggestions. We are not entertaining a suggestion to change C-4 to CU (conditional use). C-4 has been a permitted use for telecommunication towers for as long as he’s been here. It’s the second highest intense commercial zoning district. Their concern is if it’s adjacent to residential property. There are increased setback heights in those cases, so we respectfully declined. Acting Chairman Foley asked about the reference to the Spectrum Act of 2012. Mr. Bosi said that upon the advice of the County Attorney’s Office, we’re not reiterating federal law. If it’s a federal regulation, it’s applicable. It doesn’t have to be within our code. A discussion ensued and Mr. Johnson said they had nothing further to add. Mr. Bosi said one of the other changes they suggested was not to require emergency backup generators. We find that during hurricanes, emergency backup generators are the only thing that allows for those facilities to maintain their functionality. A discussion ensued over that suggestion and the subcommittee agreed they are essential. Mr. Bosi responded that: • Many years ago, when telephone and electric poles were being added to front yards, residents didn’t get to say where that pole was going or not. • 90% of emergency service calls come from wireless communication devices and cell phones, so they’re essential to the health, safety and welfare of your community. October 17, 2023 14 • We’re trying to provide more regulatory flexibility. The provision of requiring emergency backup generators is a prudent and wise regulation so that during disasters, people have the ability to communicate through texts or calls. • The 1996 Federal Communication Act allows the private side to build out the networks, such as Verizon. But that’s a tough task because jurisdictions can be very restrictive in terms of how they allow it, so we’re trying to find the right balance between community design and community preference, but the community needs to be able to communicate and respond. Mr. Curl noted that in January, FPL had to cut power to the grid when they were fighting a fire in the Estates, so the cell tower went down. We absolutely need to have backup generators as part of these facilities. Ms. Emblidge asked to highlight one of the recommendations they proposed. In several locations, they’re proposing making the requirement for a variance if you wanted to modify one of the regulations. But we took it as wanting to allow those setback changes, etc., through the CU process. We’re trying to make this more user-friendly. Our thought was that there be no variance, except for situations where you don’t have a conditional use and then you have to use the variance process. Mr. Bosi responded that: • In Golden Gate Estates, there are examples where every conditional use for a tower needs to have a variance for separation requirements because current requirements say 2½ times away from an Estate-zoned lot there the lot. • You can’t find a lot big enough to where you can have separation so everyone has to have a variance and it’s hard. It’s based upon the land and can’t be satisfied by the current configurations of the 2¼ lots, so that’s why we thought we’d wrap it into one conditional-use process. • You can add additional conditions to help mitigate whatever that separation requirement is imposing to provide for better compatibility. Mr. Johnson said we’re continuing to work with our County Attorney’s Office and hope to keep moving this forward to the full DSAC in November. There may be additional comments from the County Attorney’s Office in which language or the text will be changed, so he wanted the subcommittee to be aware of that. Acting Chairman Foley said we will accept the e-mail presented to us today but won’t take action on it because we don’t have enough time to review it in a sufficient manner and offer comment during this meeting. Mr. Johnson said when it goes to the full DSAC, we will include that in your packet. Mr. McLean made a motion to approve PL20230013966 as submitted, with the changes as recommended by subcommittee members: Modify LDC Section 5.05.09, F.2.g.iii., to include a 3-foot- high continuous hedge requirement, in addition to the existing landscaping and screening requirements (page 37), with the exception of access gates; remove Footnote 2 from “50% of tower height” in Table 3 because it was a Scrivener’s error (page 36); and modify the wording of LDC Section 5.05.09, F.3.c., to begin the sentence with “Rooftop mounted” to clarify the intent of the regulations (page 38). Second by Mr. Curl. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. 6. Public Comments (See 4.c above) Upcoming DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting Date: a. Discuss alternative dates for meeting scheduled for December 19, 2023 October 17, 2023 15 A discussion ensued over Nov. 21 and Dec. 5, but the subcommittee agreed not to change the December 19 meeting date. 7. Adjourn Mr. McLean made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Curl. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the acting chairman at 4:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ____________________________________________ Blair Foley, Acting Chairman These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/acting chairman on ________________, (check one) as presented _______, or as amended ________. April 18, 2023 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, April 18, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee-LDR Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2 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: Clay Brooker Robert Mulhere (excused) Mark McLean Jeff Curl (excused) Blair Foley (excused) William J. Varian James E. Boughton Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Planner III Michele Mosca, Planner III Mark Templeton, Development Review Christine Fisher, Johnson Engineering Laura DeJohn, Johnson Engineering April 18, 2023 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. 1. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Brooker called the meeting to order at 2 p.m.; a quorum of five members was present. 2. Approve Agenda (No changes) Mr. Valle made a motion to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Varian. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. 3. Old Business a. PL20220008725 U.S. 41 East Zoning Overlay (US 41 EZO) [PowerPoint Presentation] Chairman Brooker said this is a continuation of the March 21, 2023, meeting. As we discussed last time, there are several of us on DSAC and on this subcommittee who have conflicts of interest with respect to this text amendment for the LDC. He’s one and is declaring a conflict. He filled out the form again, just in case. If anyone else has a conflict, speak up now. My understanding is you can participate in the discussion, but you cannot vote. That’s what he intends to do. Anyone else have a conflict on the subcommittee? Mr. McLean said he has a similar conflict and conflicted out during the last meeting. Is that paperwork still valid? Mr. Johnson advised that he fill out new paperwork because it’s a different meeting. Mr. McLean said he’ll fill out a new Form 8B. Chairman Brooker said as long as you declare it now, you just have to fill it out and turn it in by the next meeting, the full DSAC meeting. Ms. DeJohn said she’s a DSAC member but is at this subcommittee meeting assisting the county under contract to write this code language, so she’s not participating as a member, just on behalf of the county. Chairman Brooker asked staff to provide a recap of the last subcommittee meeting. Ms. Mosca summarized the last subcommittee meeting: • Instead of the three handouts from the last meeting, there are now four. • The subcommittee asked for a revised front-yard streetscape plan. • We had a discussion about structural soil cells. The picture is provided and the definition that you would ask to be incorporated into the zoning overlay. • Also included is the resolution, 2023-TBD, Exhibit A. That’s the Growth Management Plan amendment that identifies the economic development uses, the addition of the density and height bonus provisions for those nodes along the corridor, which are the Community Center Subdistricts and Regional Center Subdistricts that would allow for the additional density and height through bonuses throughout the corridor. • We will allow for economic development uses. That’s why we have that Growth Management Plan. April 18, 2023 3 • The Board of County Commissioners will hear the transmittal of the GMP amendment on April 25 and once it’s transmitted by the BCC, it goes to the state and then we’ll have to come back around again in 30 days-plus for adoption. Chairman Brooker noted that the Growth Management Plan is for transmittal later. With the exception of the items you just mentioned, it’s fairly bare boned. Ms. Mosca said at the time of adoption, both the County Planning Commission (CPC) and BCC will review the Growth Management Plan amendment for adoption, and they’ll also be looking at all the details within the Zoning Overlay at the same time. They will be married up at adoption. So 30 days from now, the state will provide us with comments on the Growth Management Plan Amendment. The full DSAC is going to meet on May 3 and provide a recommendation. She’ll go through the slides. We’re looking at July 6 for the Planning Commission. Hopefully, by that time we’ll have comments back from the state. What she’d like to do is present the Zoning Overlay to the CPC, as well as the adoption of the Growth Management Plan Amendment. They go hand in hand. Is that too soon, too quick? Chairman Brooker said it wasn’t. He has received public comment slips, so he’d like to hear public comments earlier rather than later because we have to end by 4 p.m. because Mario, a voting member, must leave. Mr. Johnson recommended that when they vote, the chairman should designate someone else to lead the motion and the roll call on the vote, and recommended considering public comments earlier rather than later. We don’t have a hard and fast rule of how long the public can speak, but generally, it’s three or five minutes and is up to the subcommittee. Chairman Brooker said he’d be a bit more flexible. For the public, please be mindful of your time. We’re going to allow you to speak. Public Speakers Robert Drew Vigorito told the subcommittee: • He’s here representing the Board of Directors for the Naples Pathway Coalition and our executive director, Michelle Avola-Brown. • One of our major concerns with the East Naples Overlay’s addition of bike lanes is the idea of shade trees versus palm trees versus no trees. Adding trees not only creates a more natural landscape, but also helps with stormwater runoff. If you’re into climate, you know that tree leaves absorb CO2 from out of the atmosphere, which is a nice thing. Also, birds like trees. • Two main roads in Naples that our cycling groups ride on all the time are Vanderbilt Beach Road all the way down to Pelican Bay Boulevard, which is beautifully lined with trees. Even nicer than that in the East Naples area, where we ride every week, is Vineyards Boulevard, the Vineyards Country Club and Vineyards area. That’s the prettiest street in Naples and is about 2½ miles from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Pine Ridge Road. We probably ride there two to three times a week on our long rides. It’s a beautiful road and there are now bike lanes, but there are sidewalks on both sides, people are walking their dogs and jogging. Bike clubs use that all the time because it’s very safe and is basically a country road. • It’s beautiful with oaks that provide shade and attract birds, which we dodge. It creates a natural habitat. • For cyclists, a roadway protected from the heat and the sun is nice. Having a path through nothing, an open area of space bereft of trees, is dull. To add trees, shade trees in particular, along any pathways that you’re going to create is a huge benefit not only for the community but also cyclists, walkers, and any pedestrian traffic. April 18, 2023 4 Gordon Brumwell, an East Naples resident, told the subcommittee: • He’s representing the Lely Country Club POA. • The EZO draft is a great draft that aims to preserve our natural look, reduce environmental impact and induce people to get outside. For instance, the working poor who bike to work. It will make it less onerous for them. • Why are these even goals? Loss of our semi-rural look, green slime, dead manatees, people are starting to get this and we want change now. • It’s not just him saying this. Parks & Recreation has a survey out that shows we prioritize green space and 77% of Collier voters voted for a land-acquisition tax because they realized these things. When a forest goes down, to build a project edge-to-edge, social media blows up and nobody ever writes how great it is. • We’re going to have more traffic and less shade and fewer birds. Many of us share these views, in the audience at least. The Lely Country Club POA can’t be here, but they represent 709 residences in East Naples and he’s summarizing them. • They support him pushing for environmental sustainability in construction and shade trees for shading paths, sidewalks and parking areas. The East Naples Community Development plan ENCDP mirrors this groundswell of public sentiment. • The 41 EZO should mirror the ENCDP’s vision elements and its spirit does, but there are concerns the public has. We can’t solve these right now, but he wants to enumerate them to make you aware of what we’re thinking. • If some builders opt in to the bonus program and others don’t, our interpretation is that multi-use paths in the centers will stop and start. Paths that start and stop or are not shaded do not fulfill the ENCDP’s vision of increasing non-motorized options. • The green stormwater infrastructure item and the bonus list need some minimums. Rain gardens that are too small to make a difference will not reflect the vision for the ENCDP’s intent to ensure new development does not overwhelm natural spaces. Rain gardens, etc., are maybe an extra layer of stormwater management that we can see from our statewide failure to clean our estuary waters. We need something and this is our push to get something in there. • Vision should be community wide. For instance, emphasizing non-palms will result in people on the road seeing treed vistas. They’ll also benefit the people in those projects. • Many of us think the bonus system might have a problem. For instance, a builder can attain 100% of the possible density increase in a Community Center without one eco-service option that benefits greater East Naples. He’s hoping somebody proves him wrong, but he doesn’t think they can. The points that they get, such as for a gazebo over the water and a pond in their project, are great for those people and they should get some points, but they should not be able to get enough points that it allows them to circumvent the EZO’s intent to benefit greater Naples. • Eight-foot planting zones would seem to cause buckled hardscape, unless those planting boxes are magic. • He’s not familiar with the EZO’s aesthetic requirements for buildings. We’re requiring certain looks just for looks. It seems reasonable that we should require overhangs, external shutters and things like that for climate resiliency and CO2 reduction. Shade tree emphasis should be expanded. • The only public comment receiving applause during the early EZO public meetings was someone explaining palm trees’ lack of function. She got applause. All this makes me wonder if eco-infrastructure is too important to rely on a volunteer group. • How do pine trees fit in? There’s a lot of talk about palms and shade trees. Pine trees are part of our natural ecosystem and he wonders how they fit in. Mr. Johnson told him if he wanted to give his list to staff, staff can give it to the County Clerk’s Office. It’s up to him. Note: The list was provided later.] April 18, 2023 5 Suzette Johnson, an East Naples resident, told the subcommittee: • She’s seen Naples change from a small town to a sprawling city with lots of condos. Green space is a postage stamp. • There wasn’t a thought about our environment and how all the building is going to affect the rains and the hurricanes. Two nights ago, we had a severe thunderstorm and lots of rain. Where did all that runoff go? It went out into the bay and into our gulf. The city is spreading now into the East Naples area, adding to the pollution of the Gulf and Rookery Bay. • We need to think about how we’re going to affect our environment by approaching building differently. It’s good to see Collier County is taking a proactive step to help our environment and engaging the citizens in accomplishing the new vision of the 41 East corridor. Leaders of our community are thinking of the future and proposing ideas that are making a difference. • These proposals aren’t new. They’ve been tested in other communities – rain gardens, planted depressions in landscapes, bio swells to capture and filter pollution runoff for parking and driveways. All would help with runoff. Non-palm trees over parking lots will help manage storm water. Multi-use paths shaded with native trees will connect communities, enabling bikers, walkers and golf carts to travel safely for daily activities. These changes are possible. • We, the citizens and leaders of our community, can make a positive difference. We’re talking about only a five-mile stretch, but it’s a start with establishing multi-use paths, stormwater management and total communities. We would help the environment and the people who live in it. If we are going to build, we can build differently and incorporate some of these ideas. Former County Commissioner Donna Fiala, of Lakewood, told the subcommittee: • Lakewood has a wonderful golf course that’s constantly in use. The good thing is it’s not very expensive, so a lot of people can use it. The kids can use it during school when they have golfing practice and that’s a great thing. • We don’t want to lose our golf course. When she bought her home there 49 years ago, the golf course was there and we didn’t know that somebody owned it and could take it away from us. We had no idea there were people that bought into that. • To find out years and years later that somebody owns it and they want to take it away, we’re very upset because it’s been our lifeline. • Please reconsider because you haven’t made a decision on golf courses, which seem to be drying up. More and more people want to sell them and buy and build because they get a lot more money. Then a lot of people can’t use them at all. Dr. Lisa McGarity, of Lely Golf Estates, told the subcommittee: • She’s the palm tree lady (mentioned earlier). She’s an environmental chemist and said earlier not to plant palm trees. If you drive into a parking lot at 2 p.m., where do you park your car? Under a shade tree. We all do and when you look around, all of the cars are clustered under the trees. There’s a reason for that. • She lives in the next development over from Dr. Brumwell. We echo the same words that he has said. We believe in green space. We have enough concrete in East Naples. We have plenty of self-storage units, gas stations and car washes. We’re done. We need living, breathing parts for our East Naples corridor. We need life. We need trees. We need people strolling. • Even Commissioner Fiala’s (Eagle Lakes) Park has beautiful paths going through it, but they didn’t plant enough trees along that pathway. She’s a marathon runner and runs through that park all the time. Not enough trees. There are very few trees and some of them had to be cut down. It’s just a wide-open space, no shade, but what you’re hearing repeatedly is green space, green space, green space. • She hopes you’re hearing what we’re saying because that’s what we need. That’s what our homeowners are telling us. That’s what we feel is the most important thing. April 18, 2023 6 Chairman Brooker thanked the speakers and told Ms. Fiala they weren’t discussing golf courses today. Ms. Mosca agreed, but believed Ms. Fiala was mentioning that because it deals with keeping the green space in the area. Chairman Brooker said one of the speakers mentioned a five-mile stretch. This is 17 miles and goes from the Airport Pulling Road area down to Port of the Islands. Ms. Mosca said when they refer to five miles, they’re probably referring to the nodes and that’s in Gordon’s notes, the location of those nodes, the Community Center and the Regional Center. Those are the areas where we see more development activity and the bonuses, etc. She noted that Gordon is nodding in agreement. Chairman Brooker told the audience: • This is a subcommittee of the full Development Services Advisory Committee. We simply offer a recommendation to the full DSAC, which meets on May 3. • DSAC is an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners, so this is the first of at least four future public hearings. • We don’t have final say, not even close. He encouraged them to continue keeping abreast of public hearings. The Planning Commission will be July 6 and they will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will ultimately decide what’s adopted. • It’s a months-long public hearing process. He encouraged them to speak to all the boards that are this Land Development Code Amendment. Mr. Johnson said if there are any members of the public who want to put their name and e-mail address on our sign-in sheets, we’ll be happy to keep you informed of the Land Development Code Amendment as we go through the process. Rich Henderlong is here and can talk to you so you can write down your e- mail address on the sheet. Ms. Mosca said the county also has a webpage for the US 41 EZO. Most of you are aware of that webpage and you also can access the current drafts of the Land Development Code, as well as the Growth Management Plan there. Ms. Fiala said when she left her home in Lakewood, we all have signs out that say “Do not rezone the golf courses,” so she thought that’s what was being discussed. She’s sorry she spoke about the wrong subject. Chairman Brooker told her there is a hearing coming up on conversions of golf courses, but not with the subcommittee today. Mr. Boughton said he heard some comments about water retention and stormwater management. These properties have the same water-retention requirements that any property in Collier County has, right? They have to maintain water on their site for a certain amount of time before it’s released to the community system. Ms. Mosca told the subcommittee: • We’ve addressed the comments you had requested. There was one additional comment about defining a roll-up shutter, so it’s in the code. We’ll see how we deal with that moving forward. • Chris Shucart asked a question regarding his property. We’ve had multiple conversations with Chris and it seems reasonable that we’d add his property into the overlay. He’s excited about doing something special for the community consistent with the Zoning Overlay. April 18, 2023 7 Chairman Brooker said he believed Mr. Shucart wanted his property to be included in one of the Community Centers. Ms. Mosca said he does and clarified that for the subcommittee: • That would be a Community Center Subdistrict, rather than the Corridor Subdistrict, which it is now. • Staff is proposing that we address that in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. When it comes back for adoption, we’ll also include it in the Zoning Overlay. • Dr McGarity’s comments segue into something we specifically wanted to talk about. Mark Templeton, a landscape architect for the county, will talk briefly the structural soil cells. There were many questions at the last meeting, so we thought it appropriate to bring him in. • You all have a picture of the structural cell and she will show that on the overhead projector. Chairman Brooker said we’ve heard the public comment and there’s clearly a desire for shade trees, especially in contrast to palms. There was a comment about pines, so maybe you can comment on that. His recollection is there was concern, not an objection, about shade trees, that their root system is more problematic, so there will be more sidewalks and multi-use pathways buckling because of the root system. He has two oak trees in his front yard and has to deal with roots. They’re digging up his driveway. Mr. Templeton reported that: • There was going to be an allowance for narrow planting strips, 8 feet, possibly 5 feet in some areas. That’s why staff suggested bringing in a requirement for structural soil cells to help alleviate that and give trees a better chance to be viable and sustainable, instead of having to rip them down every 10-20 years to put in another 10-foot tree. • The other question he had was when that eventually gets to the SDP level and, eventually, inspections, how is county staff going to inspect structural soil cells? He spoke to (County Engineer) Jack McKenna about it and he said it could be included in the landscape architect’s certificate of completion. That would put the onus on them. • But (Site Inspection Supervisor) Joe Bianchi had a different idea. His staff could inspect to ensure that the right quantity of structural soil or the right quantity of individual cells were brought and installed. • He’s unsure how we ensure inspections, but there are studies that show there are good benefits to soil cells and trees do better. They’ve done tests and it’s proven. There’s a cost to it, obviously. • Handling inspections is what got him stuck. Chairman Brooker asked if soil cells do prevent the roots from buckling nearby sidewalks. Mr. Templeton said he has no personal experience, but from what he’s read they do. The City of Naples doesn’t use them. On the East Coast, municipalities have incorporated requirements for this. But he hasn’t had time to dive deep into it. He’s seen videos and read literature that shows trees in areas grown with cells versus one that wasn’t, and the root system is like night and day. There’s no question. Mr. Varian asked if there’s a specific size, area-wise, per tree that this would cover. Mr. Templeton said there’s an industry standard. One of the manufacturers, DeepRoot, created Silva Cell. They have staff members and experts who designed them who will go to different regions to check them out locally and sign off on that. He doesn’t know if other manufacturers offer that. There are four or five soil cell manufacturers out there. April 18, 2023 8 Mr. Varian said if there’s a parking lot with a narrow island, we talked about how some of the rights-of- way might be narrow and how much space that needs. How does that work if you have an average tree and you need 50 square feet or 100 square feet? Mr. Templeton said he believes it’s based on the ultimate spread of the canopy. That’s how they determine how many cells and the volume of structural soil that’s needed. Mr. Valle asked how that compares to the 8-foot buffer. Having lived in Windermere, where there’s a wonderful shade road on the perimeter, what those trees do to the sidewalk becomes cumbersome. The roadway must get cut out for repair and that puts the tree at risk. It’s an expense because somebody must pay for it. How do we ensure the viability of it all and manage the cost of that process? He wants to understand that for existing roadways and for the planting zone. Mr. Templeton asked if he meant what damage might occur during the installation of the cells to the existing infrastructure. Mr. Valle said if you have a building with front-yard streetscape. You’ve got a 25-foot max, 18-foot minimum for the building location. Then you’ve got the multi-use pathway and planting zone. What is alongside that becomes the right-of-way line, which typically is somewhere in the 15-foot range or less. How does that installation of shade trees affect that area if you’ve got to put in a huge number of structural soil cells? How does that impact gas lines and different infrastructure that we have in those rights-of-way areas? Mr. Templeton said there are obviously some limitations with what you can do extent-wise with the right-of-way there. You can’t compromise that. He’d defer to the experts at DeepRoot who designed it. He has no personal experience. Mr. Valle asked if he could email that information to the full DSAC so they can review it and understand it because it’s a very big need for the community. We want to make sure we understand what we’re looking at, so we don’t have any unintended consequences. Mr. Templeton said it won’t be installed and designed to the point where it’s going to negatively impact the existing infrastructure. It’s a case-by-case thing. They look at it site-by-site and design it given the constraints that are there. Mr. Valle said if we have some information then we can draw some inferences as to how that goes through. He noted that the parking lot at the Target shopping plaza had a huge number of shade trees and all of them were removed. It was a big impact, not just to the community, but to the folks that love those trees. That was a smaller approach. If we were to do something along this corridor and have to do the same thing retroactively, he wants to make sure we do it right and plan for it as we move forward. Mr. Varian said he and Mario are the ones who do the building. If it works great, we need to be cognizant of that when moving forward. Mr. Templeton agreed and said we may need inspectors in this discussion. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The 8-foot minimum is what triggers the new mandate for the soil cells to be added. If developed with a 9- or 10-foot-wide planting strip, this mandate is not applicable, so there’s choice to be made when designing the site. • A shade tree is defined as a canopy tree in the EZO. It’s defined as any species that gets at least a 15-foot height and 20-foot spread at maturity. April 18, 2023 9 • They want native trees. • The trees at Target did not have structural soil cells. Ms. Johnson (prior public speaker) asked if the perfect example is the oak trees across Horseshoe Drive, where there’s a walkway between the trees. Chairman Brooker said that’s the concept, but the road is buckling and the whole idea of this structural soil cell is to try to stop that from occurring or minimize it to the best of our ability. Mr. Templeton said from an inspection standpoint, there’s a way to do it. Jack McKenna and Joe Bianchi both had ideas and no one on the inspection side is averse to finding a way to do it. The other issue is FPL lines. There are overhead power lines along 41. FPL has recommended smaller trees for overhead power lines. A discussion ensued over timing and what page they left off on at the last meeting. Mr. Henderlong asked Ms. Mosca to reiterate what’s on page 20. Ms. Mosca started at page 20 and noted that: • We’re talking about specific uses the community identified to limit the number of these uses. • All will have the element of the enhanced buffering screening requirement of a 25-foot perimeter buffer, as well as spacing requirement of one-quarter mile if these are self-storage facilities with fuel pumps, car washes, eating establishment and outdoor display. • The difference with gas stations is that the additional standards require that pumps and canopies be located to the side of the principal side or rear of the principal structure. • For car washes, the stacking and drive-through lanes are to be no closer to U.S. 41 than the principal building structure and they’re not allowed in the front yard on corner lots. They also require a 25-foot landscape buffer. • For self-storage, the bottom floor is potentially commercial, and you have a mixed-use element and a 25-foot landscape buffer. • For eating establishments with drive-throughs, the vehicle-stacking and drive-through lanes will be no closer to U.S. 41 than the principal structure. • For outdoor display and storage, the maximum is 35% of the linear street frontage. The maximum height for outdoor storage would be 17 feet and if it’s adjacent to residential and over 6 feet in height, there’s a 50-foot setback. Chairman Brooker said if it’s a maximum of an item, like a boat, it can’t be higher than 17 feet? Ms. Mosca said yes. On page 22, it identifies the economic uses, the loading area. That would have to be oriented away from residential. It also addresses storage and display. None would be allowed except through a special-use permit. It talks about the operation of the economic uses. Everything must be in an enclosed building. Then it addresses standard noise, odor and vibrations, etc. Chairman Brooker asked if this applies only to the economic development uses because we’re adding those uses as new uses, which means they are currently not permitted. If we’re going to give you that, there’s a bit more restriction on how they function. Ms. Mosca said yes. A lot of those uses are found in a business park-type area, so we do have additional restrictions on those. Economic development uses would be permitted in all subdistricts, including the Corridor Subdistrict. Mr. Johnson noted that the economic development names are listed on page 6. April 18, 2023 10 Ms. Mosca said page 23 brings you into the criteria for bonus, maximum height and bonus maximum density. Chairman Brooker said there was a question raised by the public on the bonus provisions. Can you spend a couple of minutes to explain to us how that’s all supposed to work? Ms. Mosca told the subcommittee: • That was based on working with the community, what they desire and are looking for. • The community was presented with a large list of features, including green space-related, green building, nature trails, vertical mixed-use, etc. Based on that communication with the community and the stakeholder group, they were assigned a value based on what the community wanted more of. • She agrees with Gordon Brumwell, that there are additional items that we could incorporate into this bonus structure, but this was completely vetted by the community. Those are on pages 23 and 24. • How this works is you have your base zoning. Predominantly, you have commercial zoning along the corridor. You do have PUDs, but only the commercial component of the PUD is within the Zoning Overlay, so the base density is set at what the zoning allows for all commercial. We know there’s zero density assigned to commerce, so if you’re in a Community Center Subdistrict, you can get up to 16 dwelling units per acre and then in the Regional Subdistrict, those are all of your Activity Centers located along the corridor. You can get up to 20 dwelling units per acre. • How these are calculated is based on the zero density to begin with. For vertical mixed-use, if you’re in the Community Center, your max is 16 dwelling units per acre, so you would take 30% multiplied by 16, which would give you 4.8 dwelling units per acre, and you would do the same for the 20. That would give you 6% and it’s and as you choose and select, whether you choose vertical mixed-use, green building or you go to the next page and you look at green roof or you look at native preservation. They all have percentages associated with them, so you add up those percentages and you multiply them with the maximum density allowed to give you your density or height for that subdistrict. Mr. McLean said if he has a developer who wants to lay the Live Local Act over the top of this … Ms. Mosca said that’s preempted by the state. Mr. Johnson said the Live Local Act is only applicable to commercially zoned properties, industrial zoned properties and mixed-use zone properties. Mr. McLean asked, but this is all commercial, right? Ms. DeJohn noted that the Live Local Act is going to mandate that the affordability requirements must be rental. Mr. McLean said he’s asking because part of the reason why he’s abstaining from this is because of other projects he has on this corridor. Since we met last time, someone asked him to apply the Live Local Act to a property in this corridor. It’s amazing what we can do then. So that’s why he was asking, from that standpoint. Is there anything we can do now to help control that over-density? Chairman Brooker said he didn’t think so. Mr. McLean said he didn’t think so either but was wondering. April 18, 2023 11 Chairman Brooker said this is a state law and it’s going to preempt everything the county does as long as it’s applicable. But remember, you get that added height and you get that added density under the Live Local Act as long as 40% of your dwelling units are for 120% AMI. Mr. McLean asked if there’s anything they can do. Mr. Henderlong said no, it’s precedent. Mike Bosi made a wonderful presentation before the board on it. Keep in mind that when you take a targeted piece of property and you have a client, you have to draw a mile radius around there. You have to look for the highest building or it reverts back to this. Chairman Brooker said that’s for building height, but the density is the maximum your comprehensive plan allows? Mr. Henderlong said no, that trumps it. Ms. Mosca said it would be self-limiting based on the size of the lot. Mr. McLean said it’s self-limiting by parking and everything, but then his question is, does any of the Live Local Act go above and beyond this from a density and height standpoint? Is there any reduction in parking or reduction in units that we’ll be able to take advantage of if they’re increasing their density through the Live Local Act? Are we giving them a mechanism to reduce their density count to make their parking work? That’s where he’s at right now. He can’t make his parking work for the density count that his client wants. Ms. Mosca said she understood. They can discuss that at the full DSAC. That’s a standalone provision. They would not be able to take advantage of this provision without applying all. That’s her understanding. Mr. McLean asked if there was some way we could cut this off that says you can’t take advantage of two different conditions like that? That’s where he was going. Maybe he was unclear on that. Ms. Mosca continued with her presentation: • On page 25, the last portion of the zoning overlay deals with deviation. With the deviations, the community has seen in other areas of the county how easy it has been to deviate from the regulations. • This is a little different from some of the other regulations within the county. This will require going to the Planning Commission and having that justification for that deviation. • The list of what can be deviated from in terms of your dimensional requirements, such as loading space, landscaping, etc., are all listed on pages 25 and 26. • It is possible to get those deviations. There may be unique properties in the community that would warrant such a deviation, and they’ll need to go through the conditional-use process to obtain that deviation. Ms. DeJohn noted that this also requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting, which is unique compared with other parts of the county that have deviation processes. Chairman Brooker asked if they could imagine him going through this. What are provisions of the EZO from which thou shalt not deviate? Unless you go and get a variance, is it? Is that a small list? Ms. DeJohn said the easiest way to answer would be to list what you’re allowed. You’re allowed to get deviations from dimensional-like setbacks, things like that. You’re allowed the loading space. If you April 18, 2023 12 need special relief on loading. the landscaping and vehicular-use areas, landscaping for industrial and commercial development, building foundation, plantings and signage, those are the only ones you’re allowed to ask for. Mr. Johnson noted that’s on pages 25 and 26. Chairman Brooker said he hadn’t gone through the criteria line by line, but there are none that are one- size-fits-all. That’s his concern. He’s hopeful that this deviation process and the application of the criteria are reasonable because there are going to be certain circumstances where a private property owner has a legitimate complaint. The variance criteria, as a matter of Florida common law, are virtually impossible to meet. He’s tried and it’s impossible under most circumstances, so he’s hoping the criteria that are in this EZO are not impossible and have reasonability infused in them in the event there is a legitimate problem with complying. Ms. DeJohn said there are three. Being compatible, being the minimum amount necessary to achieve the goal and when reduced, if there is some type of public benefit from doing such a reduction, like if there can be a mitigating factor achieved almost like compensation or public benefit compared to the deviation. There are a list of examples. Mr. Henderlong said that list is on page 27, c. Mr. Boughton said another concern is small pieces of property. A lot of these properties were developed so long ago that water retention and parking restrictions weren’t near what they are today, so you’ll see a lot of smaller parcels. Then when you incorporate requirements like this, a lot of times they’re undevelopable. There’s nothing that can be done with them except a parking lot for somebody else, so it is a concern. Chairman Brooker said we were looking at the specific undesired uses, such as drive-through restaurants, car washes, self-storage. What is he missing? All gas stations have a perimeter buffering requirement. One of the original drafts of the EZO that he saw did not include an exception for U.S. 41 frontage, but now it does, so a piece of property on U.S. 41 has frontage that is otherwise required to have perimeter buffering does not have to put the buffering on U.S. 41? Is that accurate? Ms. DeJohn said except for the U.S. 41 frontage. That’s correct. Because the U.S. 41 frontage would have the buffer treatment as described elsewhere. Chairman Brooker said we’ve got everything else. It’s just not going to be a 25-foot landscape buffer. We’ve got all the other stuff. Ms. Mosca apologized for going quickly through that. She was cognizant of the time. If you want to go back to other sections, we can discuss that. Then when you’re ready to vote, we can go ahead and do that. Chairman Brooker asked if there was anything else the staff wanted to direct the subcommittee’s attention to before we ask subcommittee members. Ms. Mosca said staff is good with it. Chairman Brooker asked if staff had a list of their prior concerns. A discussion ensued over what the subcommittee’s concerns were at the last meeting and this meeting: April 18, 2023 13 • They had concerns about the size of the right-of-way, possibly 40 feet or less. • The glazing requirement was onerous, and they recommended 40 because 60 was too high. • There was a discussion about the roll-up doors. • It may only be that 50% of the total facade is available as common wall space between the outside and inside, where you can install windows. When people say it needs to be 50% glass, there might be 50% of the facade that you can’t even have glass. • There were other architectural elements involving massing to get the glazing and those transitions. Mr. Johnson suggested they memorialize their suggestions in their vote. Chairman Brooker said per Eric’s suggestion, he won’t be making a motion or voting on it. You might want to incorporate the prior minutes and our suggestions and the consensus from the March 21 meeting. Does staff have a position about glazing going from 60 to 40? Is that objectionable or are you guys still internally debating? Ms. DeJohn said it’s not objectionable. Chairman Brooker suggested that when we get to DSAC have a list of what the subcommittee asked for. If you ask us to repeat to the full DSAC what we suggested, we won’t be able to do that. For the public’s benefit, this normally does not occur. We’re not dealing with a massive overlay like this. We’re dealing with a finite set of rules and regulations, which are easy to keep track of. This is a big document, so this may look inefficient, and to a certain degree it is, but we’re doing the best we can. Mr. Johnson said keep in mind that there were many things that were discussed, but we can’t certainly pinpoint exactly what the subcommittee agrees on because one member may have a thought. What we do have is Mr. Curl’s comments. Mr. McLean said that for future overlay districts, we could wordsmith on screen while doing it and make these adjustments, as we did with Golden Gate. Chairman Brooker said it wasn’t even necessarily wordsmithing, drafting on the fly. It was a comment inserted in the margin (by Mr. Henderlong) to say this was an issue brought up by the subcommittee. Staff is going to consider it and will come back with their recommendation. Ms. Mosca noted that at the first meeting, Zak Karto, who is no longer with the county, took notes and he provided her with the subcommittee’s comments about the front yard streetscape, providing a new sketch, a discussion on the structural soil cell, resolution for the GMPA, Chris Shucart’s property, and defining a roll-up shutter. Other than that, those are the comments he gave me prior to his departure. Mr. Valle noted there also was concern over the glazing. Mr. Varian said he wrote down something pertaining to the size of the right-of-way – if there’s a specific width that triggers something. For U.S. 41, six lanes, that’s a given boon, right? But if we take a side alley, there was something we discussed. Chairman Brooker said that had to do with the roll-up shutters in the back. If it’s an alleyway, are you going to require the same type of aesthetic mitigation measures when you have a roll-up shutter toward the back of the property rather than to U.S. 41. He’s uncertain if they reached a consensus and because believes it depends on the neighbors who live behind the alleyway who probably don’t want it. They want aesthetic mitigation. April 18, 2023 14 Mr. McLean said at the time, we deferred to what was the definition of an alley because the road he referenced was not defined as an alley. The question that would linger from this is, there’s a primary and a secondary facade for as far as how the architectural LDC is overlaid. Is there anything beyond that? There’s just two classifications, primary or secondary, and any road that has a name has a primary? So you can potentially have a building that has roads on three sides. Mr. Boughton said standard architectural standards refer to as any side that faces a primary road, a public or a private road, so just about any roadway is going to be interpreted that way. Mr. Johnson said he recalled that he suggested they could make it applicable to a certain width of a roadway. Chairman Brooker said right. He suggested 40 feet. We can ask staff to come back with a recommendation at the full DSAC on that particular issue, perhaps making those aesthetic mitigation measures applicable to only rights of way that are of X feet of width or greater. For a small alleyway, for example, that won’t be required. That’s the concept. Mr. McLean said in the Gateway Triangle Overlay, we’re going for density bonuses there. There’s a density pool that we’re pulling out of. That’s a Bayshore overlay district. There’s a density pool when we’re referring to bonus density in this district. Is just this bonus density based on criteria, or is there a bonus pool that doesn’t have an endless amount of bonus density? Ms. Mosca said Bayshore is very different. At the Botanical Garden, they had X units, so that became the bonus pool. Then there were some additional amendments. Whatever that bonus pool is, that was based on units that were stripped from the property. This is a bonus that is being provided as an incentive to do a certain type of ... Mr. McLean asked, so this is a bonus pool that won’t run out five years from now? This is a finite density, as long as you meet this criteria to gain that density? Ms. Mosca said that’s correct. Mr. McLean commended staff on the maps they sent. He did the architecture on Carl’s White Glove, a big storage facility on the East Trail. If you come off U.S. 41 on the edge and try to put this front yard setback streetscape zone on that particular property, he had three feet to a sidewalk that was 5-feet wide and dropped off into a 40-foot-wide FPL swale that he couldn’t do anything in. A lot of the landscape buffer was applied to his property from the property line on his side of the swale. This makes reference to the right-of-way line of U.S. 41. Is that where we want to keep that, or do we want this to be on the subject property line? Ms. DeJohn said that U.S. 41 right-of-way and the property line are coincidental, so the private property would be occupied first by some plantings and then by a walkway on the private property. Mr. McLean asked if maybe this was an 8-foot minimum planting zone? He commends that and understands it. It’s a great concept. His question is are we going to go in there and plant shade trees along U.S. 41 within 4 feet from the edge of the road? Mr. Henderlong said that’s the edge of the right-of-way. Ms. DeJohn agreed and said there’s a lot of space between traveling and …. April 18, 2023 15 Mr. McLean said there can be a lot of space. Going back to his example, from the edge of the pavement to a 3-foot grass strip to a sidewalk to the edge of his right-of-way, that becomes a 25-foot-wide swale. So there are some areas here where this won’t work. Ms. DeJohn said going back to his original premise that the location you’re referring to just happens to be a location that this is not applicable to, you’re not in a center. Mr. McLean said it would be considered the center. Ms. DeJohn said those centers are focused around intersections, bigger, major intersections, so the conditions are more urbanized at those intersections. Mr. Johnson said he wanted to make it clear that the edge of the pavement for U.S. 41 may not even touch the U.S. 41 right-of-way line. He doubts it does, so the 8-foot-wide planting zone would be on private property. Mr. McLean asked if they’ve defined the materials that can and cannot be used on the 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway. Mr. Johnson said they discussed it. Ms. DeJohn said they expect it to be concrete. Mr. McLean said what if he has a client who wants to build a boardwalk or a sand and shell walkway. Are we setting ourselves up for a pathway with changing materials from property to property? Ms. DeJohn said it’s consistent with what the county would typically have built for sidewalk. Mr. Valle said he wouldn’t necessarily want it to always be concrete. Mr. McLean said that’s why he’s saying pathway, not sidewalk. He’s not sure we always want it. Ms. DeJohn said they can specify that to be concrete. Mr. McLean said that’s his last thought on that. You could technically have five different lots and five different materials if we just say pathway and don’t define what it is. It could be cool if we’re looking for a walking path or a jogging path, but he wouldn’t necessarily want it to be all concrete. Mr. Valle asked about the public’s comments on treatment, swales and stormwater retention. Ms. DeJohn said they will be governed by the ADA, the ability to be safe on those. Mr. McLean said he doesn’t know whether if you come off a right-of-way and there’s already a sidewalk, are we going sidewalk to planting zone to multi-use pathway that’s going to be a 10-foot-wide concrete pathway? He wants to make sure we’re not setting up a space where we’re trying to be conscious of what developers are doing here and a concrete sidewalk is going to be the least expensive thing to do. Are we running two concrete sidewalks, 15-18 feet wide right down, double striping the property with double sidewalks? If there’s already an existing sidewalk in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, he wants to ensure we consider the unintended consequences of that pathway is having two sidewalks. Mr. Johnson said he’d probably agree that if you have two concrete walkways or sidewalks, that would be inefficient, two parallel concrete surfaces. April 18, 2023 16 Mr. McLean agreed, noting it would directly contradict what we’re trying to achieve with greenways. Chairman Brooker asked if Ms. Mosca could clarify whether the U.S. 41 streetscape zone is required in every subdistrict of the overlay. Ms. Mosca said only in the Regional Center and the Community Center subdistricts. That’s on page 8, Frontyard/Streetscape Zone for U.S. 41 in Table 1. Chairman Brooker said his second question relates to what a speaker said. So it’s not tied to whether you’re opting in or opting out of bonuses, it’s simply a requirement. If your property is located within one of those two subdistricts, there is the potential where you’re going to have stop, start, stop, start – unless you’re within one of the subdistricts. Upon redevelopment, those regional and community properties are going to have to create this 10-foot multi-use pathway? Ms. Mosca said that would occur over time. When you start looking at these regional and community centers, we’re looking for walkability within those centers. We’re looking at infill development. This is a redevelopment area and over time, those properties in the Corridor Subdistrict can connect to those additional pathways along the corridor from the Regional and Community Centers. Chairman Brooker asked if she could show him in the code where it says it only applies to the Regional and Community Centers. Ms. Mosca said it’s on page 8 toward the bottom, Table 1, Frontyard/Streetscape Zone. Chairman Brooker thanked her. Mr. Johnson noted that it’s applicable to the RC and the CC. Chairman Brooker said only there, but it’s not applicable to the corridor. Mr. McLean said that would apply to the area around the intersection of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and U.S. 41. He’s playing devil’s advocate, so Jersey Mikes, Culver’s and the Lamborghini dealership are down there. That’s where that new area of development is from the edge of U.S. 41 and you come out anywhere from 5-8 feet, and there’s a sidewalk. You go another 5-8 feet and there’s a planter – all in the right-of-way. Then we’re going to put this 8-foot planter next to the right-of-way planter? Ms. DeJohn asked, if by planter, do you mean a buffer strip? Mr. McLean said a buffer strip. Ms. DeJohn said at the time of redevelopment, the Bank of America comes in and says it’s building something new. Their requirement would be to install a row of trees. We have renderings showing how this development looks, a row of trees followed by a walking path. Chairman Brooker said they only have 30 minutes left. The point is you have existing sidewalks and buffers within the platted right of way on U.S. 41 today. Upon redevelopment, you are presumably now going to have that sidewalk and buffer, which is going to continue to exist because the county doesn’t own it. That is a federal road. Starting from the private property line backward into our private property, we’re going to be creating a new buffer strip, a 10-foot multi-use pathway, even though there’s an existing sidewalk there. Then in the post-redevelopment scenario, we’ll have a sidewalk buffer. April 18, 2023 17 Mr. McLean said the 10-foot building culvert goes away, so on U.S. 41, there’s a buffer and a sidewalk, then the county’s landscape buffer, so the edge of the U.S. 41 right-of-way is on the backside of these trees. Then we’re going to add another 8-foot planter and then a 10-foot multi-purpose walkway before we start our projects? Ms. DeJohn said before you start your building, yes. Mr. McLean asked if we’re going to have two sidewalks. Chairman Brooker said that’s going to be the end result. Mr. Varian noted it would be start and stop. Mr. McLean said it could be different materials. Mr. Varian said it could be over a 15-year period. Mr. McLean said we need to look at that more. That occurs in half of what we’re talking about. Ms. DeJohn said it only occurs in the Regional Centers and the Community Centers. Chairman Brooker said it doesn’t occur in half, but it’s a substantial amount. Mr. McLean said the community doesn’t want a 10-foot multi-pathway to be concrete. [Others agreed] A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • You can’t have sand along the pathways. • The community wants more green space. • The community wants walkability. • They want smart water-management solutions. • For buildings oriented toward the street, residents want more shopping opportunities, more places for people to work and these would be new buildings being placed closer to the street in centers only to create a more focal point. • If you lived along the corridor, along the other 20 miles of this stretch, you’d go to the center to hang out and eat dinner. It’s pedestrian friendly. • These are the standards we’re applying to help them build out centers that they don’t have today. If you follow the code today, you’re going to get more Culver’s. • We’ve removed the parking lots from the front and pushed the buildings forward. • This is a problem in the City of Naples that we fight. It’s problematic. When 505 (Fifth Avenue South Mixed-Use Project) was built, they had to do both sidewalks so they elevated the inner sidewalk to the point the city had to pass a code that says you can’t elevate the sidewalk. What’s going to stop somebody from elevating this multi-purpose path? Chairman Brooker asked if there were further questions from the public or subcommittee before they voted. Mr. Boughton said that last month, when we first received the handout information, there was a letter from Mr. Scott that dealt with a piece of property in the EZO and they had already received the HEX decision. April 18, 2023 18 Ms. Mosca said there’s no impact on that property with this overlay, so we’ve already addressed it. She felt it was important for them to see that, but there’s currently no impact to that property based on this zoning overlay. Mr. Boughton said they’re allowed to develop the property per their HEX decision. OK, thank you. Mr. Varian said he had a question about page 21. You had a picture of Sunbelt Place on Davis Boulevard, with the snorkel-lift sticking up in the air. So you’re going to measure from existing grade. We’re going to redevelop some of these properties and we’ve got to bring that grade up regardless. Is that going to limit this measurement? They brought that thing up two or three feet, the whole property, because Davis Boulevard was low. If he’s looking at that lift on the righthand side, that’s three feet higher than it was five years ago because of what they did. The way this reads is this is “existing grade.” Mr. Valle said they probably did that because of FEMA requirements. Looking at major, substantial improvements, in order to meet the substantial improvement requirement, you’ve got to elevate it above. Mr. McLean said that’s a new building, a whole new building. Mr. Varian said they brought the whole property up. Mr. Valle said we’re going to see the FEMA flood maps change within the next quarter, so how are we going to account for what that differential is? Mr. Varian said the wording says “existing.” He would think that would be safer because what happened is that some of those properties might have to come up four feet. Just to meet the zero sidewalk buffers. This is on page 21, d, line 37, “existing grade.” Mr. Johnson said it’s lines 37 through 39. Would you say that it should be changed to “above required finished grade”? Mr. Varian said staff knows why you wrote that that way, but that property is a great example. Ms. DeJohn said it’s pulled from the same code that applies to that property. It’s pulled from the Bayshore Gateway Overlay. They had the language written that way, but she understands that with that evolution of changes that we’re about to endure, if you go “existing” and then you raise it five feet, you’re going to have a 12-foot limit where 17 feet was intended. Mr. Varian said we’re talking the East Naples Corridor, which is well established and older, and it’s got to come up, so that’s going to bring that “existing grade.” It could hurt and affect a lot of things. Mr. Valle agreed. While reviewers might be understanding today, with the transition and the loss of historical perspective, we want to make sure that’s clear in the future. Chairman Brooker asked if there were any other questions or comments from subcommittee members or points staff would like to make? Mr. Johnson said as of right now, what we just talked about “required finished grade.” That would be to LDC Section 402.23 f.5.d. It sounds like what you’re saying is you’d want to change the wording so that it says “above required finished grade.” Chairman Brooker said any other place that language is used, you may want to consider changing it to “required finished” wherever the existing maximum height is mentioned. April 18, 2023 19 Mr. Valle said where it mentions maximum height. We want to make sure we have consistency so no one questions it in the future. Mr. Johnson said that’s acceptable. The other thing that we talked about are the materials comprising the pathways. Do we have a consensus on that? Ms. DeJohn said they need to ask Collier County Transportation and the Naples Pathways Coalition and confirm what’s acceptable to the county for transitions between adjacent materials, so we don’t have three consecutive properties with three different finishes. Mr. Johnson said Clay usually makes motions, but he’s probably going to delegate that to someone else. Chairman Brooker said he’d sit silent. Mr. Varian made a motion. Mr. Valle seconded it. A discussion ensued about the motion. Mr. Varian then amended his motion. Mr. Valle seconded the amended motion: Mr. Varian made a motion to send this to DSAC with the following: We recommend approving these changes but staff needs to discuss this further and bring back changes to the full DSAC; we have to address the maximum glazing on a building, whether it’s 40% or another number; we need more information on structural soil cells, their practicality and inspection process; we want a definition of roll-up shutters; we need clarification on primary and secondary right-of-way definitions for building facades in reference to the roadway; DSAC should discuss the double sidewalk, the multi-use pathway and existing sidewalk and buffer issue further; how the pathway materials transition from one property to the next should be determined; on page 21, the height should be measured from proposed finished grade, not original; Chris Shucart’s property should be included in the Community Center; and the minutes of the March 21 and April 18 subcommittee meetings should be included. Second by Mr. Valle. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0; Chairman Brooker and Mr. McLean abstained. 4. New Business (None) 5. Public Comments 6. Reminder of Next DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting Dates a. 3 p.m. May 16, 2023 Mr. Johnson said the next subcommittee meeting is May 16 and we’re supposed to discuss changing the December meeting and select alternate dates. Chairman Brooker asked if another subcommittee meeting was needed. Mr. Henderlong said another meeting was needed to discuss mobile food-truck parks. We’re bringing back an LDC amendment on it. It’s been out there about a year, but it’s down to the final stage. We have one more meeting with the County Attorney on Friday and then it’s ready to start the vetting. April 18, 2023 20 Mr. Johnson said if we don’t have it ready by then, we’ll send out an e-mail saying we don’t need another meeting on that agenda item. Chairman Brooker said we should wait until our May 3 full DSAC meeting because we don’t have all our subcommittee members here to weigh in, our typical subcommittee members. Thanks to (Mr. Varian and Mr. Boughton) for jumping in onto the subcommittee. Mr. Henderlong provided an update/status report: • The Administrative Code Insubstantial Changes was supposed to be heard by the BCC on April 11, but was continued to April 25, so there will be a community e-mail going out to everybody about that. • Hopefully, it will pass and after it gets passed, the ordinance will go live on the website. • The BCC took action last week on golf-course conversions. The motion was to try and repeal 5.05.15 in its entirety. Several members of the public spoke out about that and finally, the BCC decided not to repeal it, but directed staff to come back, tweak it and come up with recommendations on how to improve the process. • The primary concern is dealing with the details, the expense and requirements of bringing information that may not be necessary during the ITC process and trying to narrow it down to a concept plan that both stakeholders can weigh in on. It doesn’t mean they’re going to recommend approval, but it basically says figure out a way out to come up with some recommendations. • The option to repeal it in its entirety will still be considered by the BCC at that time, but the intent is to come back to the DSAC. We’re in the process of putting a group together with some of the planners who were involved in that process to come up with some recommendations on how to tweak it, make it easier and more streamlined. • One of the main concerns was that the stormwater calculation expenses are incredibly detailed. Why should you run a full analysis when you don’t have a concept plan that’s been agreed to by all the parties? It makes perfect sense to come up with some preliminary numbers. • Those are the things we’re going to be looking at. 7. Adjourn Mr. Varian made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Valle. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 3:49 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ____________________________________________ Clay Brooker, Chairman These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/chairman on ________________, (check one) as presented _______, or as amended ________. 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 3 5 8 11 8 10 5 9 17 8 6 9 8 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -Letters of Availability Requests Completed Minimum Average Maximum Requests Received 6 4 7 5 3 1 2 3 4 3 9 6 3 519 17 17 21 14 29 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Business Days 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 2.8 17.7 7.8 7.2 1.9 2.3 2.6 10 9 9 9 6 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -Utility Deviations Requests Completed Sufficiency Review Time Substantive Review Time Requests Received 111/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department November 2023 Code Enforcement Monthly Statistics Code Enforcement Reports 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23369382620546538688504498493490467504Cases Opened Per Month 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23189616662446233626572337258321732389255123402169Code Inspections Per Month Code Enforcement Reports 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 3 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Bayshore Immokalee 32 22 2160 3150 CRA Case Opened Monthly Monthly Case Opened Total Cases Opened 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2022 2023 2166 1212 4322 4559 Origin of Case Code Investigator initiated cases by FY Complaint initiated Cases by FY Code Enforcement Reports 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 4 Animals, 4 Accessory Use, 20 Land Use , 64 Noise, 19 Nuisance Abatement, 104 Occupational Licensing, 9 Parking Enforcement, 9 Property Maintenance, 40 Right of Way, 26 Signs, 11 Site Development, 88 Water Irrigation, 1 Vehicles, 73 Vegetation Requirements, 25 September 22, 2023 –October 21, 2023, Highlights •Cases opened: 504 •Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 275 •Property inspections: 2169 •Lien searches requested:535 Top 15 Code Cases by Category November 2023 Monthly Statistics 111/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department Building Plan Review Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 2 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-234,248 3,913 4,296 4,608 5,574 4,980 5,317 5,237 4,555 5,173 3,706 3,693 4,051 3,694 4,111 3,878 4,861 4,339 4,809 4,487 4,059 4,616 4,028 3,966 3,657 All Permits Applied by Month Aluminum Structure, 177 Bldg Add/Alt, 268Bldg New 1 & 2 Res, 189 Building, 513 Electrical, 249Fence, 140 Gas, 140 Mechanical, 610 Solar, 110 Plumbing, 323 Pool, 119 Roof, 354 ROW Residential, 80 Shutters/Doors/Windows, 425 Well Permits, 92 Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied Building Plan Review Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 3 $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 Nov-21Feb-22May-22Aug-22Nov-22Feb-23May-23Aug-23Nov-23Monthly Multi-family & Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date Multi-family Commercial $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 Nov-21Feb-22May-22Aug-22Nov-22Feb-23May-23Aug-23Nov-23Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date 1&2 Family $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date 1&2 Family Multi-family Commercial Building Plan Review Statistics 411/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Nov- 21 Dec- 21 Jan- 22 Feb- 22 Mar- 22 Apr- 22 May- 22 Jun- 22 Jul- 22 Aug- 22 Sep- 22 Oct- 22 Nov- 22 Dec- 22 Jan- 23 Feb- 23 Mar- 23 Apr- 23 May- 23 Jun- 23 Jul- 23 Aug- 23 Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 Commercial 4 8 5 7 4 4 4 7 4 4 4 6 8 2 8 1 6 6 6 3 4 7 9 2 3 Multi-family 12 9 10 12 15 3 1 8 2 2 3 10 29 7 3 1 3 22 3 1 7 4 15 3 4 1&2 Family 286 295 346 217 333 255 284 316 248 280 234 279 212 219 195 211 246 168 243 221 234 258 240 245 165 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Nov-21Jan-22Mar-22May-22Jul-22Sep-22Nov-22Jan-23Mar-23May-23Jul-23Sep-23Nov-23New Multi-family Building Permits Issued by Month 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Nov-21Jan-22Mar-22May-22Jul-22Sep-22Nov-22Jan-23Mar-23May-23Jul-23Sep-23Nov-23New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month Building Inspections Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 5 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2324576265062338624507298342554428704257972520227873224322141523966245232460123400271892349725741247692247726462224602546323917Building Inspections Electrical 5,172 Well 94 Septic 130 Structural 9,539 Pollution Control 2 Plumbing 3,231 Mechanical 2,818 Land Development 1,921 Gas 661 ROW 344 Types of Building Inspections Building Inspections Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 6 Notified Milestone Due, 467 Milestone Not Due Until After 2024, 455 Milestone Completed, 43 Milestone Inspection Status 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MarchAprilJulyJulyJulyAugustAugustSeptemberSeptemberSeptemberOctoberNovember2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 1 1 2 7 3 6 1 3 3 14 2 0 Milestones Inspections Received by Month Land Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 7 - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23232 157 179 182 195 199 173 176 175 176 152 138 124 155 184 192 319 287 215 198 194 222 189 190 200 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Short-Term Vacation Rental Registration Zoning Verification Letter Vegetation Removal Permit Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change Special Event Permit 193 176 134 118 98 Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months Land Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 8 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-235 6 8 6 21 12 12 15 8 8 13 7 16 13 30 16 17 11 11 11 16 2 16 6 6 50424161777669545286615155525370707355486174857757Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month Temporary Use Commercial Certificates 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2321173037304236352123271831182635333032303027273621Pre-application Meetings by Month 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2359 11 2 20 54 9 10 3 12 9 9 11 9 27 0 0 24 9 1 14 21 1 0 11 19 Number of PagesPlat Pages Recorded per Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-234 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 0 4 3 Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month Numberof SubdivisionsLand Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 9 Yearly Totals Subdivisions 2020 -25 2021 –33 2022 –29 2023 YTD -21 Yearly Totals Pages 2020 -152 2021 –188 2022 –175 2023 YTD –100 Yearly Totals Lots 2021 –1353 2022 –3100 2023 YTD –1212 Land Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-231331041081878883410198206612105787Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month - 5 10 15 20 25 30 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2311 12 14 8 6 13 19 16 14 16 8 12 6 9 4 8 10 11 22 29 14 1010911Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month Land Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 11 - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2346 40 39 24 43 42 29 34 32 38 34 29 24 33 36 30 41 44 48 31 33 40 36 30 35 Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-2330374542353939453548264327383132404246463338354629Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month Reviews for Land Development Services 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 12 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-231,038 1,269 1,043 1,126 1,324 1,297 1,318 1,361 1,203 1,426 1,051 1,138 1,065 1,032 1,146 1,134 1,420 1,066 1,389 1,311 1,137 1,240 1,113 1,429 1,032 Number of Land Development Reviews Ontime, 95.8 Late, 4.2 Percent Ontime for the Month 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 344 122 111 53 52 Top 5 Land Development Reviews-Nov 2023 Land Development Services Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 13 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate Construction Estimate Utility Estimate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Inspections per monthSite & Utility Inspections Final Subdivision Inspection Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Preliminary Utility Inspection Tie In Inspection Nov- 21 Dec- 21 Jan- 22 Feb- 22 Mar- 22 Apr- 22 May- 22 Jun- 22 Jul- 22 Aug- 22 Sep- 22 Oct- 22 Nov- 22 Dec- 22 Jan- 23 Feb- 23 Mar- 23 Apr- 23 May- 23 Jun- 23 Jul- 23 Aug- 23 Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 North Collier 41 49 29 31 29 49 43 48 36 31 29 55 27 41 42 28 46 25 47 56 54 50 37 52 48 Collier County(Greater Naples)70 68 56 56 62 69 59 56 65 73 41 57 46 62 56 68 70 63 82 91 43 43 60 62 50 Fire Review Statistics 11/2023 Growth Management Community Development Department 14 Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by MonthFire District Fire District 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23DaysBuilding Fire Review Average Number of Days Nov- 21 Dec- 21 Jan- 22 Feb- 22 Mar- 22 Apr- 22 May- 22 Jun- 22 Jul- 22 Aug- 22 Sep- 22 Oct- 22 Nov- 22 Dec- 22 Jan- 23 Feb- 23 Mar- 23 Apr- 23 May- 23 Jun- 23 Jul- 23 Aug- 23 Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 Collier County (Greater Naples)409 393 323 503 613 538 576 623 383 481 350 422 317 374 347 448 539 408 500 447 391 428 397 442 395 North Collier 504 449 470 503 671 646 777 855 637 800 525 466 449 391 444 450 583 490 692 650 627 636 525 616 543 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23DaysPlanning Fire Review Average Number of Days