Loading...
DSAC Agenda 10/02/2024Collier oun Growth Management Community Development Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, October 2, 2024 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development Department Conference Room 609/610 If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff, please contact, Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, October 2, 2024 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 — September 4, 2024 b. DSAC-LDR Meeting— May 21, 2024 4. Public Speakers Page 4 Page 10 For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727 or at Rey.TorresFuentes@coIIiercountyfLgov 2 Collier County 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook] b. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas landimarino] c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division- [Christopher Mason] d. Building Review & Permitting Division- [Richard Long] e. Public Utilities Department — [Matt McLean or designee] f. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division. - [Cormac Giblin] g. Transportation Management Services Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee] h. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal] i. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz] j. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Michael Stark] k. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi] 6. New Business 7. Old Business 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: November 6, 2024 — 3:00 PM December 4, 2024 — 3:00 PM January 1, 2025 —TBD For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727 or at Rey.TorresFuentes@coIIiercountyfLgov 3 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NAPLES, FL September 4, 2024 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management 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 Clay Brooker (excused) Jeff Curl David Dunnavant (excused) John English Marco Espinar (excused) Norman Gentry Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere (excused) Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn (excused) Jeremy Sterk Mario Valle Hannah Roberts-AHAC non -voting ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Blacklidge, Manager - Planning, Development Review Christopher Mason, Director, Community Planning & Resiliency Division, GMCD Richard Long, Director, Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Claudia Vargas, Project Manager I, PUD Sarah Harrington, Manager - Planning, Housing Policy & Economic Development Division, GMCD Captain Bryan Horbal, North Collier Fire Review Michael Stark, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management, GMCD Evelyn Trimino, Manager — Finance, GMCD Marlene Serrano, Manager — Plans Review & Inspections, GMCD Mike Bosi, Director — Zoning, GMCD Eric Johnson, Manager — Planning, GMCD Rey Torres Fuentes, Ops. Support Specialist I / Staff Liaison, GMCD 4 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 Mr. Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. A quorum of 10 was present in the boardroom 2.Approval of Agenda The motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously, 10-0. 3.Approval of Minutes a. DSAC Meeting August 7, 2024 The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously, 10-0 b. DSAC - LDR MEETING - MAY 21, 2024 CHAIRMAN MR. VARIANMOVED IT TO NEXT MONTH. 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division (Lisa Blacklidge, Manager) • Fee schedule updates include a $1,000.00 preliminary plat application fee which covers plat review through the subdivision process. • There is a minor easement use agreement fee. In 2020 Board approval was removed. There is a $100.00 administrative fee and we've done around 1500 of them since then. • The construction plans project type currently doesn't have an application fee and we don't have anything to apply the pre -application fee so there will be a $500.00 application fee which will be a wash. The application fee will be just applied to that. • Currently it just sits there. • We have not had any comments on the preliminary process. It's going to the board and it should be on the board the next meeting on the 24th. Blair Foley asked Will that also be part of the board approval coming up and when will that be effective, do you know? Lisa Blacklidge, we're hoping it will be on the October 8 meeting and it will be effective as of October 8. b. Code Enforcement Division (Thomas Iandimarino, Director not in attendance) C. Community Planning & Resiliency Division (Chris Mason, Director) • We are out there monitoring hurricane activity. We're really hoping that September does not turn out to be an active one for southwest Florida. But in the event that it is, we are prepared to go out and do damage assessment and do what we need to do for recovery processes. F 5 • Obviously here in the county, we do have certain drainage problems, what we would consider local drainage problem areas. No flooding lately as of these storms that we've had here over the last week. • There was water intrusion in homes from Tropical Storm Debbie, with our twelve inches of rain, but not as of late. d. Building Review & Permitting Division (Richard Long, Director) • Just some numbers that aren't on the report. Residential runs about eight days after it's routed to them. Structural is about 14 days. The trades are much quicker than that. • And plumbing is doing really well now that we're fully staffed with plumbing. Mechanicals were fully staffed. Zoning and FEMA reviews are 21, 23 days out. • This last month we did 53 TCOs, 283 COs, and 3478 CC inspections. Average 930 a day. We average right around 40 inspectors a day. It turns out to be about 24 inspections a piece. • It's running 4.6 days for a payment slip because there's a two-part process. So, the verify submittal, they have 1207 permits in there. They're running around four and a half days before that part is complete. And then the routing piece gets into 10-11 days, still within the statute requirements. • They've had some staffing changes, but, I was on vacation last week, and when I left, they had 1600 and now we're down to 1200. • The single-family home has been going down and the permit numbers are going down slightly. e. Public Utilities Department (Claudia Vargas, Project Manager) • We attempted to call a DSAC subcommittee meeting for the utility standard manual and unfortunately we had to reschedule due to conflicts and we couldn't meet. Quorum EMT staff suggested we come back to you and suggest that we ask for an extended subcommittee of four to five members. If that's something you would consider, we would come back out and schedule. Mr. Blair said I think we do have a subcommittee with members on it. It's myself, Chris Mitchell, Mario Valley, and John English will be an alternate. f. Housing Policy & Economic Development (Sarah Harrington, Manager Housing Policy & Economic Development • Tuesday, September 17, there is an AHAC meeting, and Hannah will be able to bring information from here to that meeting. If you guys need anything for affordable housing, please feel free to reach out. g. Transportation Management Services (not in attendance) h. Collier County Fire Review (not in attendance) i. North Collier Fire Review (Brian Horbal, Captain) 3 2 • Last month we had 51 planning reviews with a three-day turnaround and 646 reviews of new construction permits with a four day turnaround. We completed 1535 new construction inspections. And those are our numbers, which you have, minus the inspections in front of you. • Pamela Demayo is leaving us. She's our fire alarm reviewer, so we're losing her to a fire marshal position in Tampa. So if you see her, wish her well. I'm sure most of you have worked with her or seen her name on your furnace. • Also, the chief wanted me to let you know, try and use our website or get it out to people to use our website for scheduling inspections. It's so much easier for just everything, ease of operations, because a lot of times, people will call and be like, oh, I don't have my permit number. We're trying to get that message out to contractors calling inspections for their company. Operations & Regulatory Management Division (Michael Stark, Division Director) • In August the department received 4357 permit applications with a year to date. A total of 45,986 permit applications, only down about 1.3%. • So from comparison, over last year, 228 of these permits were for Hurricane Ian. The average turnaround time for staff is 1.9 days, so that's the average across. We welcome 1,222 customers to our business center and satellite offices, and staff have answered close to 5,844 calls and call centers. We have several new staff members and promotions within the business center. That includes Danny and Daisy as our two new supervisors • Michelle has left us as well as Tomm. So going through some transitions and training. Kirsten Wilkie doing a great job with the training and really a lot of new faces to acclimate to the business. • Quick update for the texting function. I know Jason gave an update that hasn't been successful at this point, just only because of the fact that we've done multiple reviews as far as the testing and working through this with our vendor, and unfortunately just continue to find some bugs in the process. So, we apologize for that. I know that Jason gave you another update last month and we're running into more bugs with this functionality. His new timeline is looking at mid October, and we're doing our very best to make sure that this rolls out successfully without any other bugs. k. Zoning Division (Mike Bosi, Planning Zoning Director) • We are past the summer months, so we're allowed to start bringing many of these petitions back to the board of county commissioners. It's good that we're able to start clearing out a backlog. We also had the review with the county manager, the AYRCIE, and a couple of modifications she suggested, but we're going to bring that to the October 17 Planning Commission. • The other day, two weeks ago, I was bragging about the consistency of my zoning staff underneath Ray Bellows, my current planners. They've been steady for, since I've been back since 2011, since I've made that comment, we've had two of our planner three s leaving, both last day going to be September 20. We also have had our comp plan manager announce his L! 7 retirement. He's transitioning to a part-time temporary position. And we've got a planner three, that's on the way that we were able to identify who has passed. • So we're happy that we're going to get somebody who's not going to need a ton of training. But we also now have a medical lead from one of our LDC amendment teams. So, we've got some triage, we've got some issues. • And to let you know we also have another little backlog. We're going to try to, like I said, we're going to arrange some landing petitions from the September meetings to October. And then in November, we've got a backlog that's starting to pile up. And unfortunately, that's the Fiddlers Creek one, where we expect a tremendous amount of time to be spent on it. • So, we're going to push it forward. But it looks like we're going to have to create a backlog in January and have to work through it. But the way that I look at it, if I don't have any planners to be able to review and get these applications to hearing. Maybe we'll eventually catch up. • We now have, through Mr. French's effort, a dedicated HR professional that's in the building. I just signed off that we're advertising with APA, Florida Zoning Planning association and the Florida APA. We find that when we target the trade industries, we get much better results than just a posting on our county's website. • And from what I hear from the Fed, they're pretty encouraged about the labor market being a little bit less hot as it was a couple months ago. So they think that they're going to be able to provide for interest rate cuts that could have some positive effect upon the economic issue. But what that's telling me is hopefully there's a little bit more movement within the labor market. And I'm hoping that we're going to get some good candidates that we're going to be able to replace these folks in a relatively quick period of time, get it up and running. • But as you know, to get productivity out of that employee, it takes a little bit of time, and it takes time away from our existing employees. So we're going to juggle it. But we'll make sure that we are going to try to meet the development industry's expectations for getting these petitions to get into hearing. 6. New Business A. LDCA (Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager) • PowerPoint presentation on the Immokalee Urban Area District Overlay. • Patrick VanNess and Rachel Hanson are via Zoom • This was reviewed by the subcommittee last month. Thankfully, we got through the entire amendment but the subcommittee actually didn't take a vote, but I think you guys were in favor of it. • We went back and looked at every issue that was brought up. The changes that we made subsequent to those comments should be in your packet, highlighted in yellow. Mark McLean made a motion to approve the LDC portion as it is written in today's packet. Jeff Curl seconded the motion Motion passed 10-0 7.Old Business 5 0 • Mr. Varian addresses the Committee members. • We're coming into the cycle again for renewals. I think there's going to be five of us that are up for that renewal. • Just want to remind everybody at our November meeting we usually review and make a recommendation to the BCC for them to consider in one of their December meetings for January seating. if you are one of those five, hopefully you're coming back. Blair Foley asked. Rey, do you have the five members that are up for renewal, do you know who those are? Rey Torres Fuentes, I do but I can send them emails individually. 8. Committee Member Comments (none) 9. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 3:36 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE c William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the ittee/Chairman on Z (choose one) as presented , or as amended Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2024 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING Naples, Florida, May 21, 2024 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Robert Mulhere Jeff Curl Blair Foley Mark McLean ALSO PRESENT: James Boughton, DSAC Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Planner III Marissa Fewell, Planner III Brian Wells, Director, PTNE Rey Torres Fuentes, Ops Support Specialist I Alexandra Casanova, Management Analyst I 10 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 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 Community Department. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by Mr. Mulhere. The motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. 3. Old Business (None) 4. New Business a. PL20210002602 — Rural Architectural Standards Ms. Fewell detailed a PowerPoint presentation: • In September 2019, the Board of County Commissioners approved an amended version of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • The plan created the three sub -elements, Golden Gate City, Urban Estates, and the Rural Estates in both the urban and rural sub -elements as a policy related to initiating rural architectural standard requirements for commercial uses, conditional uses, and essential service facilities. • The intent was to reflect the rural character of the Estates and to provide coherence. • The standards are only for commercial conditional use and essential service facilities and she wants to show the subcommittee existing or potential commercial sites in the Estates. Not shown on these maps are additional conditional -use sites that already have been approved as part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • Essential service facilities can be located throughout the Estates. • Staff determined that architectural features in rural areas of the county and other areas of Southwest Florida include features of Low Country, Old Florida, Key West, and the Florida vernacular architectural styles. Staff drove around and took photos (Exhibits C and D) of existing sites of buildings that reflect these architectural elements. These photos show sites already located within the Estates. • Another slide shows buildings located outside the Estates, with similar architectural features. Mr. Johnson said staff had to drive around to figure out the best examples to effectuate that. Through this process, we hope to hear your expertise and from the public. There wasn't much guidance on what constitutes rural architecture because Florida vernacular is subjective. Ms. Fewell said the amendment introduces design standards for new commercial, conditional - use, and essential service facilities in the Rural and Urban Estates, including design standards related to roof -type material and decorative elements, entry features, exterior -wall materials, window designs, lighting fixture heights, fences, and walls. We are asking for the 2 11 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 subcommittee's recommendation of approval, or approval with conditions, and welcome any feedback. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Mr. McLean: When we were working through the architectural element of the LDC, the standard section that we deal with SDPs, etc., there were limitations on sizes. If you were under 4,500 square feet, you didn't have to address any of the architectural elements. • Ms. Fewell: This will change Section 5.05.08(d) and will add a new subsection under that, 16. • Mr. Mulhere: There is some relevant information in that section. • Mr. Boughton: The question is about land standards and whether they are in addition to the architectural standards we have now. That's a big difference. • Mr. Boughton: In the architectural standards section, there are a couple of categories for special -use buildings, such as warehouses, where standards in some cases take the place of others and in other cases supersede or reduce requirements. There is nothing in this language that speaks to that issue, which is a major one. • Mr. Mulhere: Applicability would apply to commercial and conditional uses, which is a bit different from that because conditional uses are not covered by that. That's one difference. • Mr. Mulhere: There are projects when at least one of the following conditions exist for the purpose of this section, arterial and collector roads. The conditions are the project site is located within 300 feet of an arterial road or collector road, including all right-of-way, and in a non -industrial zoning district. If you are a non-residential building and you are within 300 feet of an arterial or collector that's when it applies. • Mr. Mulhere: The project site is located on an arterial and is in an industrial district, so even if you are industrial, if you are on an arterial, this applies. • Mr. Johnson: This would be applicable to a very large area. D 1 through D 16 are design standards for specific buildings. The category being referred to has different groups of uses of buildings, and they have special exceptions or add-ons. • Mr. Mulhere: There's a separation under 5.05.08. There are site design standards, in addition to architectural standards, site design standards. If I'm building a public shopping center, presumably they apply. • Mr. Johnson: The way we envisioned it is that you have 5.05.08 and we're adding more. Whatever would be applicable to subject 5.05.08, all systems go, including No. 16. • Mr. McLean: If I have a client on Randall or on White Boulevard who wants to build a retail strip mall, I will have to apply this Old Florida, Key West, and Low Country architectural style because of where it's located. That's because of the policy in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • Mr. Curl said it's something he's been petitioning for almost 10 years. What we are creating here is the reverse of what Estero did. • Mr. Mulhere: The language you are proposing is not because of the policy. The policy requires staff or the county to initiate architectural standard requirements in the Land Development Code for conditional uses, essential services, and commercial uses. It does not say that is what it needs to be, so it's not a result of that policy. 3 12 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 • Mr. Mulhere: The effort may be a result of the policy, and the staff recommendation after doing research and they feel these are appropriate architectural standards. It's reasonable to disagree if you want to disagree with those recommendations for standards. • Mr. Mulhere: There are a lot of concerns. It states that you must create architectural standards for essential services. Does a sheriff's substation have to follow this design? The library already does. That's where staff are going with this. • Mr. McLean: In the Village of Estero, architecture must be Mediterranean. You must meet what your neighbor does next door. They don't like it. They are at a point now where they are rewriting this. We are doing the exact same thing. We say in this area you must do this type of architecture. Why doesn't the standard 5.05.08 apply there? Why do we need to add a section saying in this area it's only this architecture? • Mr. McLean isn't fighting this type of architecture because that's what his firm does. • Mr. Curl: A building at the northwest corner of Golden Gate and Everglades boulevards is probably the ugliest monstrosity, and it follows the Land Development Code. • Mr. Mulhere: You must start with the fact that this is a GMP policy and staff do not have a lot of leeway. We can argue with the text, or we can come up with different suggestions. This is going to occur. It specifically says it is going to apply to commercial, conditional use and essential service facilities and it's going to reflect the rural character of the Estates area. • Mr. Mulhere: There are two kinds of estate areas: Urban Estates and Rural Estates. They are treating it for this purpose as the same, Urban and Rural. This policy is in both the Urban and the Rural Estates sub -elements. A discussion ensued over the staffs attempts at trying to address the standard and the following points were made: • Mr. Mulhere: We need to have the ability to ask for an exception and we have that in the other standards. You can provide an alternative architectural design and we need to have that here, whether it's approved by the staff or the board. • Mr. Mulhere: Right now, we would look at what the exception section says to determine whether it applies. How is that structured? If it's at the end of the section and it says exceptions may be granted as follows, then that would apply to everything above it depends on how it is written. • Mr. McLean: Item 4 is a variation in massing, which is what creates our biggest difficulties in designing. • Mr. McLean: From the list in Section 5, the primary facade must include four of these 16 elements, but porches will have at least two of these elements. These are design challenges in the county. We do not have a design review board like the City of Naples does. • Mr. McLean: Architectural reviewer Peter Shawinsky should have been at this meeting. Why is concrete tile eliminated? We are forcing something here and need to take more time to clean this up. • Mr. Mulhere: Under applicability, there needs to be a section that says these standards shall supersede the requirements of sections xxx because this is to replace the architectural standards that otherwise apply in the Urban area. There will be mass E 13 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 confusion if we don't simply state that. They have different architectural design requirements. They become restrictions to the bottom. • Mr. Boughton: There are still conflicts here. In the body of the of the code regulation, you must pick four of 16 elements, and now this one talks about picking two of five. • Mr. Johnson: The spirit of it was that it's in addition to and if there was a conflict, this would supersede what's in conflict. • Mr. Johnson: We need to figure out what that GMP policy means by looking at Rural Architecture around the county, taking photos of what we think is Florida vernacular or Key West, and ask Peter Shawinsky to help us come up with regulations that will work. • Mr. Mulhere: The policy says commercial use, conditional uses, and essential services. Maybe we need to look at essential services because it's fine if you want it to cost astronomically more money to get utilities and cell service, whereas everywhere else we're not really applying these standards — unless maybe the essential service structure is very visible. • Mr. Mulhere: Paragraph G in the LDC would apply. Deviations and alternate compliance, the following alternative compliance process is established to allow deviations from the requirements of this section as approved by the county manager. There is some flexibility because G applies to everything above. • Mr. Mulhere: The sentence above says, "The following types of building uses qualify for administrative determination of deviations from the LDC — assembly, educational, institutional, mixed -use buildings, any other non-commercial building that is not listed under LDC design standards, etc. Buildings with a gross building area of 10,000 square feet or more on the ground for buildings, multi -story buildings with 20,000 square feet or more." There are exceptions here. • Mr. McLean: This code is good and by working with Peter, you can hit most of this to ensure this funnel of the design code doesn't get too narrow. We can continue with the staff's intent but not make it so restrictive that it limits the architecture. We need further discussion of the types of buildings in the area that are good and bad examples of architecture and whether they follow 5.05.08. A discussion ensued over the next steps: • Mr. Brooker: Are we sending this back to staff or are we going to have a sub -committee of the architects who meet with staff? • Mr. Johnson: Staff are not looking for a vote today. They just need to start the process. Maybe you can discuss it line by line. • Mr. Brooker: Three issues have been highlighted. • Mr. Brooker: The first is overall applicability. There are exceptions at the beginning of 5.05.08 that may carve out what we're trying to cover. We need to clean up internal consistency within 5.05.08 overall. There's also the deviation section that applies. • Mr. Brooker: The second issue is what we want architecturally. Is this what we want it to look like? Are there problems with the substance of it? • Mr. Brooker: This is supposed to apply to commercial, conditional uses, and essential services. The comprehensive plan says they don't have to be the same for all three. 5 14 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 Maybe essential services should have their own set of architectural standards, so we're not building the Taj Mahal utility shed. Mr. Johnson said those are excellent observations. We could disagree 100% with Rural architectural standards. It's within the purview of this group to either agree, disagree, change, modify, dream, or not dream. Item .4a was placed on a temporary hold b. PL20240005299 — Major Transit Stop Definition Mr. Where said we need to create a definition of a term used in the Live Local Act. It probably will be used now as the county moves forward with its own set of amendments or new bonus provisions for affordable housing that will create the opportunity for higher bonus units within certain proximity of either a transit stop, major or transit core. There is no such thing as a major transit stop any more in the Florida Statute. It's a major transportation hub. Ms. Fewell said that's correct and told the subcommittee: • We created the major transit stop definition based on an April Board of County Commissioners meeting when they wanted it to be defined a certain way. • We created the definition and started the process, but in the meantime, Senate Bill 328 was approved by the Senate and the House, and it was approved by the governor last week, so we will not be moving forward on the major transit stop definition. • The new Senate bill could offer an opportunity for us to define what a transit stop is. • We have a very preliminary definition: The proposed definition for a transit stop is a designated area along a fixed local public transit route where Collier Area Transit buses stop to load and unload passengers. Mr. Brooker outlined the statute for the subcommittee: • The statute as amended eliminates the word "major" and just says "transit stop," as defined in the Land Development Code. • It distinguishes a transit stop from a major transportation hub. • The county may consider reducing parking requirements under the Live Local Act. • Under a major transportation hub, the county shall reduce public ... • We need to define transit stop within that context. • The statute says, "as defined in the county Land Development Code." We must give it a definition. • Is Collier Area Transit the only county transit program in operation? Maybe we shouldn't specify CAT because maybe it will change names five years from now. Mr. Henderlong said he spoke with a couple of the planners and engineers regarding that. It's very important to understand it's not just one item, CAT itself, but other transportation options. You must have two or more to be a hub, like the Greyhound Bus hub. 1.1 15 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 Mr. Mulhere said that for purposes of this paragraph, the term "major transportation hub" means any transit station, whether bus or train or light rail. Mr. Johnson said Mike Bosi plans to approach the Board of County Commissioners with his idea of what a major transportation hub is based on what the BCC already determined when they wanted it to be a major transit stop. Mr. Mulhere said his opinion is there are two and they only have one form of transit, a CAT bus, which is at the government center, where routes converge in a singular location for transfer to other routes. There's another one at Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. Further discussion included transit, CAT, Lee Tran, Greyhound/FLIX, transportation hubs or stops at major employment centers, for instance, Arthrex; serving affordable workforce; publicly funded; not too narrow with a definition; and the following motion was made: Mr. Foley made a motion to accept a change to define a major transportation hub as "The designated area along a fixed local public transit route where publicly funded buses stop to load and unload passengers."Seconded by Mr. Curl. The motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. Mr. Mulhere: I don't think it really needs to be a motion; it could be a consensus. There is no reason for you to go further on a major transportation Hub. Mr. Brooker said that the overall objective of Live Local is to incentivize affordable housing and one way you do that is to reduce parking requirements, which can be onerous. So why not define major transportation hubs more broadly to implement the intent of Live Local? Mr. Johnson said there is a way that you could think of it as very liberal, all reaching, very far- reaching definition or a very kind of conservative definition. It's very subjective. Mr. Brooker: Does staff have enough to go back to staff and then ultimately to the County Commission? I would not be in favor of voting for any motion on this right now for a major transportation Hub. I just don't have enough to go on. But I think you're hearing ideas, some consensus, and those are the ideas you can share and then formulate amongst yourselves and talk to the County Commission. Mr. Brooker said we are finished with 4b and asked the subcommittee to return to 4a. Mr. Boughton: I believe the architectural code in general has used commercial zoning as the basis for what is commercial. And then when it comes to conditional use, I haven't done a whole lot of conditional uses. The ones I have worked on are usually churches. But are there other building types that could fit in that category that we don't necessarily want to bring in or vice versa? 7 16 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 Mr. Johnson: Let me go to the estate zoning district and see what is listed as permitted and conditional uses. The estate zoning is a type of agricultural zoning district; the permitted uses; a non-residential use. Mr. Boughton: Residential is excluded from the architectural standards? (Correct.) Mr. Johnson said the way it's worded is commercial, conditional uses, and essential services. This is not the granting of an essential service; that relies on the zoning district to do. This is if you are an essential service and are in the Rural or Urban sub -element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, then No. 16 applies. Mr. Brooker said we're looking at the pure estate zoning district. What are the conditional uses to figure out what these architectural standards would apply to — churches, social and fraternal organizations, childcare centers, private schools, and group care facilities? Further discussion ensued and the following points were made: Mr. Johnson: A reminder that this is the policy that we are trying to implement — the county shall initiate architectural standard requirements and land development code. Mr. McLean: Define different characters for different regions and we may have to write a 16 for urban and a 17 for rural because this would fit the rural area. I think this architectural style fits the rural area but does not fit the urban area. Mr. Henderlong: That would be up to the pleasure of the committee to make a recommendation and that is why we are here, to get input and receive your advice on that. Mr. Brooker: We should have an urban set of architectural standards and a rural set of architectural standards because they are different in character. Mr. Brooker: I think what the County Commission said is they adopted these two provisions back in 2019. And a lot of time has passed, and a lot of development has occurred since then. But they are looking to maintain the rural character in the Urban Golden Gate Estates. And just simply saying to follow 5.05.08 might not suffice. Mr. Foley: I think we need to address both, but you could keep it in one if you just expanded it or loosen the requirements. Don't make them so stringent. Add a few other architectural styles that would fit and then you could keep it as it's listed. But have it not as narrow as it shows today. Mr. McLean: When you get into designating architectural styles like this it hurts the community. It doesn't help the community. There must be a better way than saying this. Mr. Johnson: We said these are the architectural styles. We are trying to initiate architectural standard requirements. That does not necessarily have to mean in a particular style or styles. E3 17 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 Mr. McLean made a motion that we table Urban and make it a separate set of criteria. It was seconded by Mr. Boughton and a discussion ensued. Mr. Henderlong: When I look at 5.05.08 D and I see 16, it's applicable to both Urban and Rural, but we can sub -break that out and rewrite subsets within that same umbrella of 16 and deal with the applicability in the Urban and applicability with the Rural. Mr. Brooker: One way we can do it is you start off dealing with Rural and then your next subsection under 16 would be Urban, and in addition to the above for rule you can add those styles too as an option. The motion was rescinded by Mr. McLean before a subcommittee vote. Mr. Brooker: I think we have not a consensus, but unanimous approval, that we are going to separate Urban versus Rural in terms of the architectural standards that apply with Urban being whatever rule is, plus some. Mr. Johnson confirmed with the Subcommittee that Lines 33-34-35, viii, Page 3 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: Fences or walls when used for decoration will be in accordance with the vernacular of the architecture. Mr. McLean, on behalf of the subcommittee, stated the following changes were to be made: • Line 21, v, Page 3 of Draft: Discussion of shutters, in particular, mullions; in addition, placement of signs or signage; colors of signage. (Mr. McLean offered to come up with a solution to this section. Determination was made by the subcommittee to come back later to discuss `signage'). • Lines 4-5, b, Page 3 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: A front porch must encompass an area no less than 25 percent of the primary farade(s). • Lines 39-40, i, Page 2 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: Standing -seam or V crimp metal material, or shake -style or asphalt shingle roof or flat concrete tile. • Line 47, b, Page 2 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: Flat roofs, when used as a primary element, shall be adorned with decorative cornices. • Line 31-32, i, Page 2 of Draft: Strike out lines 31-32. • Line 23, a, Page 2 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: siding, and color that is appropriate to the architectural style. • Line 21, a, Page 2 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: expressed connectors/bracing, porches, balustrades, rectangular or • Lines 36-37, a, Page 2 of Draft: No changes made • Lines 42-45, ii, Page 2 of Draft: Strike out lines 42-45. • Lines 18-19, iv, Page 3 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: vergeboards, bargeboards, clapboard, board/batten siding, stucco, or brick. • Line 30, vii, Page 3 of Draft: Rewrite it to say: Freestanding outdoor lighting fixtures to follow architectural code requirements; or leave that section out. 9 18 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 A discussion ensued regarding deviations of churches and the following points were made: Mr. Henderlong: 5.05.08 deviations — they have been coming through as deviations from the county manager. Mr. Johnson: Staff does not have the authority to exclude churches if they are a conditional use, but the subcommittee can make that a recommendation. Mr. Johnson: Do not confuse this with PUD deviations. Action item: Staff will brim back the discussion of deviations and churches to the subcommittee at its next meeting Mr. Johnson said he wanted to ensure the subcommittee agreed that if there is a conflict between this and the greater portion of 5.05.08, this would supersede that portion in this region. Do you agree or disagree? Mr. Brooker said he believes yes because we need to do an analysis of internal consistency throughout 5.05.08 because there are all sorts of exclusions upfront. We're looking at all the consequences. Mr. Brooker stated to Mr. Johnson's question above: I think the answer is yes to your question. These would supersede in the event of any conflict, and hopefully, the subcommittee will analyze that before our next meeting. Mr. Henderlong outlined the applicability for deviations in 5.05.08: • The following types of buildings and uses qualify for administrative deviation from 5.05.08 development standards. • An assembly building, such as a church. • Educational. • Institutional. • Mixed -use buildings, such as commercial, residential, office. • Any other commercial building or use that is not listed under LDC Section 5.05.08(e), design standards for specific building types of this section. Due to its function, it has specific requirements making LDC 5.05.08 standards unfeasible. • Buildings located in a property with a commercial zoning designation when submitted for an SDP review, except for the following: 1) it has a threshold of 10,000 square feet or more on the ground floor; 2) multifamily multi -story building with the total gross building area of 20,000 square feet or more; 3) project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more. Individual buildings within a project site that have been previously granted deviations where additional development causes an aggregation of the building area, 20,000 square feet or greater, must bring existing buildings up to the requirement of the code. 10 19 Rev. June 3, 2024 May 21, 2024 Mr. Johnson said we received a lot of feedback. Thank you for indulging us. It was worthwhile and we're going to go back to the drawing board and take into consideration your suggestions. Action Item: Mr. McLean will provide staff with additional input in writing rezardin architectural styles that blend with this. 5. Public Speakers (None) 6. Upcoming DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting Dates Tuesday, July 16, 2024 Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7. Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 5:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Clay Brooke&Kthairman These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/chairman on �, zD2� , (check one) as presented k , or as amended 11 24 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Pp"--o Building Plan Review Statistics All Permits Applied by Month 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M IRt V V le V V V V V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a > 0 C.0 L L >, C 0 a w i V C.0 L L >, C tm a (D V O N M d R a M ' 3 d V O O M d M a M 5 ' 7 N to O Z❑-3 u_ 2 Q 2 Q N O Z❑-) u_ 2 Q M n Q U) Roof, 27, Pool, 11 Bldg Add/Alt, Well Permit ME Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied Phimhinn 970 Electrical, 307 ROW Commercial, 82 ure, 169 Shutters/Doors/Windows, 541 1 Bldg New 1&2 Res, 127 DW Residential, 76 22 Building Plan Review Statistics Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 N N N N N N N N N L L +1&2 Family Monthly Multi -family & Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 N N M M M M I- 1�1_ qt N N N N N N N N N Q U C Q U C Q f Multi -family Commercial N N N N CO CO CO CO M M M M M CO CO CO V V V V V V It V V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n > U C > C a at > U C $ > C = rn n (n Z o � LL Q Q U) o Z 0 Ll 2 Q g Q U) --$---1 &2 Family f Multi -family Commercial 23 Building Plan Review Statistics 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N sZ � > v C � i L �, C is sZ "� U n o z° o� LL2 a 2� a Un o z° o n LL2 a 2� a Un 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 Dec- 23 Jan- 24 Feb- 24 Mar- 24 Apr- 24 May- 24 Jun- 24 Jul- 24 Aug- 24 Sep- 24 ■ Commercial 4 6 8 2 8 1 6 6 6 3 4 7 9 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 8 4 6 6 4 ■ Multi -family 3 10 29 7 3 1 3 22 3 1 7 4 15 3 4 5 3 11 3 4 4 2 4 1 1 0 1&2 Family 234 279 212 219 195 211 246 168 243 221 234 258 240 245 165 183 185 252 174 191 267 188 197 163 132 30 25 20 15 10 5 New Multi -family Building Permits Issued by Month N N M M M M M M q�r qt N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q > Ca) 0 CO N CU � Q > C M Cz Q 67 z� 2 2 m Z� 2 c� m 2 L7 Z 2 (n New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 IJ LI I_ [ 1 11 L-I I LI"]-IJLJ LJ 1 ------------ N N CY) CO cM M CO M It 'It 'IT �t 'It N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q W > Z C >, g Q W > Z C >, CL 67 Building Inspections Statistics Building Inspections 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 • 10,000 5,000 0 N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M � It Nt ' 't N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q U > U C Q >, C Q U > U C � Q >, C 6) Q fn 0 z o IL Q g Q U) o z 0� L- 2 Q g�� Q (n Types of Building Inspections Gas, 607 Well, 115 ROW, 305 25 Building Inspections Statistics 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Milestones Received by Month ©M eo L L W Q 3 0) O O Q 2 U O_ 0 N Cn L -0 L � � 7 � L •L ii Qi 7 (0 Q 3 L %� N N > O U - N O LL Q Q N Z 0 Cn 2023 2024 Milestone Inspection Status Delinquent, 3 Ph2 Required, 2 Ph3 Required, 2 Land Development Services Statistics 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M V I* Iq Iq qe q q* qe N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q }' > U C .0 L L. >% C Q rr > U c M L L �+ C Im Q. 0 0 Z o" LL 2N 0 Z o" Li � Q��� Q (n Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within 197 the Last 6 Months 176 Zoning Verification Vegetation Removal Letter Permit 133 Short -Term Vacation Rental Registration 125 Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change 98 Special Event Permit 27 Land Development Services Statistics 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 120 100 80 60 40 20 Pre -application Meetings by Month N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M d' le Iq le le le le N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q. — > U C .0 i L >, C 0 Q— > U C -0 L L i, C a1 Q N 0 z o-) li 2 Q 2 n Q to 0 z o-) li 2 Q 2 Q� Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M Iq It le d' It le I* N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 Z o n LL Q 2 n Q v) 0 Z o n LL Q n Q c°n' Temporary Use Commercial Certificates 28 Land Development Services Statistics c 6 0 > 5 �a 3 4 0 L 3 E 0 z 2 35 30 W 25 a 4- 0 20 L = 15 z 10 5 0 Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month 4 4 3 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 z LL Q n Q 0 0 z a n Li CO Q 2 n� Q ui Plat Pages Recorded per Month 35 27 33 24 21 19 14 13 11 11 12 9 9 9 5 4 0 0 = i 0 0 . 0 0 0 N N N N M M M M M (n M M M M M M It qI V'IT Iq 'IT Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N at > 0 c.0 L L >, c Q t > L) c.0 L L A c � a in 0 z o n Li 2 Q f° 0' 0 n 0 z o n Li 2 QM 3 3) Yearly Totals Subdivisions 2020 — 25 2021— 33 2022 — 29 2023 — 21 2024 YTD — 12 Yearly Totals Lots 11 2021— 1353 2022 — 3100 2023 — 1212 2024 YTD — 847 Yearly Totals Pages 2020 — 152 2021— 188 2022 — 175 2023 — 100 2024 YTD — 109 29 Land Development Services Statistics Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month 14 12 10 8 6 2 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N CV N Q t+ i U C .0 L L i1 C Q w i U C .0 L i1 M Q in 0 z 0 n LL Q a� 0 z 0 n LL Q �° ' n 30 25 20 15 10 5 Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M Iq Iq Iq 1111 1* qI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q. — > U c.0 L L i, C. a) Q '-' > U C -0 L i i, C 01 Q. Ch 0 z 0 -) Li 2 Q 2 3 cn 0 z a n Li 2 Q 2' m a Land Development Services Statistics 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N > U C L L i, C al Q "r > ci C Im Q. 0 z U- Q Q 0 z li 2 Q 2 Q to Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M I Iq le Iq le 10 Iq le N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a > 0 C M Q "� > u C M L L �, C a1 a m 0 z 0 n LL Q m 0" z 0 n�� Q �° �� � m 31 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Reviews for Land Development Services Number of Land Development Reviews N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M I-* '* 1* V I Iq V le Iq N CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a- > U C.0 C a- > U C.0 C tm Q 0 O z 0� LL Q z m 0p z 0 n�� Percent Ontime for the Month Late, 1.5% Top 5 Land Development Reviews- Sept. 2024 450 430 400 350 300 250 200 150 133 100 50 0 ti° a aat P 122 75 72 I I 10 32 Land Development Services Statistics Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M I* V V V V V I* V R* N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 V O 0 O 0 M Q M N V O 0 w d M = M 3 7 0 cn O z o n LL M Q g Q cn 0 z o-) LL 2 Q 2 Q cn ■ Construction Estimate Utility Estimate Site & Utility Inspections 70 60 50 ■ c E 40 0 I 30 c 0 �5 20 a� Q 10 0 N N N N C) M M M M M M M M M M M V IT 11 V 1* q* '4 V 'cr N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q �'+ > U C M i i i, = 01 0. r > t� C .0 L L >, C 0) Q co 0 z 0 n Li 2 Q ca 3' m 0 z o n Li 2 Q M �' 3 ) ■ Final Subdivision Inspection ■ Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Tie In Inspection 33 Fire Review Statistics 10 9 8 7 H 6 rTo 5 0 4 3 2 1 0 Building Fire Review Average Number of Days N N N N r» m m rn rn m m m m m m rn N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U O a! v ro Q ro � O a) O a) a) (A 0z o LL g a a V) O z o L g ItT Izi- R* 1:T R* 1:3- N N N N N N L >1 C W Q CL Q Q Ln Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 North Collier 525 466 449 391 444 450 583 490 692 650 627 636 525 616 543 411 459 406 508 581 684 634 647 646 733 Collier County (Greater Naples) 350 422 317 374 347 448 539 408 500 447 391 428 397 442 395 403 382 429 425 552 517 511 482 407 464 Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days 10 9 8 7 6 N m 5 c 4 3 2 1 0 N N N rV r» m m m m m M m m M rn rn q� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a > aJ U O U C a1 co -0 L L T c W a > U C -0 i a1 cc Q- to 7 7 a1 U O a1 co aJ co fl_ ru c 7 on a 7 aJ V) O z o, U- g a Q U, o z o, � g Q 2, Q VI Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 ■ North Collier 29 55 27 41 42 28 46 25 47 56 54 50 37 52 48 57 60 57 37 44 40 43 51 51 62 Collier County(Greater Naples) 41 57 46 62 56 68 70 63 82 91 43 43 60 62 50 39 56 53 60 75 61 55 68 67 64 Collier County September 2024 Code Enforcement .�to,�thcy Stattsctcs 9/2024 Growth Management Community Development Department 135 Code Enforcement Reports Cases Opened Per Month 800 700 600 500 400 • 300 • 200 100 0 cn N O N Z N O N N N N Q N N 7 N N Q N Code Inspections Per Month 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 v)N UN ZN oN �N LN EN CL QN EN nN �N QN 0 Code Enforcement Reports 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Origin of Case 2023 77 3335 ■ Code Investigator initiated cases by FY Complaint initiated Cases by FY 2024 CRA Case Opened Monthly ■ Monthly Case Opened ■ Total Cases Opened Bayshore Immokalee Code Enforcement Reports August 22, 2024 — September 21, 2024 Highlights • Cases opened: • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: • Property inspections: • Lien searches requested: Top 15 Code Cases by Category Right of Way, 41 Signs, 8 Parking Enforcement, 8 Occupational Licensing, 5 Site Development, Property 147 Maintenance, 75 Nuisance Abatement, 99 a Land Use , 54 Noise, 8 Vehicles, 35 553 271 2214 544 Vegetation Requirements, 30 Protected Species, 1 Commercial, 3 Animals, 9 Accessory Use,16 Response Time - Letters of Availability 80 70 60 50 40 c m 30 20 10 20 15 10 Cr aU w .5 .0 Mar-24 Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 � Requests Completed � Minimum Average � Maximum +Requests Received 39 Response Time - FDEP Permits 40 35 30 25 15 10 5 Mar-24 Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Requests Completed Initial Review Time � Revision Review Time � Director Approval Time Requests Received - 30 - 25 - 20 U) to - 15 Cr v m - 10 - 5 mug 40 Attendance Roster — Date: October 2, 2024 Development Services Advisory Committee **Must have (8) members for a quorum** Committee Members James Boughton: Norman Gentry: ��cw5ed Clay Brooker: Mark McLean: Jeffrey Curl: Chris Mi ell: v 1 Laura Spurgeon DeJohn: Robert Mulhere: David Dunnavant: Jeremy Sterk: J sh: Ma o Valle: 7hn;,," E i r: William Varian: Blair � ey: Hannah Roberts: J Attendance Roster — Date: October 2, 2024 Development Services Advisory Committee Staff Members James French Department Head, GMCDD Thomas landirmarino Director, Code Enforcement Jay Ahmad or designee Director, Transportation Engineering Matt McLean or designee Director, Public Utilities Michael Stark Director, Operation & Regulatory Support Jaime Cook Director, Development Review Michael Bosi Director, Planning & Zoning Christopher Mason Director, Community Planning & Resiliency Cormac Giblin Director, Housing Policy and Economic Development Diane Lynch, Management Analyst II Staff Liaison, Operations & Regulatory Management Rey Torres Fuentes, Operations Support Specialist I Staff Liaison, Operations & Regulatory Management Other County Staff Presenting NOT listed above. Name Signature Attendance Roster — Date: October 2, 2024 Development Services Advisory Committee Public Sign -in Sheet Please Print NAME REPRESENTING PHONE NO. 0�Cif 1),4AlZ JVC � i,�- Certificate of Use What Lessees Need to Know Before Occupying a New Commercial Space Obta in in a bueirtess tax reaeip~ requires rrli ng an application- at our Bus ineaa Tax Receipt Of{rce. For all corm--ercial busineases located in unincorporated Collier County, you will rL.eed to obaain Zoning Certificate approva I from the Buein. ess Cemer Tor. ing Front Desk. Both offices are located at 28fl0 N- Horseshoe Drnre. A fire inspection from your local fire departmen+ district, ard. an approved certificate of use permit from the Building Uivis ion wi II al so be-equi€ec. Will there be any change made to the leased space Step 7- Contact the Bueinese Cerrwr Zoning From desk • CompletetheZoflingCerlifieateApplication • Review the PiU appl ication requirements document Step 2- Gather the faibwing documents: • Dimensional ffcorglan of the unit or buiIdirrg (if -nu l -floor buildincy only unit floor required) showing layout and doors- Does not need to be signedfsealed drawings but nea; and legible- See E-xsmpie. • Fire Certificate from your local fire district (wife be required )ater] • Jasued Zoning certificate for approved use - Step 3- determine if ANY Aerations are required for intended use. Examples: Hair salons require sinks and mechanical ventilation; restaurarrts require hoodle and grease traps. Is new plumbing being installed? Is new lighting being installed? • Dc eme-gency lights and exit aigne operate or need repair}replacemerrt? Are arty wal Is being added, repaired, or moved? • Are new new offices being made? • Is new equipment being -installed? Step 4- If YES to any of the items above, Proceed to the GMCD Public Portal to apply fora Alteration permit. Step 5. ff HO to all of the above, proceed to Certificate of Use to b below For further information. Need additional Information pertinerrt to tenant occupancy of an unahered space Certificate of 11-M What Lessees Need to Know Before They Occupy a New Commercial Space Will there be any changes made to E the leased space? _1 Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department 361811 F*",� [AIC] F EXIT 91 SIGN O O ;0' 1 ( RESTROOM RESTROOM 41711 5' 0" _ OFFICE '` o r � N � i T i E 12' 3" � � K w J wo � w 00 � J Q O H z z O m C� w z 2x2 GRID CL @ 9' SHOWROOM SUPPLIES 0 AIH I AM I I N I EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4'=1' 35' 8" 0 MAIN OFFICE EXIT SIGN EN- FE=Fire Extinguisher Exit Sign 9' 199 EXTERIOR W LL CONC. BLOC cAll —A SIGN 1 F 21611 6' 4" t� )YEE in ENETE r 12' 10" ADMIN OFFICE PROJECT MGR OFFICE EXIT SIGN EXTERIOR WALL CONC. BLOCK FRONT OF BUILDINGMEST U 0 m U z O U J J O w w Collier County GMCD Public Portal APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS - Certificate of Use PRCU Commercial Tenant Space Information Required for Online Portal Application • Description of Business • Building Use • Prepared to Pay Application Fee Submittal Requirements The submittal items below must have documents submitted for review Zoning Certificate —Approved for Use in Building • Site Planning Document: A site planlplot plan depicting building location and parking layout. May be hand drawn • Construction Plans: Floorplans reflecting the layout and exits — labeling all rooms/areas. May be hand drawn. • Additional Submittal Requirements Additional submittal items and documents may be required based on information provided and scope of work. • Fire Certificate Procedure: Apply for Zoning Use Certificate. • After Zoning acceptance — Apply for PRCU. Planning and Building departments will review for acceptance. • One inspection will be scheduled for confirmation. • Upon acceptance by Planning, Building & Inspections, a Certificate of Use will be issued. • Take Fire Certificate, Zoning approval. Certificate of Use to Business Tax Office for License. • If Application is denied. then a building permit will be required. See PRCS weblink for additional instructions. PRCU Certificate of Use (003).docx 10/2/2024 Page 1 of 1 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104.239-252-2400 • 1%%,-x.colliercount)fl,go%1