Loading...
DSAC Agenda 05/07/2025• .,Co ierCount Growth Management Community Development Department Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, May 07, 2025 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development Department Conference Room 609/610 Please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 if you have any questions or wish to meet with staff. Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 07, 2025 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-LDC: 03.18.2025 b. DSAC: 04.02.2025 4. Public Speakers (Page: 04) (Page: 16) For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov Collier County GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi] b. Community Planning & Resiliency Division — [Christopher Mason] c. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division — [Cormac Giblin] d. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook] e. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Michael Stark] f. Building Review & Permitting Division — [John McCormick] g. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Captain] h. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz or designee] i. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas landimarino] j. Public Utilities Department — [Matt McLean or designee] k. Transportation Management Services Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee] 6. New Business a. Impact Fees— [Corporate Financial & Management Services] 7. Old Business 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: June 04, 2025 — 3:00 PM August 06, 2025 — 3:00 PM September 03, 2025 — 3:00 PM For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov REVISED MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida March 18, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:05 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the North Collier Regional Park, Administration Building, Exhibit Hall, 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, FL 34109 with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Jeff Curl Mark McLean Robert Mulhere The following County Staff were in attendance: Eric Johnson, Manager — Planning, GMCD Richard Henderlong, Planner III, GMCD Angela Galiano, Planner II, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst, GMCD Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board, you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER —CHAIRMAN The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by the Chairman, Clay Brooker, of the Development Service Advisory Committee — Land Development Review Subcommittee, Tuesday, 18th March 2025 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Brooker asked if there were any changes to the agenda — none. Motion to Approve by Jeffrey Curl Seconded by Mark McLean Motion Approved Unanimously 3. OLD BUSINESS Chairman, Clay Brooker, advised there was no old business to discuss. 4. NEW BUSINESS Chairman, Clay Brooker, states that the first order of business is the Floating Solar Facilities. Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, advised that Richard Henderlong, Planner III, had a presentation and slide on this agenda item. a. PL20250000235 — Floating Solar Facilities (F.S. 163:32051) [Richard Henderlong, Planner III] Richard Henderlong • This particular amendment is a state mandated amendment that was set forth by the legislature in 2023. Mr. Henderlong presented a slide presentation that set forth what is required under the statute, including a definition for "floating solar facility. • Have to require them to be a "permitted use" in an appropriate land use category and to amend land development regulations. • Legislature determined that floating solar facilities are an appropriate use of land and water, have a cooling effect on solar panels — 15% to 20% more efficient resulting in the boost of power production, to help decrease water loss to evaporation and formation of harmful algae blooms. • Statute authorizes that buffer and landscape requirements may not exceed the requirements of construction of other solar facilities permitted in agricultural land use categories and zoning districts. Staff has identified them as a permitted use and accessory in certain zoning districts. • The statute requires that the location has to be in wastewater treatment ponds specifically, abandoned lime rock mining areas, storm water treatment ponds, reclaimed water ponds, or other water storage reservoirs. 2 • Key components of the floating solar facility were mentioned, shown in the power point presentation, the anchoring system, central converter, transformer, and how they operate and connect to the electric grid system for broader distribution • Next the beneficial aspects of floating solar facilities panels were identified: —cleaner energy, space utilization (.10 to 2 acres of surface area and take up 5 to 10 acres of land); mitigate overheating issues associated with land -based systems; reduces water surface evaporation by up to 50%; increase water storage; panels can be bifurcated (both sides used); panel scalability is based upon energy demands which provides flexibility and can be planned ahead; reduces land cost; has a lesser impact on natural habitats and ecosystems; and they don't require extensive land clearing, habitat destruction or loss of agricultural products. • An add -on document was presented that shows where floating solar facilities are going to be allowed in zoning districts. To arrive at what districts they should be permitted, a Chart was presented that identifies other counties reviewed by staff (ex. Miami -Dade). For the most part, everybody's put them in the rural agriculture and public use districts. City of Naples codified them for land designated as public, semi-public, and private recreation and open space, and public and semi -private institutional areas. Some counties allow these facilities by conditional use rather than by right. As an accessory use, they would be compatible in some zoning districts. • The following standards were identified and based upon Miami Dade county: 1) Located within the same lot or parcel and not over tidal waters, bay bottom land, canal -related rights -of -way, easements, aquifers, aquatic preserves, environmentally protected lands, conservation zoning districts, or potable water well fields. 2) Assure that the installation would not interfere with and have minimal impact on the stormwater management infrastructure and natural resources, water quality, and adjacent budding properties. 3) That the cable, power, and communication lines that run from the bank, the land bank, the land itself be interconnected with the buildings and transformer and any other equipment, that they be buried underground, except when brought into the water or being conduit. Some systems show the conduit above if not beneath the panels. It is dependent on the manufacturer's warranty 4) Staff found the importance of having a deployment and installation plan. Because panels can be hazardous materials they have to be properly handled, it's important to identify site preparation, delivery of floats, reassembling, where they are being deployed, and mooring and anchoring systems. Some are anchored by concrete piles in deeper waters, such as 40 to 45 feet depth, in shallower waters and stormwater retention at 8 feet by wire cables. • Submit a decommission plan: To determine the facility's lifespan which is usually 20 to 25 years and dependent upon the manufacturer, make sure they are fully removed at the end of lifespan, and everything is restored to its original purpose and use for the underlying zoning district. An extension can be granted. Some codes require every 5 years a maintenance inspection. Most O&M plans require a yearly inspection by the applicant or owner. To remove the panels, a DEP permit is required as part of the decommissioning plan if they are treated as hazardous waste. • Address minimization of glaring panels: Shows photos of the impact of glaring at Orlando's Utilities - Regional Water and Sewer treatment plant. 3 • Prevent unauthorized access: Security and safety fence, not less than 6 feet, is required. He discussed how to protect animal habitat for panthers, raccoons and smaller animals when present. Staff suggested they mirror the standard set forth by Swaunnee County. • Make sure the water is not energized and ensure that panels are properly anchored, and the use of the water itself doesn't conflict with floating solar facilities. For example, a homeowner's association recreational use of the water and it doesn't conflict with its intended use -kayaking, and recreational boating. So that would be a prohibition. • As a result of meeting with Lisa Blacklidge, she is recommending that Item 5.03.08A 5 & 8 be replaced in the text with this new language. So, if there's no changes or adjustments to be made when you make your motion, we ask that it be adopted as a condition to modifying Item 5.03.08A 5 & 8 on page 12. • Feasibility study: As a result of direct savings of $400,000 a year at the Orlando Utilities facilities, Collier County Water and Sewer district is undertaking a cost feasibility study to do the same at their water and sewer facility off Goodlette Road. Mark McLean • Discussion on side -by -side lots: Arthrex may have a building on one lot and their lake is on another lot. Would that create an accessory structure issue for them if they're trying to do this on a piece of property that doesn't have a primary structure on the lot? Yes, it would be identified as such on a SDP. Discussion on combining the two lots. They would call it an accessory structure. Concern was mentioned if it was sitting on a parcel, and the lake was parceled out on its own. Mr. Henderlong agreed to look further into this and that the language reads located on "the lot or parcel". Mr. Mulhere stated — he didn't think it is an issue, since most lakes are not subdivided and there is a 20' maintenance easement around a lake. • Suggested change: Mr. Mulhere stated it should say, instead of "located not", but "not located" in or over. • Discussion on fencing requirement: Mr. Mulhere believes it is not a good idea to absolutely require fencing. Henderlong advised fencing is around the perimeter of the property for security and not required sometimes by counties. Sole purpose is to prevent tampering and unauthorized access to the parcel. Agreed that county's utility sites are mostly fenced in. Need to consider that a lot of lakes are an aesthetic component which will be lost if fences are installed. Discussion on what is fenced — the county stormwater ponds are no longer fenced, public schools are fenced, and there is potential liability of having a lake on private property that is born by the property owner or HOA. Concern t for this technology could potentially be reduced by fencing and its cost. Utility sites are typically fenced to prevent access and tampering of the equipment. Staff considered a fence be located between the lake and access point to the panels. Mr. McLean and Mr. Curl have an issue with fencing and needs further thought. Mr. Curl said the Florida Building Code will dictate protection and warning signs for an electrical component and we don't need to legislate fences. Mr. McLean agrees equipment needs to be protected when storing power in a battery system. Mr. Henderlong mentioned Duke Power' massive Bartow C! system for 1,200 acres pond. Mr. Mulhere suggested leaving it up to the property owner. Mr. Curl stated the county's facilities are already fenced — so it is a non -issue. Mr. Mulhere stated that fencing will have unintended consequences in smaller residential developments but not in larger residential developments where they realize they can save $20,000 to $80,000. a year. In the motion, just say you want to strike out number 8. • Shading/Compromised Waters: Mr. Curl noted the "Gulf of Mexico" should read "Gulf of America". He raised concerns about not interfering with littoral plantings, compromised waters that are nutrient deficient due to shading aquatic vegetation at the bottom of the lake and suggested considering there be an environmental study or an EIS. The burden will be on staff who will yield to DEP's water quality testing, look at flora and fauna, like an impact study on the nutrient load. May require soil samples at the lake bottom. Because of possible panel destruction due to hail impact and someone shooting a panel, Mr. Curl suggested there be some language regarding emergency repair strategy, — A concern is with heavy metal contamination in the water Mr. Curl suggested panel removal within a 24-hour deadline. He noted, in Bartow or Orlando, during Hurricane Milton, a tornado had touched down destroying a solar farm wiping out tons of panels with glass everywhere. Because heavy metals leach into the water supply floating panels are more sensitive and there should be some additional language in the deployment aspect plan. Mr. Henderlong suggested it be addressed in the administrative code. • Fence size: Mr. Curl discussed the fence opening size of 6 and 4 inches at the bottom of a fence; however, Mr. Johnson, suggested removal of number 8. • Mr. Brooker asked if it is permitted use by right in the agricultural district and it is not subject to 5.03.08? Mr. Henderlong said it is permitted as a right or accessory use and it's going to be subject to the requirements of 5.03.08. However, Mr. Brooker stated it does not state that and asked language be added to state agricultural zoning districts are allowed as a permitted use by right and subject to 5.03.08. • Restrictions on other zoning and existing PUDs: Mr. Brooker mentioned the statue only requires them as a permitted use in agricultural zoning districts and not in other zoning districts as an accessory use and it seems we are going beyond it? Mr. Henderlong noted it's also an appropriate land use category and Miami Dade County went beyond the statue by requiring them as a conditional use in residential and Estates zoning. Mr. Mulhere question why we aren't going beyond the mandate since it is minimally required in agriculture. Mr. Brooker raised for consideration why not include certain residential zoning districts, PUDs or by conditional use in a residential district. Mr. Johnson responded that we were not directed by the Board other than to comply with state statue. Staff by adding it to commercial districts will have to be explain to the Commission why add them to other zoning districts. Mr. Henderlong suggested, going forward, the subcommittee make a recommendation. • With respect to 5.03.08: Mr. Brooker recommended adding a section B to say the applicant has the discretion to apply for conditional use to seek waivers to the above criteria. or applicant may seek a waiver of any of the above requirements through the 9 conditional use process reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. It was agreed staff will work on the specific wording with the County Attorney's office on a procedure that would be appropriate • Mitigation of glare: Mr. Curl asked how glare on a pond should be addressed and buffered when traveling along a roadway such as Goodlette Road and the County's Water and Sewer Facility. Mr. Henderlong said it can be specified that landscaping be used as a way to mitigate the glare. There was a discussion on whether public facilities are exempt from landscaping. It is possible new technology can reduce glare. Reading from section 5.05.12, Specific Standards for Public Utility Ancillary Systems in Collier County, Subparagraph B, under setbacks. subparagraph G has its own freestanding paragraph. It states landscaping or buffer shall conform to the requirements of section 4.06.05 B.4. which states for public utility and facility system landscaping requirements: screening and buffering are to be limited to the area surrounding the public utility and ancillary system. Further, ancillary systems that are physically located on a water or wastewater treatment property are not required to be individually fenced and landscaped. Clay Brooker, Chairman Motion • Recommend approval subject to the following: The agriculture district as a permitted right or permitted use should state subject to 5.03.08. Consider adding additional residential zoning districts for approval through the conditional use process. And I'll defer to staff s judgment on which, if any. And specifically, with 5.03.08, we strike number 8 about fencing. We add to number 6 some language that deals with operation, maintenance, and emergencies repair. And then we create a new subsection capital B, that deals with seeking waivers or appropriate terminology through the conditional use process by the HEX. • And replacing, number 5, in section 5.03.08, with the new text. • Discussion on adding text to the motion: There was a discussion regarding text on no environmental impacts and studies. Staff will look at including text in item number four after the after -emergency maintenance (operational or emergency repair). Motion by Clay Brooker Seconded by Mark McLean Motion Approved Unanimously b. PL20250000524-Publication of Legal Advertisements for Neighborhood Information Meetings [Angela Galiano, Planner II] Angela Galiano • Angela Galiano, Planner II, LDC team, brought forward the "Publication of Legal Advertisement for Neighborhood Information Meetings" amendment for PL2025000524. It amends section 10.03.05 of the LDC to allow applicants of land use petitions which require Neighborhood Information Meetings the option of advertising the NIM on the 2 official website of Collier County instead of a newspaper or any other qualifying publication. She gave some background. Florida has required legal notices and advertisements to be printed in newspapers and this requirement was supported by the Florida Constitution which mandates that meetings of public bodies be open to the public and properly noticed. In 2012 there were changes to the legal requirements, by Florida law section 50.0211 of the Florida Statute, requiring that legal notices be published on a newspaper's website along the printed version if the newspaper had one. In 2022 further amendments allowed legal notices to be published on publicly accessible county websites instead of printed in the newspapers. This was meant to reduce the financial burden to local governments and taxpayers. The cost difference of publishing an ordinance in the Naples Daily News is about $1,008. It's a lot more expensive than publishing on the County clerk's website which is $50. In 2023, the board amended the code of laws and ordinances to allow the publication of legal advertisements and public notices on publicly accessible websites. On January 10, 2023, the board designated the Clerk of Circuit Court's public notice website as the official website for publications in Collier County. So GMCD's approach was in response to the cost differences. Staff began advertising ordinances on the new county clerk's website instead of the newspaper to save money. In neighborhood information meetings, Collier County requires petitioners to hold NIMs before zoning applications which must be publicly noticed. However, given the county's practice of publishing legal notices on its website, it has been proposed to extend that option for petitioners to publish NIM advertisements on the County's website rather than the newspaper which would offer the petitioners a potential cost savings and convenience. So, if the board chooses to allow petitioners to advertise NIMs on the County website, this would require an amendment to the LDC and changes to the administrative code. In summary, this LDC discusses Florida's evolving legal notice requirements, highlighting efforts to reduce advertising costs through the use of publicly accessible websites, proposing similar options for NIM meetings here in Collier Staff sought a recommendation for approval or approval with conditions to move forward. Discussion on approval: Mr. Mulhere has extensive experience with the requirement in estimating the cost for clients. He noted that the County does not collect the fee until public hearings are over but applauds the change. He mentioned that on page 7, item D, it says, data on which the advertisement for public notice was first published on the website and that it probably should read, data on which the advertisement or public notice was first published in the newspaper or on the website. Mr. Brooker asked what the difference is in 10.03.05 A.2, publication of legal advertisement prior to a NIM and legal advertisement in 10.03.05 C. Mr. Johnson said 10.03.05 A.2 applies to ordinances other than just NIMs. Mr. McClean said C is the primary legal advertisement for all advertising. Mr. Brooker questioned whether the reference to F.S. citation 50.3011 versus 50.011 are correct citations. Ms. Galiano stated F.S.125.66 applies to ordinances; emergency ordinances; rezoning or change of land use ordinances or resolutions. Mr. Brooker and Mulhere said it would be good enough to generally refer to 50.011. It was decided to circle back with Heidi on the proper citation. II Motion made by Mr. Mulhere to approve subject to minor correction on D, page 7, the administrative code and checking the proper citing of the Florida Statute. Seconded by Mr. Curl Motion Approved Unanimously c. PL20250000180-Procedural Inconsistencies, Legal Advertisements, and Land Use Review Corrections [Richard Henderlong, Planner III] Richard Henderlong • This is a follow-up from December 12, 2023, planning commission's directive that we would bring back a second group of amendments before the commission and before we can take them back to the commission, they have to be brought back before DSAC and the subcommittee. This is an outcrop of numerous meetings that have gone on between staff, the Hearing Examiner, and initially Ned. It was narrowed down to consultation with the county attorney, that who would be the advisory boards and their relationships for the petitions of land uses and the reviewing body. We need to fix that because there's a lot of gray areas that were inconsistent. It's trying to accomplish and to resolve these contradictory statements with the various advisory board agencies and public hearing for the different land use petitions. • Number one, we did come up with a definition for a Comparable Use Determination and that it should be applicable to, which is what the planning commission directed us to do, to a specific property when a conditional use determination is being sought to be narrowed down to more than that applicable property, not county -wide throughout all re -zoning districts. • The next bullet is predicated almost word verbatim from the Hearing Examiner's Ordinance 2020-08 that affirms that the Hearing Examiner, that the board can remand any advertised public hearing that involves by majority vote, a development order on a legal or technical land use issue during the hearing. They can remand it, which is verbatim from Ordinance 2020-08. • The next bullet updates electronic data and digital submission requirements for SDPs, SIPs, construction plans and amendments thereof. That's Development Review's text and we'll go over it, if you have any questions. • The next slide is to establish a submittal request. When a submittal request for a new PUD, there's an acknowledgement that it would repeal the previous PUD, and that would be determined to be a substantial deviation. And that was Ray's input, the County attorney's input, so it's what we're procedurally doing but never really spelled out in the process. • The next bullet is to change various authority titles. Usually, it's like planning and zoning department or planning and zoning manager or whatever. Staff internally met including the managers, to change it rather than leave it. There are strikethroughs that allow the County Manager's office to decide. T • The next bullet is following the legal advertisement requirements that are published on the Clerk's site, providing that ability for all the land use petitions. And we also carry that forward in the administrative code. We're also correcting any outdated graphic depiction of review procedures for applications subject to Type 3 reviews. That's a chart in the book and has never been touched for eons. Staff went through and updated the Type 3 application chart. And then we have inspected the administrative y code chapters and subsections that are corrected accordingly. • An overview of a list of public hearing requirements by petition types was reviewed of the changes. For the various petition types, the red color, is the current text being stricken. The blue color is the new add-ons or recommendation as to how it's to be achieved. The green color on the left-hand side is in the Hearing Examiner's contract for how the Hearing Examiner holds hearings. If you don't see red or blue, there's no change in that section. Staff is recommending approval with any change or conditions they might have. • The specific LDC section petition type list shows the different respective agencies and board's first and second public hearings. Staff went over it several times to make sure it is tracking and properly corroborated with records. The best breakdown is in the narrative of what was happening by the different respective agencies and the boards and then the Hearing Examiner. The goal is to take it to DSAC and then forward it on to the planning commission for their consideration. • Discussion on language involving minor text changes: Mr. Mulhere said there is an error on whether minor changes include text changes to a PUD and then required to go to the HEX. Review of what is considered a "substantial change", "insubstantial change by HEX" and "minor change by staff' were discussed. Text changes are being approved by staff and Mr. Bosi is allowing minor text changes to the PUD. It was mentioned that minor text changes are allowed on the application as worded on the PUD application. Mr. Mulhere suggested that what is on the PUD application should be added and not reviewed by the HEX. • Comments on LDC section 1.08.02, the definition of comparable use determination: Mr. Mulhere suggested a change ... to determine whether a use not specifically identified within a conventional zoning district overlay or PUD ordinance is comparable, compatible, and consistent with the list of identified permitted uses in a conventional zoning district overlay or PUD ordinance. Suggested that it might be repetitive and reword; the key thing here is not "the" use, it's" a" use and it's a use that's not specifically identified and not there. • Comments on LDC section E.LL, substantial change to a PUD: If you are submitting for a new PUD document that repeals a previously approved PUD document, that is a substantial change. If we're submitting a new PUD document, I'd call that substantial. It's going to go to a public hearing. On the section which states submittal repeals; there should be no "S" on repeals. Discussion on amendments to PUD and decision with County Attorney's office to determine if it is still a substantial change or if it can be handled with a strikethrough underline format or a full-blown new PUD and repeal. It's not generally 9 required to do that in every situation to repeal the PUD. There is a process with the County Attorney's office to determine which process they have to go through. The process would render L, unneeded. Mr. Mulhere said L. is confusing and not necessary. Staff will revisit the text and potentially revamp language. • Comments on the Administrative Code Chapter 5 E.2: Mr. Curl brought up at the last DSAC meeting that for an ICP, the submittal credential is a civil engineer. However, he has currently submitted an ICP dealing with landscaping, irrigation and lighting issues. The question was raised what action to take to get this change to include a landscape architect for the ICP submittal credential. Staff will consider add a landscape architect to Chapter 5 of the administrative code with respect to the ICP. Staff will review the draft minutes of the last DSAC discussion. It was suggested it be part of Application Contents section of the Chapter. • Mr. Brooker suggested rewording language on page 7 about the remand of development order: After discussion of wording, the following language was agreed upon: The Board of County Commissioners, by majority vote, may remand any advertised public hearing involving a development order to the hearing examiner for the sole purpose of opining on a legal or technical land use issue raised during the hearing. • Correction of Citation 50.0311 or 50.011 throughout LDC section 10.03.06: Mr. Brooker asked staff to check the citation throughout 10.03.06 for the correct citation. Further check the spelling error for the word "variances on page 31, Type 3 flowchart. Mr. Clay Brooker, Chairman gave a review of the main changes as follows: • First, check the minor text requiring HEX versus staff approval. That's a PUD minor text change. • Second, recommended changes to the definition of comparable use determination. • Third, check the necessity of 10.02.13 H.1.L--which is do we need to say anew PUD is a substantial change? Their consensus is it's not necessary. • Four, in the admin code, consider adding the landscape architect under application content for ICP. • Fifth, add back the word raised in the section talked about remand of a development order. • Six, check the citation of 50.0311 versus 50.011 throughout in LDC section 10.03.06 • Seven, correct the misspelling of "variances" Robert Mulhere made a motion to approve, subject to the conditions 1-7. Seconded by Jeffrey Curl Motion Approved Unanimously 10 5. PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 6. UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION a. Tuesday, June 17, 2025 b. Tuesday, September 16, 2025 c. Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Clay Brooker, advised of the upcoming subcommittee dates — some issues with September 16 and November 18; however, date of June 17, 2025, is a good date. Heather will send invites for that meeting via Outlook Invitations. 7. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m. 11 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Clay Brookere airman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on /1 /Air y Z 04--ol (check one) as submitted or as amended X 12 REVISED MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida April 02, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Growth Management Community Development Department, Room 609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley James Boughton Clay Brooker Jeffrey Curl Laura Spurgeon DeJohn John English Marco Espinar Norm Gentry Nicholas Kouloheras Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Hannah Roberts — AHAC (Non -voting) Jeremy Sterk — EXCUSED Mario Valle The following County staff were in attendance: James French, Department Head, GMCD Mike Bosi, Director — Zoning Division, GMCD Christopher Mason — Community Planning & Resiliency Division, GMCD Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review Division, GMCD Michael Stark, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Division, GMCD James French, Department Head, GMCD Designee for Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Captain Michael Cruz, Collier County Fire Review - ABSENT Captain Bryan Horbal, North Collier Fire Review Thomas Iandimarino, Director, Code Enforcement Division, GMCD Claudia Vargas, Project Manager I, Engineering & Project Management, PUD Mike Sawyer, Project Manager II, Transportation Planning — Transportation Engineering Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst, Staff Liaison, GMCD Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN Chairman Varian Development Service Advisory Committee, Wednesday, 2nd April 2025 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Varian motioned to approve Motion was seconded Motion passed unanimously 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. DSAC: March 5, 2025 Jeff Curl Under the John McCormick item, was it 200K for permits? Chairman Varian: We might want to ask him when he comes up, just to verify it. I don't remember off hand. Any other comments? Hearing none, I can recommend a motion. Blair Foley: or I'll move to approve the minutes subject to confirmation from Mr. McCormick on the 200K number. Chairman Varian motioned to approve Meeting Minutes with that confirmation. Motion made to approve and seconded Minutes approved unanimously 4. PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 5. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES a. Manager, Technical Systems Operations [Kevin Summers] Kevin Summers • The newly renovated 609/610 conference room features upgraded audio and video equipment, including four new cameras to enhance presentations and video conferencing. • The updated layout is designed to support brainstorming, teamwork, and open discussions. • There are two main meeting modes: one for formal presentations with microphones on the desk, and another for internal team brainstorming sessions. 2 • The room includes an AI assistant for minute tracking, action items, and other AI -driven assistance programs to aid in brainstorming and project initiation. • The team is still experimenting with the room's capabilities, and further features will be showcased as they are developed. b. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi, Director] Mike Bosi • Petition Scheduling: o Final window before the summer break (July —August blackout period) is approaching. o Petitions must go through the Planning Commission and Board before summer; otherwise, County Manager's Office must clear them. o Only simple, non -complicated petitions will be considered in September. • Land Use Petitions: o Steady flow of pre -application meetings continues. 0 13+ petitions scheduled for Board review in the next two months. o Urban area petitions typically face strong community opposition due to neighborhood concerns. • Staffing Updates: o James Sebo has returned (after 4 months of retirement) as Planner III; making an immediate impact. o Planning division is approaching full staffing. • Hiring Trends: o Slight uptick in job applicants noted. o Implications for the job market and broader economy are still unclear. • Economic Outlook: o Ongoing discussions about the next 6-12 months of economic activity. o Monitoring potential challenges closely. o Team remains focused on maintaining service quality and meeting community needs. c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division - [Christopher Mason, Director] Christopher Mason New Preliminary Maps: o Received preliminary FEMA flood insurance rate maps for interior parts of the county (-2 weeks ago). o Follows adoption of coastal maps (Feb 4, last year). o Covers central Naples, areas east and south of I-75, mainly riverine areas. o Maps remain preliminary for now. o Expecting FEMA to initiate open houses and community discussions soon. o Appeal processes will be outlined in upcoming FEMA communications. o —180 new map panels received (hard copy only); digital files still pending. 3 o No major changes noted in Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) yet. o Easier review/analysis will follow once digital versions are available. • Timeline & Process: o Maps originally received in 2019 but delayed by COVID; finally issued Feb 2024. o Full rollout still expected to take up to 2 years. o The process includes community meetings, appeal window, information dissemination, and finalization per FEMA guidelines. d. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division - [Cormac Giblin, Director] Cormac Giblin Affordable Housing: o Board approved 120 new affordable housing units this month. o Brings the FY total to 540 units approved this fiscal year. Job Creation: o 70 new high -wage jobs validated this fiscal year through economic development assistance agreements. • Legislative Monitoring: o Tracking a bill related to rental of accessory dwelling units —discussed by the Board the same day a related bill advanced. o Watching companion bills proposing updates to the Live Local Act. o Potential expansion to allow use in commercial/industrial areas of PUDs. o Ongoing monitoring of legislative progress. e. Development Review Division - [Jaime Cook, Director] Jaime Cook • Vegetation Removal Affidavit: o Notary block will be removed —legal confirmed it's not required. • Right -of -Way Permits: o Working with the CityView team to make the application process fully electronic, eliminating the need to complete both a paper form and a digital version. o Implementation is in progress; expected to be ready in a couple of months, pending testing and finalization. • BCC Schedule: o Due to BCC room renovations, the July 22 meeting has been canceled. f. Operations & Regulatory Management Division - [Michael Stark, Director] Michael Stark • Permitting Activity (March): o Received 4,655 permit applications. ■ 83 related to Hurricane Ian. 0 ■ 56 related to Hurricane Milton. • Average intake turnaround time: 1 day (includes verifying submittals and generating default reviews/inspections). • Customer Service & Outreach: 0 1,160 visitors to the Business Center. 0 193 visitors to satellite offices. o 6,243 phone calls answered (up from —5,700 in February). • Zoning Front Desk (March): o Resolved 843 survey conditions. o Processed 49 short-term vacation rentals. o Completed 38 right-of-way renewals. o Hosted 43 pre -application meetings — a high -activity month. • Department Goals: o Continue to streamline permit routing to support housing approvals, business creation, job growth, public safety, tourism, environmental protection, economic resilience, and alignment with GMP. • Staffing Snapshot: 358 total positions, with 55 in the hiring pipeline, including: 0 12 in building review/inspections (mainly structural) 0 16 in code enforcement (animal control officers, new park rangers) 0 3 in zoning (planners — Mr. Sebo's return has been a big help) 0 5 in development review 0 9 in operations and regulatory management 0 10 in Domestic Animal Services (including a newly selected manager and various specialist roles) • New Responsibilities: o Department now oversees Parks & Rec, DAS, and the Sports Park. o Evelyn Tremino's team has expanded significantly —now managing more responsibilities heading into budget season. • Recruitment: o Upcoming recruitment event still scheduled for April 2025. o Coordinating with CareerSource and the Collier Building Industry Association. • Funding & Resource Allocation: o Restricted fees are being used appropriately —no commingling of building department funds. o Staff from Parks & Rec and Domestic Animal Services have been reassigned appropriately to maintain department separation (e.g., Desk A vs. Desk B distinction noted). g. Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Department Head - [James French] James French • Occupancy & Completion Certificates (March): o Certificates of Occupancy (COs): just under 240 o Certificates of Completion (CCs): just under 2,900 5 ■ Includes nearly 1,000 completions that fell short of full CO. o Temporary COs (TCOs): 75 o Total completions/occupancies issued: nearly 4,200 Fire Plan Review Discussion (Greater Naples Meeting): o A Fire Commissioner raised the idea of the fire district taking over fire plan reviews, currently handled under an interlocal agreement with the County. o Current fire review turnaround: 1-3 days, with strong customer service from Tom Mastroberto's team. o Financial concern: ■ County currently covers 100% of the Fire Marshal's salary. ■ Districts pay nothing yet collect fees from fire plan reviews. ■ A fee study was recommended to evaluate cost alignment (especially for North Collier or Greater Naples). o Noted that independent fire districts cannot carry forward revenue like the County can, limiting their financial flexibility. o The County is not opposing the request; the decision lies with the fire district. ■ Regular meetings have been scheduled to improve communication and assess staffing needs. ■ There has been minimal prior communication from the district until this recent inquiry. • Licensing & Permitting Protocols: o Spoke at the Board of County Commissioners about license investigations: ■ Licenses are held at the state level (Florida), not by the County. ■ If a valid license is provided, the County must issue the permit. ■ County cannot investigate or invalidate state -issued licenses. o New internal feature allows staff to record design professionals' licenses in the commercial permit system. ■ Not a legal requirement, but now standard internal practice. ■ Enables search functionality by design professional. ■ Developed with input from CityView, Jason Badge, and Kevin Wes. ■ System was tested last weekend, which may have caused minor permit submission issues. o Purpose of the update is to enhance safeguards for property owners, businesses, and occupants. o Clarified that local government issues do not apply to state licensing, though legislation for local specialty contractors is pending. o Issued a statement related to design professionals, including one architect who misinterpreted it as a blanket rejection of signed/sealed permits —this is not the case. Chairman Varian asked if the County is processing 200,000 permits by hand. James French: Clarified that while permits are digital, each permit still needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure accuracy. The process is time-consuming, especially as contractors hold the permits, and architects or engineers might not be involved in every detail. Even though C.1 everything is digital, it's not as simple as just reviewing a minor permit —small projects like railings or steps can require a detailed review. Chairman Varian asked about CityView and commercial permits: James French: Confirmed that all permits involving design professionals are processed through CityView, regardless of the project size. Chairman Varian asked about small projects (e.g., bathroom remodels) not requiring a design professional: James French: Clarified that general contractors or owner -builders typically handle such projects, and the paperwork goes through a review process by staff, followed by a secondary review by a plan reviewer. While this is common in Florida, the situation in Collier is significant. Chairman Varian complimented John for his excellent customer service: James French: Acknowledged John's exceptional customer service, noting his engineering knowledge and his long-standing community ties. The County's goal is to keep processes efficient while ensuring that all legal requirements are met. If there is a lawful way to speed up the process without compromising quality, the team is fully in favor of it. Chairman Varian inquired about AI in the review process: James French: Shared that the County is leveraging Bluebeam's Al capabilities, integrated with CityView, to streamline plan reviews. Al helps detect changes in incoming plan sets, speeding up review times. However, it does not replace the need for licensed professionals. The County has also developed an alternative reviewer training path, allowing new staff members like Brooke to start reviewing under supervision while preparing for certification. Additionally, GIS functions have been brought in-house, which enhances the integration of data across County systems, as GIS plays a critical role in departmental mapping and analysis. h. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Captain] Absent James French covered them both i. North Collier Fire Review — [Bryan Horbal, Captain] • Last month, 1295 new construction inspections were completed, with a one -day turnaround, sometimes even the same day if needed. • 588 building construction and fire permit reviews were conducted, with a two-day turnaround. • 47 planning permits were processed, also with a two-day turnaround. 7 • The county has now consolidated fire alarm permits into one permit, which simplifies the process by allowing everything to be handled under one permit, with the same contractor and plan set, though the fees and review process remain the same. • The return to a single fire alarm permit system is a shift back to the previous model, which contractors familiar with the system may recall. This change is also in line with existing state statutes regarding Fast Track, over the counter, and self -issuing permits. A new House Bill could introduce further changes to this process, which is being closely monitored. j. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] Thomas Iandimarino • Foreclosures are ongoing, including: o A recent foreclosure in Goodland o A couple of vacant lots in Immokalee • The focus is shifting away from grass -cutting and property upkeep, which has been handled by code enforcement. While a few properties will still be managed, once liens reach $5,000 to $7,000, properties will be foreclosed on, even if they sell for only $15,000 to $20,000. This allows for cost recovery and returns the property to the community. • A commercial lot in Golden Gate City is also being foreclosed. The owner abated the violation, but the foreclosure continues due to four years of inaction despite being given time to resolve the issue. The owner asked for more time, but the foreclosure proceeded. • The owner, who has other properties in the county held under separate LLCs, resolved code violations on those properties. He applied for code lien relief and is now paying a reduced amount to settle the liens based on an ordinance passed a few years ago. Clay Brooker asked about permit fees being the largest number Thomas Iandimarino explained that there has been an ongoing issue with contractors failing to pay final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy (CO) fees, which has been accumulating for years (some cases dating back five or six years). Currently, about 20 new cases are being processed weekly, typically involving 9 or 10 properties or contractors. These cases have already been managed by Michael Stark's team, who have collected many of the fees. Now, property owners are typically stepping in to pay the outstanding fees, which are usually around $100 or $120, although some cases involve higher amounts. Once the property owners pay, the issue is resolved. k. Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, PUD [Claudia Vargas Project Manager I] Claudia Vargas • Our utility standard manual was approved by the Board 325. 1. Transportation Management Services, Engineering Division — [Mike Sawyer] Mike Sawyer • Access Management update o The updated documents have been distributed internally and to the industry, with no major changes or significant suggestions. Jay and Tony requested the inclusion of signal spacing in the deviation process, which has now been incorporated. The final review phase with Jay and Tony is underway, and the goal is to bring the materials to a hearing before the BBC, targeting May 27 hearing. • Airport Road Six -Lane project o A public information meeting was held last Thursday regarding the six -lane project for Airport Road (from Vanderbilt Beach Road to the airport). The meeting focused on the 60% plans, and the project is now moving toward the 90% phase, with construction still expected to begin in late 2026. • City Gate traffic signal o The construction contract for the second traffic signal at City Gate on Collier Boulevard is heading to the Board of County Commissioners, with construction expected to begin later this year. Robert Mulhere asked about right turn on Davis and Collier: Mike Sawyer The right turn at the intersection of Davis and Collier is part of the FDOT Interchange project, which includes a flyover in that location. Marco Espinar asked about the Golden Gate Parkway meeting on the loth: Mike Sawyer The meeting regarding Golden Gate Parkway, scheduled for the loth, was postponed because the consultant wasn't ready. The meeting will be rescheduled, and notification will be provided once it is confirmed. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. PL20250000524 Publication of Legal Advertisements for Neighborhood Information Meetings LDCA [Angela Galiano, Planner II, Zoning Division] Angela Galiano • LDC amendment o The amendment offers a cost-effective and efficient solution by allowing NIM notices to be published on the county clerk's website, aligning with modern trends in public notice publications. This change ensures transparency while lowering costs for petitioners. N o The LDC amendment brings cost savings, convenience, efficiency, and consistency. The county has already implemented digital publication for ordinances and other legal notices. o Subcommittee review (March 18, 2025): The committee recommended the removal of "on-the-website" from the administrative code and verification with Florida State statute. The staff revised the text to remove the reference and confirmed with the county attorney that Florida Statute 5 0.3 11 is not needed, as Chapter 50 already covers it. o Additional changes: The county attorney, Heidi, recommended adding new text on page 4, line 21, stating "15 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with section 125.66." These changes were made after the copy was sent to Heather. Rich met with Heidi this morning, and she suggested including this section. Motion made to approve and seconded Motion approved, and passed b. PL20250000235 - Floating Solar Facilities (F.S. 163.32051) LDCA — [Richard Henderlong, Planner III, Zoning Division] Richard Henderlong • The amendment is statutorily mandated and requires local governments to define floating solar facilities as a permitted use in appropriate land use categories. Local governments must promote the expanded use of floating solar technologies. • Floating Solar Benefits o Floating solar panels are appropriate use of land and water. They are 15-20% more efficient than ground -mounted systems due to cooling effects. They also help to decrease water lost and reduce water evaporation and algae growth. These facilities are beneficial and should be located in specific areas such as lime rock mine areas, stormwater treatment ponds, abandoned wastewater treatment ponds, reclaimed water ponds, and other water storage facilities. • Buffer & Landscape Requirements o The statute authorizes the County to specify buffer and landscape requirements for floating solar facilities, but they cannot exceed existing uses or similar uses involving the construction of other solar facilities permitted in agricultural land use categories and zoning districts. • Location Requirements o It cites the beneficial uses of where floating solar facilities are to be located on abandoned limerock mining areas, stormwater treatment and wastewater treatment ponds and other water storage facilities • LDC Subcommittee Review o The LDC Subcommittee reviewed the proposed text changes and staff incorporated their recommendations. One suggestion was to consider allowing floating solar facilities in residential zoning districts through the conditional use process or why not allow them in a residential zoning district. The reason is because RSF-1 zoned lots that are in Pine Ridge subdivision, off of Trail Blvd. and Center St., have lot lines into a lake and cannot be centralized unless all lot 10 owners agree to centralize ownership. Staff felt the best way to handle it, would be through the conditional use process or PUDs with residential to amend the PUD. • Statutory Reference Clarification o A question was raised about statutory references to section50.011 vs. 50.0311 was correct. The revised draft confirms F.S. 50.0311 is the correct citation. • Changes to Revised Procedural Inconsistencies Draft: Key legal advertising updates include: o Page 13, line 10: The text remains for Coastal construction zone setback requirements that legal advertising shall be in county newspapers under the provision of 50.011 o Page 22: Throughout the rest of code, under 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions, is the standardized phrasing "legal advertising prior to each advertised public hearings". o Pages 22 and 26: The removal of "in accordance with Florida Statute 125.66" is because the existing provision is stated -in LDC 10.03.05 o Strike throughs are highlighted in yellow. o New definition for "comparable use determination" on page 6, per the subcommittee's recommendation. • Staff sought approval for the Floating solar facilities proposed changes based upon the revisions and subcommittee feedback. Clay Brooker asked if floating solar facilities in residential zoning districts can apply through the conditional use process? Richard Henderlong • Floating Solar Facilities: Explained that floating solar facilities will be allowed by right in specific zoning districts, including rural agriculture, estates, public use district, and community facilities district. As accessory uses, they will be permitted in C-1 through C- 5 Commercial, Travel Trailer -Recreational Vehicle Campground, Industrial and Business Park districts. These districts are similar to those adopted by other Florida communities. • Conditional Use in Residential Areas: While not allowed by right in residential districts, they may be approved through the conditional use process. • Challenges: Highlighted concerns for residential communities are compatibility with surrounding areas, glare, effect on littoral shelf, impacts on stormwater management, lake management ownership by HOA or public use facility issues. • PUDs: It was noted that the use could be allowed in a residential PUD when a PUD is amended and approved. It's probably not going to be a use in the majority of residential districts; however, it is unknown whether a residential PUD with a massive stormwater lake that is not land locked by single family residential lots is an appropriate conditional use. It was discussed whether there should be a limit to residential conventional zoning districts and not a residential PUD or PUD amendment. 11 • Fencing: Fencing requirement was eliminated from the text. • Environmental Considerations: Discussed the variability in the environmental impact of floating solar installations in aquatic preserves and environmentally protected lands, tidal waters, bay or saline waters, including factors like water body, water depth, anchoring conditions, and leaching from panels. Long term monitoring will be required. • Maintenance: Solar facilities require ongoing preventive maintenance, including cleaning, inspections, and dealing with potential environmental hazards like bird droppings. Staff will look to the applicant to provide an on -site preventive maintenance plan including a siting assessment and on -site condition characteristics as listed on page 17. • Deployment and Dismantle Plan: Explained the need for a deployment (onsite staging and phasing) and dismantle plan at end of the facilities lifecycle, including procedures for repair and maintenance, such as after an event of hailstorm. • The county's water and sewer district, off Goodlette Road, is undertaking a feasibility study, at its 40 acres site, to defray electric costs. Waterway Concerns: Addressed concerns about floating solar facilities impacting water quality, especially in impaired waters or sensitive habitats. Clay Brooker Questioned why to limit the conditional use process if a large residential PUD with a stormwater lake could potentially work for floating solar facilities. Supported the flexibility of conditional use. Marco Espinar Raised concerns about applying floating solar facilities in stormwater management areas and residential developments, especially those designed to attract wildlife. Felt that the long-term consequences were not fully understood, especially minimal impacts. It's appropriate for some areas and not others. There are conflicts in attracting wading birds and amenities for fishing by neighbor kids. It can alter fish spawning, temperatures, salinity, and not an appropriate use. Jeff Curl Asked about the deployment plan, especially for repairs after damage (e.g., hailstorms). Expressed concerns about the environmental impacts on impaired waters and habitats. Site and environmental assessments are important to understanding the environmental impacts and its location. Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Suggested staff consider a smaller approach allowing it as Public and Institutional land uses and after a few years of experience, then in phase two to other areas. Recommended adding a criterion to requirements, number 9, regarding the safety of aircraft navigation due to glare from solar panels and the proposed facility does not create a hazard to aircraft. 12 Blair Foley Agreed with Marco and Laura's concerns, suggesting a phased approach to implementing floating solar facilities in more suitable locations and could not support it, specifically due to environmental reasons. Eric Johnson (Planning Manager) Suggested considering making all floating solar facility applications conditional uses instead of permitted by right if the group was concerned about their suitability in Collier County. Richard Henderlong (Follow-up): Ms. DeJohn asked, doesn't the statue say local governments must declare where they are permitted? Rich confirmed that local governments must permit floating solar facilities in selected districts, but they can narrow it down to certain districts including agricultural zoning districts. Mark McLean: Proposed a motion to approve PL 2350000235 floating solar facilities with the addition of defining "minimal" (as requested by Marco) and adding item 9 a criterion regarding aircraft glare (as requested by Laura). Jeff Curl Seconded Five Committee Members Opposed Motion Passed 10 to 5. c. PL20250000180 - Procedural Inconsistencies, Legal Advertisements, and Land use Corrections LDCA [Richard Henderlong, Planner III, Zoning Division] Richard Henderlong • The amendment is to resolve contradictory statements and inconsistencies with respective advisory board and public agencies review of various land use petitions. • PL20250000180 Amendment: o Directed by the Planning Commission in 2023, the second group of amendments are updates to LDC and administrative code, including the following: ■ Codification of the definition for "comparable use." ■ Affirms, in LDC section 8.10.00, the Board can remand any advertised public hearing involving a development order to the Hearing Examiner (HEX) on a legal or technical land use issue raised during the hearing. ■ Updates to electronic and digital submission requirements for SDP, SIP, and construction plans. ■ Changes to various review authority titles. ■ Legal advertisement changes to be published on the Clerk's public notice website. ■ Clarifications regarding minor changes to PUDs (e.g., removing affordable housing contributions) be heard by the HEX and staff administratively handling certain text changes. 13 ■ Review procedures for Type 3 applications and correction of its graphic depiction. ■ Changes have been reviewed by legal and highlighted in yellow. • Lighting and Landscape Plan Requirements: o The document initially removed lighting from the LDC sections, raising concerns about who should be responsible for preparing lighting plans. o Jeff Curl questioned the removal of lighting and noted the requirement for a licensed landscape architect for landscape, irrigation, and lighting plans under ICPs. o The LDC needed clarification on whether lighting plans should be signed by a licensed landscape architect or another professional. o A suggestion was made to modify the administrative code to allow for lighting plans to be submitted by any "licensed professional" in Florida, rather than limiting it to a landscape architect or engineer. o The change would ensure uniformity and clarify qualifications for professionals handling these plans. Jeff Curl asked why lighting was removed from the document, especially since it's part of the work Jeff handles (landscape, irrigation, and lighting). Richard Henderlong explained that after reviewing Insubstantial Construction Plans, chapter 5.E.2 of the administrative code, it was requested to add landscape architects as licensed landscape professionals to sign for lighting, landscaping, and irrigation plans. However, the request would affect other sections (5 E.1, SDP 4.I.2., SDPI and PPLs) of the code and requires further research and public vetting before finalizing any change. Robert Mulhere mentioned plats and SDPs include landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect. He asked if it is necessary to require a landscape architect for lighting plans if they aren't changing the landscaping or irrigation. Richard Henderlong acknowledged that this issue needed more clarity and additional research. He mentioned that lighting for street projects (which require engineers) is different from residential or non -engineering lighting, which may not need an engineer or landscape architect. Chris Mitchell asked if minimum code transportation related lighting requires lighting plans to be signed by a professional engineer for roadways or lighting. Richard Henderlong clarified that street lighting does require certification from a professional engineer, but for low -voltage lighting, changes to the code might be needed. James Boughton mentioned most of the studies are photometrics and are not engineering and photometrics are done by a computer program. Chris Mitchell mentioned wiring diagrams are not part of the pen -nit. Light poles and fixtures are part of the permit. 14 Laura DeJohn asked why the administrative code does not allow for any "licensed professional" in Florida to submit lighting plans, instead of limiting it to a landscape architect or engineer. This suggestion led to a broader agreement to change the language to allow for flexibility, stating that lighting plans can be submitted by any licensed professional in the state of Florida who is qualified to do such work. Blair Foley said when working on the county's stormwater ordinance, this was a similar discussion as to whether a PE or the design professional could prepare lot drainage plans. If it's a Typed 1 stormwater plan, a design professional or even a contractor can prepare it and if it's a Type 2 plan, a PE is required. In his experience, there are qualified landscape architects who can prepare a drainage plan and then not others who can cause unintended consequences. James Boughton mentioned that clients can go to the manufacturer of light poles who will do the photometrics, so long as the client buys their equipment. Motion to Approve Amendment Motion by Robert Mulhere: A motion was made to approve the proposed amendment (PL 2025 P0180), including the changes discussed, and add the language to the administrative code to allow for lighting plans to be submitted by any licensed professional in Florida. Chairman Varian asked if there is a second Item was seconded and the motion passed unanimously 7. OLD BUSINESS None 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None 9. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. 15 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on (check one) as submitted or as amended X 16 Collier County ATYtC2025 t(Cy Statistics A ril 2025 Growth Management Community 1 p Development Department Building Plan Review Statistics All Permits Applied by Month 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 M M M M M M M M M Ict I le I Iq I I le I I V Iq 0 LO LO 0 N N N N N N N N CV N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N L i1 r ai Q r i 0 C .0 L L i1 C tm Q r i V C .0 L L d V 0 0 M N (4 Q M 7 � 3 d V 0 d M 0 M Q. Q Q 0 0 z o n LL 2 Q 2 n Q 0 0 z o n LL 2 Q Roof, 31 Pool, 146 ertificate of Use, 61 Well Permits, 11 Mechani, Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied Plumbing, 388 ruc r ICIIIIIaj vv Electrical, 462 c` cture, 183 13 Shutters/Doors/Windows, 750 ROW Commercial, 72 )W Residential, 109 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 M M M 'IT lqt qzI_ Nt Lf) LO N N N N N N N N N Q 7 U M Q 7 U Q Q O� Q, O Q s 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 N N N N N N N Q O� Q O� Q f#REF! #REF! 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 T C d U > U C 4 T C = Q U > U C O N (6 O O O- (D 3 7 N O N Co O N O- 2 - Q U) Z o 1 Q g Q c� Z o LL Q �1 &2 Family f Multi -family Commercial 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 C M a)V O d M O CO Q M 0)0 O d M O R O_ a W O Z o-)LL2 Q M-)-) a to O Z o-)LL 2 a 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 Oct- 24 Nov- 24 Dec- 24 Jan- 25 Feb- 25 Mar- 25 Apr- 25 ■ Commercial 6 6 3 4 7 9 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 8 4 6 6 4 9 7 4 3 5 6 5 ■ Multi -family 22 3 1 7 4 15 3 4 5 3 11 3 4 4 2 4 1 1 10 2 2 5 0 2 1 0 1&2 Family 168 243 221 234 258 240 245 165 183 185 252 174 191 267 188 197 163 132 184 134 181 218 187 158 140 25 20 15 10 0 New Multi -family Building Permits Issued by Month COTW I I M CO CO CO It lqi- I - Ln u7 N N N N N N N N (N N N N N Q Q 0 0 LLL Q � Q O 0 LLL Q New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 — — 4 2 0 M M CO CO CO 'T Iti- � It LO Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q Q 0 0 LLL Q� Q 0 0 LLL Q Building Inspections Statistics 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Well, 104 Building Inspections M M M M M M M M M 't 't Itt q1T � 'IT � 1�t It NT It 't LO LO LO LO 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 5 % U C � L L % C 5 m Q U % U C L L Q -5 Q U) 0 Z 0 � LL Q Q U) Z 0 � L.L Q Types of Building Inspections Gas, 755 Pollution Control, 0 ROW, 403 Building Inspections Statistics Milestones Received by Month 100 80 60 40 20 ��i■ NL L L L cc 0 M CO Q Q z cm a O > Q O > U m o a) L o a) LL cn z o cn z in 2024 2025 Milestone Inspection Status Completed, 472 Delinquent, 12 Ph2 Required, 25 MI Phase Permit, 8 Land Development Services Statistics 300 250 200 150 100 50 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month M M M M M M M M M It le le le le Iq q* V Iq qe q1 le W) Ln LO W) 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 L i1 C 0i 0. — > 0 C .0 L i i+ C tm Q. �� > 0 C .0L i Q 2 Q N O z o-) ii 2 Q 2 Q cn O z o-3 ii 2 Q Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months 40 39 35 30 26 25 21 20 15 13 12 10 5 0 Zoning Verification Vegetation Removal Nominal Approval Site Development Plan Code Payoff Request Letter Permit Process Insubstantial Change Land Development Services Statistics Pre -application Meetings by Month 40 35 30 25 20 .. 15 10 5 nVon milli 0 M M M M M M M M CM Iq le le le le le le qq qq it LO LO LO LO 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 Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month 120 100 80 60 40 • 20 • M M M M M M M M M Iq le qq le le le le le le le le qq LO Ln LO LO 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 a1 0. > U C .0 L L i1 C 81 Q �'' > U C .0 L i QR d V O O M d = R O V O O M d M Q. g Q cn 0 Z 0 nLL Q g Q cn 0 z o nLL Q Temporary Use Commercial Certificates Land Development Services Statistics Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month 8 7 c 6 0 .LA =a 5 4 4 4 4 '^ 4 ° 3 3 3 ° 2 2 2 2 z 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M C) M C) I* V Iq It le le V qe q* qe qe V LO LO LO W 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 L >+ C Oi Q O i 0 C MO L L i+ C CI amr > () C MO L i Q ca O O 3 d V o a) M a) W C 3 3 N V o W to N M Q 0 z o� LL M Q n-) Q 0 z o-) LL Q Plat Pages Recorded per Month 35 35 30 N 25 c� a 0 L d E z 21 20 19 15 11 10 5 5 21 0 0 II 0 N N N N N N N N N N N L � i C � Q. }' O >0 U C -CO) Q2��QU)Ozo�LL cC+ 3 �= a� O d cv I 33 20 19 19 13 13 12 7 7 4 0 II 0 ■l N N N N N N N N N N N N N O- 1C 7 3 a) t) O d cC y !C O Q Q cn 0 z o a_ Q Yearly Totals Subdivisions 2020 - 25 2021- 33 2022 - 29 2023 - 21 2024 -18 2025 - 9 Yearly Totals Lots 2021- 1353 2022 - 3100 2023 - 1212 2024 - 1559 2025 - 867 Yearly Totals Pages 2020 - 152 2021- 188 2022 - 175 2023 -100 2024 -154 2025 - 40 Land Development Services Statistics 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month [At .. .. .. III M M M M M M M M M qq 11 I* "q q* q* q* 0 LO LO LO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C t1 Q i U C L L C Li Q — i U C L L d v O 0 M .0 0 CO Q cC 3 3 7 d v O 0 M .0 d M Q Q i Q (n 0 Z o-) LL 2 Q� Q fn 0 Z o" LL 2 Q Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month M M M M M M M M M V I V V I Iq IT It V V ICT V 0 0 0 LO 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 L i1 r- M Q - i U C -0 L L i1 C M Q i U C -0 L L Q ca 3'' ) p z 0 n Li 2 Q 3 aD 0 z 0 n Li 2 Q Land Development Services Statistics Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month 60 50 40 30 20 •• 10 M M Cl) M M M M M M LO LA Lf) LO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N Q ca 3 3 h p z 0 LL Q f° 0 z U- � Q Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month 60 50 40 — 30 •• 20 •• .. 10 0 M Cl) M M M M M M M't NT NT q* qq NT q* qq q1 qt qe NT LO LO LO LO 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 L i, C M C. a"i i u C Q L L i1 C a: 0.— i V C -0 Q Q to o z LL Q Q 0 0 z 0 LL Q 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L >+ C 01 Q. > u C -0 L L A C a: Q > U C -0 i L =- ca 41 V O d M N Q- R 3 G> V O d M d O Q Q Q U) 0 Z o n� Q -3 Q U) 0 Z o�LL Q Percent Ontime for the Month Late, 5.6% Top 5 Land Development Reviews 450 410 400 350 300 250 200 144 150 100 50 0 ��� & A ate Pa 127 90 77 Land Development Services Statistics $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 70 60 -, 50 C_ 0 E 40 L 30 0 a� 20 a 5 10 0 Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate M M M M M M M M M V I* le V V I* V V V V le V w 0 w LC! CV N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N CV i 0 C M L L i1 C i 0 C M L L Q Q 0 0 z 0 n LL 2 Q M n- Q 0 0 z 0 n LL 2 Q ■ Construction Estimate Utility Estimate Site & Utility Inspections 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 L >, C 0 a— i 0 C M L L i+ C CA a— i 0 C -0 i i a 2 a Cn 0 z° o n LL a a Cn 0 z° o n LL a ■ Final Subdivision Inspection ■ Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Tie In Inspection Fire Review Statistics 10 9 8 7 6 m 5 r7 4 3 2 1 0 Building Fire Review Average Number of Days 11 J � i i I M M M M M M M M M 'IT 'IT RZT �T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q Q Ln O z 0 LL 2 Q 2 1:T 1:T 1:T 1:T 1:T zT -:T Ln Ln Ln Ln N N N N N N N N N N N i U C 7 W U O 41 M N ra Q a LO O z o LL 2 a Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 ■ North Collier 490 692 650 627 636 525 616 543 411 459 406 508 581 684 634 647 646 733 655 459 481 588 491 621 818 Collier County (Greater Naples) 408 500 447 391 428 397 442 395 403 382 429 425 552 517 511 482 407 464 447 390 432 459 436 484 622 Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days 10 9 8 7 iA m 5 0 4 3 2 I I 1 - 0 Ui "I rn M ro M M M M M rn 't Ln Ln Ln Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N >- C W Q U > U C >- C iM Q U > U C Q 2 O Q (n O z LL Q 2 O Q In O z 0 LL Q Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 ■ North Collier 25 47 56 54 50 37 52 48 57 60 57 37 44 40 43 51 51 62 63 47 46 55 65 47 49 Collier County(Greater Naples) 63 82 91 43 43 60 62 50 39 56 53 60 75 61 55 68 67 64 48 64 58 44 95 75 58 C.,)ollier County .ApriC 2025 Code Enforcement .�IonthCy Statistics 4/2025 Growth Management Community Development Department 1 Code Enforcement Reports Cases Opened Per Month 800 700 600 500 400 300 -� 200 100 0 s Q N 2 N ' N 7 N a N C N Q N Z N Q N ' N LL N N Code Inspections Per Month 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 1 500 0 s q > V C L � L N Q g N � N N Q N co O N Z N c N � N LL N 2 N 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 ■ Code Investigator initiated cases by FY Complaint initiated Cases by FY 2024 2025 CRA Case Opened Monthly Monthly Case Opened ■ Total Cases Opened Bayshore Immokalee Code Enforcement Reports March 22, 2025 — April 15, 2025 Highlights • Cases opened: u Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: • Property inspections: Lien searches requested: Top 15 Code Cases by Category Property Parking Maintenance, 55 Enforcement, 23 Occupational Licensing, f3-- Noise, Nuisance Abatement, 29 3 Accessory Us( Right of Way, 26 Signs, 11 Oi Site Development, 87 597 358 2262 555 Vehicles, 57 Vegetation Requirements, 24 Short-term Vacation Rental, 5 Response Time - Letters of Availability 0 c CO 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 M R 20 15 10 cr av .5 w Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 � Requests Completed � Minimum Average � Maximum tRequests Received Response Time - FDEP Permits CO 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 M 010. Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Requests Completed Initial Review Time � Revision Review Time � Director Approval Time Requests Received - 30 - 25 - 20 - 10 - 5 M Attendance Roster — Date: May 07, 2025 Development Services Advisory Committee "Must have (8) members for a quorum" Committee Members James Boughton: EXCUSED Norman Gentry: EXCUSED Clay Brooker: Mark McLean: EXCUSED Jeffrey Curl: 7ChrMitchell: Laura Spurgeon DeJohn: Robert Mulhere: Nicholas Kouloheras: Jeremy Sterk: John English: Mario Valle: ar Es a : William Varian: C Blair of ly: Hannah Roberts: EXCUSED Attendance Roster — Date: May 07, 2025 Development Services Advisory Committee Staff Members James French Department Head, GMCDD Michael Bosi Director, Planning & Zoning Christopher Mason Director, Community Planning & Resiliency Cormac Giblin Director, Housing Policy and Economic Development Jaime Cook Director, Development Review Michael Stark Director, Operation & Regulatory Support John McCormick Director, Building Review & Permitting Thomas landirmarino Director, Code Enforcement Matt McLean or designee Director, Public Utilities Jay Ahmad or designee Director, Transportation Engineering Diane Lynch, Management Analyst II Staff Liaison, Operations & Regulatory Management Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst I Staff Liaison, Operations & Regulatory Management Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Claudia Vargas Did Not Attend Present Other County Staff Presenting NOT listed above. Name Signature Attendance Roster— Date: Mav 07, 2025 Development Services Advisory Committee Public Sign -in Sheet Please Print NAME REPRESENTING PHONE NO.