Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cape Coral staff propose retaining‑wall limits and view‑corridor rules; council asks industry consultations
Summary
Staff proposed a new definition and rules for retaining walls, limits on fence/vegetation heights near waterways to protect view corridors, and an exceptions path for city properties and emergencies; council raised concerns about pool‑barrier compatibility, fall‑protection math, and asked staff to work with the construction industry and return.
Senior planner Anthony Santora presented comprehensive proposed amendments to the land‑development code section on fences, walls, bulkheads and seawalls. The package adds a formal definition of 'retaining wall' (structures built to resist lateral soil pressure), separates retaining‑wall criteria from seawall/bulkhead rules, and establishes new limitations designed to preserve waterfront view corridors and minimize adverse drainage impacts.
Key proposed rules include: a 5‑foot maximum retaining‑wall height (with written city approval allowed in special circumstances), a maximum of 3 feet for retaining walls within 10 feet of a rear property line (to protect views), and a 3‑foot maximum fence/vegetation height in prescribed waterfront setback zones (with transparent/open mesh allowed above 3 feet subject to minimum visibility). The draft also bans retaining walls within 6 feet of a property line except in limited stabilization situations, and allows city manager‑approved exceptions for city property and emergency protective work.
Council raised a number of engineering and practical concerns: many new houses place pool decks at the 10‑foot seawall setback and modern finished‑floor elevations make the proposed 3‑foot cap difficult to reconcile with fall‑protection requirements; several council members urged staff to consult with builders and return with adjusted language that maintains safety, drainage and view protections. Staff agreed to discuss proposals with construction industry representatives and to return the draft ordinance to Committee of the Whole after incorporating that feedback.
