Loading...
DSAC LDR Subcommittee Minutes 09/21/2022 Draft September 21, 2022 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, September 21, 2022 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee-LDR Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Robert Mulhere (excused) Mark McLean Jeff Curl Blair Foley ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner Sean Kingston, Senior Planner Chrissy Fisher, Principal Planner, Johnson Engineering Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review Jamie French, Deputy Department Head, GMD September 21, 2022 2 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. 1. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Brooker called the meeting to order at 2 p.m.; a quorum of three members was present; a fourth member joined later. 2. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Second by Mr. Foley. The motion was carried unanimously, 3-0. 3. Old Business (None) 4. New Business a. PL20220003445 RLSA Updates [Eric Johnson – PowerPoint Presentation] Mr. Johnson noted that Jaime Cook is attending the meeting as the county’s subject matter expert for environmental issues and she has to leave at 3:15 p.m. Chairman Brooker said if there are environmental issues she’d like to speak about, they should cover those first. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history about the Rural Land Stewardship Area and noted:  The RLSA was adopted in the future land-use element in 2002.  It incentivizes valued objectives, which are to protect natural resources, retain agricultural lands and plan for sustainable growth.  In 2003, the Overlay Zoning District was adopted into the LDC, and other LDC amendments occurred in subsequent years.  In 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate re-studies and four GMP master plans, including the RLSA.  In 2019, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to draft LDC amendments to address the SRA.  In 2021, the Board of County Commissioners approved the GMP amendment related to the RLSA, Ordinance 2021-28.  The purpose of this meeting is to implement 2120, the changes that occurred in 2021-28. Mr. Curl noted that there were five master plan studies. Mr. Johnson said he’d note that. Mr. Johnson continued with his presentation on substantive updates:  In 2021-28, there were five subsequent updates related to agricultural land protection and restoration credits, adjustments with a tiered system to address adding incentives for panthers corridors, adding wildlife-human interaction plans and to cap the SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area) acreage at 45,000 acres and credits at 404,000. September 21, 2022 3  The ordinance adjusted commercial square footage, transportation and affordable housing provisions.  The map of approved SRAs shows Ave Maria in the middle, with Collier Boulevard to the far left and Desoto Boulevard to the right/east.  The GMP policy groupings were categorized into four different groups.  Group 1 is the general purpose and structure of the RLSA overlay and the GMP.  Group 2 is the policy to retain land for agricultural activities.  Group 3 is policies to protect water quality and quantity and animal and plant species and habitats.  Group 4 is policies to enable conversion of rural lands and appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl. Mr. Johnson recommended reviewing each policy by group. He asked if anyone had questions or environmental concerns and if they wanted to open this up to a public hearing. [No speakers responded.] He noted that he forwarded an e-mail to the DSAC members that he received from Patrick Utter yesterday, which is in the agenda packet, and a letter from the Conservancy, also in the agenda packet. He asked how the Subcommittee wanted to proceed, whether it’s step-by-step. Chairman Brooker said he’d like to have Ms. Cook address the environmental issues before she leaves at 3:15. Mr. Curl noted that Mr. Utter’s email cited environmental concerns. A discussion ensued and the Subcommittee decided to hear a presentation on Group 3 before hearing Ms. Cook’s comments on it. Mr. Johnson noted that GMP Policy 3.11 reduced the R1 credits from 4 acres to one per acre and that affects Section 4.08.06 B.6.f.1, which is on page 33. He pointed out the proposed and strikeout language. Mr. Curl said he’d like to hear what the general onus was for each before diving into each individual piece. Ms. Cook provided a history and noted:  In 2020, when the first village, Rivergrass Village, was coming through, they also came forward with some amendments for some SSAs and included a lot of restoration within a restoration plan and generated about 30,000 credits just by designating restoration, not actually completing the restoration activities.  The BCC directed staff to look at reducing the designated restoration credits, and then increasing them once restoration activities were actually completed.  What we found was that thousands of acres have been designated for restoration, but only about 600 acres actually had restoration occurring on the lands, so people were getting credits for saying that they were going to do it, but the actual activities had not been completed.  To date, we have two SSAs that have actually completed restoration activities. September 21, 2022 4 Mr. Curl said what alarmed him was that the county is involved in the ERP process. How do they determine when it ends? And why is the county now so involved in this process, versus just the district and Army Corps of Engineers at the federal and state level? Ms. Cook said they don’t necessarily get involved. It depends on the petition. For example, the area that was Rural Lands West, which is now some of these villages and the companion SSAs. They had a general district permit for that entire area, which included some restoration activities within the SSAs. The plan that they brought forward to us mimics that ERP. However, if the SSA land is not part of an ERP, no one else would be reviewing that proposed restoration plan. The district wouldn’t be reviewing it. State and federal government wouldn’t be reviewing it, so staff would need to look at it and make sure it makes sense for the area and what they’re proposing. Mr. Curl asked if that gets to the point of designating but not necessarily improving it. Ms. Cook said that was correct. Mr. Curl noted that the county sees a hole in the process. Mr. Foley said Mr. Utter’s email included a lot of issues related to that. Those designated activities are accomplished by other agencies outside the county and that was an excellent description, noticing that there’s a missing component of that review. That’s helpful. Mr. Curl said it is. What scares him is there’s a provision in the code that your land is to be maintained free of exotics in perpetuity. For instance, how does one propose, on such a large piece of property, to keep Brazilian pepper off 20,000-30,000 acres? Ms. Cook said that for the most recent SSAs that have come through, they were specifically looking at exotics in certain areas, so it wasn’t the whole 1,500 acres. It may have been 3,200 acres in which they wanted to remove exotics and then improve the habitat on that particular property. Staff does site visits to make sure that what they’re proposing is feasible and makes sense for that particular piece of land. We had one that if the Brazilian pepper were removed, it would be a beautiful Cypress Dome area, but they were only proposing to obtain credits for exotic removal in that 50 acres. Mr. Curl asked where does the line stop, 50 acres? If he’s standing at the 50-acre mark, but the inspector sees a Brazilian pepper nearby, does he put blinders on? That’s a slippery slope where the boundary begins to become either obscured or arbitrary. How will you measure what you’re going to have a petitioner remove? Ms. Cook said the petitioner is proposing what they are removing. Staff is not proposing it for them. Mr. Curl said what he heard is that if the district isn’t requiring enough in the county’s eyes, how is the county then setting that standard? Ms. Cook said that if they don’t do the work, they don’t get the credits. Mr. Curl said he understands, but if there’s a hole the district carved out that the county is trying to fill, how is that measured? Is it like a Cypress Dome, that quality of environment? What’s the measure for removing these exotics? September 21, 2022 5 Ms. Cook said it’s essentially what they are proposing within their plan. If they don’t propose it in that area, they don’t obtain credits for it. For example, if they have 100 acres of an SSA and they propose to remove exotics on 20 acres, they only get credits for 20 acres. They don’t get credit for restoration activities on all 100 acres. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  Staff confirms what the petitioner proposes.  These are married to the credits.  DEP sometimes takes the lead in removal of exotics, but then the county gets involved.  That needs to be clearly defined.  They need to ensure there are no double standards.  How can you control exotics? Collier parks and preserves still contain exotics, such as Brazilian peppers and acacias.  The verbs “rewarded credits, awarded, received and assigned” mean the same thing. Can those words be more consistent or can the same verb be used to show the intent?  The Collier County Attorney’s Office already reviewed this.  Those words came from the GMP, but the verbiage could be clearer to show intent.  Proposed changes were prompted by the recent adoption of the GMP amendment.  All Subcommittee recommendations should be included in the motion. Mr. Johnson noted that Policy 3.11 added credit incentives for Panther Corridors. That’s affecting Section 4.08.06 B.3, page 31. All the mentioned changes in the PowerPoint presentation are not included. These were just the changes that staff noted. Other non-substantive changes were not noted. Mr. Foley said that at the last full DSAC meeting, they discussed problems with attendance/quorums with the Subcommittee having difficulty getting certain matters through, so we opened the subcommittee up to all members. Environmental is not an area of expertise for the three of us. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  When credits are designated under the Panther Corridor, they must receive U.S. Fish & Wildlife approval first.  They will be awarded two credits and as a property is built out, they can earn up to eight more credits and they can be phased, depending on how long it takes to do it.  Some credits are automatically available upon mere dedication, but additional credits may become available or assigned once a task is completed.  The difference is that R1 credits are given upon designation at the beginning. R2 credits, which are generally higher in value, are awarded upon completion of the actual activity.  Although “reward, assign, award, receive” are words used in the GMP, Subcommittee members asked to use the same verb throughout to make the intent clearer.  Those verbs can be clarified while adhering to the GMP’s intent Mr. Johnson said that Policy 3.11 establishes the R2 credit types and values that would affect Section 4.08.06 b, pages 30 through 31 and page 34. [No comments.] Policy 3.13: add WRA stormwater treatment acreage into SRA that affects Sections 4.08.07 A. 4.08.07.D., 4.08.07 G., and 4.08.07 J. That’s on pages 46 through 47. September 21, 2022 6 Ms. Cook said that especially with the villages that have been previously approved in the last two years or so, their proposed Master Plan shows lakes essentially around the outskirts of the development. Those lakes have cut into designated SSAs, so they are impacting the SSA land without utilizing credits for it. This added language would require them to utilize credits for that area, so it’s requiring them to use more credits if they want to impact lands outside their boundary. Mr. Foley asked if this was omitted or missed with the original. Ms. Cook said it was something contemplated with the original LDC, but now that we’ve had some developers do it this way, we want to not let them get credits for land that they’re then impacting for their development. Mr. Bosi said this is a provision that property owners were pretty adamant about. There was a lot of back and forth between the county staff when working on the final drafts in terms of establishing being clear that that they weren’t going to be adding to the SRA acreage. However, they were on board with the final language. Mr. Johnson asked Subcommittee members to look at Section 4.08.07 D.4.b. [There were no comments.] He asked the Subcommittee to go to page 55, Section 4.08.07 D.9.e. [No comments]; p 62, Section 4.08.07 G.2.j. [No comments]; page 97, LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6.a(1). This was part of the PowerPoint presentation for the GMP and this was aligned with that. The PowerPoint was not all inclusive and, hopefully, is all substantive. If there was a change that wasn’t mentioned in the PowerPoint, please bring it to my attention. He asked them to review Slide 10, Grouping 4. Chairman Brooker said he wanted to accommodate Ms. Cook’s schedule and asked if anyone in the public wanted to speak about the provisions before she leaves. Chris Scott, of Peninsula Engineering, commended staff for doing an excellent job on the restoration credits and focusing the amendments on implementing the recent Comp Plan policies. He asked about restoration credits on p. 33, Section 4.08.06 b 6f, the last sentence. The addition to f, “Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these credits for each acre designated” goes on to provide five separate restoration options. Does that mean an acre can only qualify, for instance, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3? Ms. Cook said yes, that’s the way it’s intended and written. Mr. Scott said it was confusing. Mr. Curl agreed, noting that he thought you could get up to 10 per acre. Ms. Cook said no. Only the panther would give you 10 credits. Page 34 lists the different types. For example, if you were going to do Caracara Habitat Restoration, you would get one credit for the designation and two credits after you’ve done the actual implementation, so you would get three credits if you chose Caracara Restoration. Mr. Curl asked if that could be clarified. He read it as being allowed to get up to 10 credits. September 21, 2022 7 Chairman Brooker said he believed the intent was per one acre, you can avail yourself of one type of credit and can get up to 10. But once you take one type of credit, you can’t start accumulating credits to get to 10 on that acre unless that one type of credit already gets you 10. Ms. Cook said that going back to the example before, if you had 100 acres and you designated 20 for exotic removal, you could do another 20 as something else and another 20 as something else, but it would be 60 acres, not 20 on top of 20 on top of 20. Does that make sense? Mr. Curl said it did, but the sentence reads that you can accumulate up to 10. Mr. Johnson asked if they were suggesting they need to clarify that issue. Chairman Brooker said yes and asked if they could work on the wording for lines 15-18. Mr. Henderlong asked if it would be helpful and clearer if he made a table, so those questions were no longer debatable. Mr. Curl said that would be helpful. Chairman Brooker asked if you dedicated a Panther Corridor that had exotics, why wouldn’t you get credits for both? You’re removing exotics and creating a corridor. Ms. Cook said the GMP amendments were worded so that you could do one type of restoration. If you’re doing something like exotic removal to improve the wetland habitat or Panther Corridor, you’re going to get more credits for the Panther Corridor, so that’s what you request. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  You can’t double up and credits don’t accumulate.  One credit takes precedence over another to limit the number of credits that can be generated.  For example, it would incentivize a property owner to designate a Panther Corridor because that gets more credits. Chairman Brooker noted that they were still in the public hearing portion. He asked if there were any other public comments. [There were none.] Ms. Cook noted that there is one more environmental issue in Section 4 about the Management Plans and asked if anyone had questions before she left. [No questions.] Mr. Johnson said Grouping 3 wasn’t entirely environmental. He asked the Subcommittee to look at Group 4, Policy 4.5, Add Human and Wildlife Conflict Management Plans, and to go to pages 19-20 and look at Section 4.08.05 J.3. Mr. Curl noted that it mentions “dark-sky compliant,” which is a certification like LEED. They discussed this at the last Subcommittee meeting. He asked to refer to the code instead because “dark-sky compliant” is an amorphous term. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  Dark sky compliant doesn’t do anything for dark skies. September 21, 2022 8  The Subcommittee worked on better language than “dark-sky compliant” during the medical marijuana dispensary hearings and that language should be used instead.  The county hasn’t adopted an ordinance but adopted lighting standards that incorporate dark-sky compliant principles with different laminations, from L1-L4.  The county hasn’t been successful in getting residents to adopt those principles.  It’s a generic term mentioned in GMPs and is subjective, so the county decided to be as broad as possible.  Varying light levels are the intent; the county identified all five types of illumination.  Very low-light dark-sky principals were used in preserves and the Greenway.  During the review of five master plans, Mr. Curl said he was on all committees and asked for full cutoff.  The county language says there should be no obtrusive glare on an adjacent property and refers to industry standards for photometric lighting. This also was mentioned during the medical marijuana dispensary meetings.  The county has one section for lighting, four for reserves, one for golf courses and one that deals with lighting relating to entrances of projects and commercial entrances off arterial collector roads. It doesn’t go beyond that.  When a PUD comes through, that issue resurfaces again and residents begin to implement and use a cut-off lens or shielded-driven lighting. That fixture or illumination would be referred to as dark-sky compliant.  Different types of lighting features that can be used are provided and they can select from that group to minimize obtrusive glare and light pollution.  When you do a photometric-light street plan, all the lights have illuminations and all their intensities are there, but the Committee never made a recommendation on whether it was going to be 1-foot candle point or half-foot candle.  The principles of dark-sky compliant are to minimize light pollution and how strong it is.  The county does have a commercial ordinance that addresses lighting in commercial shopping centers that is security and safety driven.  The county does not review lighting plans outside of commercial shopping centers or county government buildings.  “Dark-sky compliant lighting principles” is not a clear enough term. Mr. Henderlong said dark-sky lighting is a subjective, very broad term that includes an array of lighting types. For example, metal halide versus ambient lights and types of background lighting. What other type of lights come in, fixtures versus LED lights? Where do they get applied? What is the situation they should be applied in? The county’s model ordinance for dark-sky principles has not gone to a level that would resolve objectivity. It’s much more precise, but we haven’t come up with a better term and it’s always been very frustrating for everybody to deal with. They may need to narrow it down as it applies to the RSLA and “how would that work,” so it may be able to be more specific. Chairman Brooker asked if the phrase “dark-sky lighting” was in the GMP. Mr. Henderlong said his recollection was that it was codified in the GGMP and rural areas, such as the Immokalee Master Plan. Chairman Brooker suggested that the Subcommittee make a recommendation that county staff create a more comprehensive lighting ordinance, rather than dark-sky compliant because that’s too amorphous and undefined. September 21, 2022 9 Mr. Curl noted that Lee County’s lighting ordinance is far superior to Collier County’s ordinance. Mr. Johnson said it was just brought to his attention that for the Growth Management Plan amendment, the Ordinance for 2021-28, Policy 5.7 says: “Any development not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses within one year of the effective date of this policy. LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security.” The words “dark sky” weren’t used in that instance. Chairman Brooker said that language is better. Mr. Henderlong agreed it was fine. Mr. Johnson said he’s keeping track of their suggestions so they can memorialize them in their motion. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  SSC stands for Species of Special Concern.  Section 304 of the LDC specifically exempts the RLSA from having to do Wildlife Management Plans, so this section of code will require it for any listed species in the area.  All acronyms are spelled out upon first mention, with acronyms in parentheses.  Section 304 discusses protection of endangered plants and animals. The RLSA is exempted from the rest of 304.  Developments can be next to environmentally sensitive areas, so the county wants to ensure that it has Wildlife Management Plans and Human-Wildlife Interaction Plans.  This section of code provides the county with a justification for why it can ask for letter review level.  Members asked to discuss the emails by Mr. Utter (Collier Enterprises) and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.  Staff’s intent wasn’t to address outside concerns but agreed to act at the Subcommittee’s behest.  The Subcommittee considered anything that was submitted as public comments that should be addressed. Mr. Bosi pointed out that the Conservancy has specific recommendations for several LDC policies that were not included in this package because they’re not supported by the GMP. Staff can review specifics in Mr. Utter’s letter. The majority are not supported by amendments considered by the BCC. Chairman Brooker asked to hear Ms. Cook’s reactions to Mr. Utter’s comments relating to environmental issues. Ms. Cook said 2, 3, 4, and 6 were part of GMP amendments and noted:  Staff isn’t the expert on designing a wildlife crossing or location, but wants the applicant to work with the appropriate agency to determine where they should go.  For those that refer to mitigation, those are things we already require in our management plans when the Site Plan or PPL come forward. There’s no issue moving forward to require it in the RLSA because it’s already required. September 21, 2022 10  For No. 5, management plans, such as Black Bear Management Plans, we require them to follow state or federal guidelines for whatever agencies oversees those species.  For No. 6, sometimes an SSA is proposing a restoration but it’s not part of a district permit. A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  Why can’t lake water be used to irrigate a golf course? (this is not a proposed change, but existing language that’s also in the baseline standards.)  It appears the Wastewater Department is seeking business by requiring wastewater management options by extending re-use lines. It appears to be mandated, not a choice.  Sanitary Sewer is the new term for wastewater and that’s being changed, not the substance of the program.  The county can hold up a STD at the zoning level, but can approve a Site Development Plan or plat and hold preconstruction for zoning permits while awaiting state or federal permits, but the applicant can still go through the zoning process.  Entitlement or zoning approval will say it’s “conditioned upon obtaining all required agency approvals.”  Grouping 4, p. 51, Section 4.08.07 C3: Hamlets were removed because they were limited in size and they were not able to obtain any of the self-sustaining qualities the RLSA demands.  Hamlets were meant to be ratioed in terms of the number of villages or towns that would come about and then smaller developments could supplement individual towns and villages.  As county staff reviewed the intent, they thought it became too much of an opportunity to have divergent, non-connected development that’s not self-sustaining within a program that’s built upon sustainability and providing goods or services for the needs of households within close proximity.  The county is encouraging economies of scale to support commercial services that aren’t currently provided.  The RLSA pushes sustainability.  The long-term vision of the RLSA is to start providing options for where you can go for work and where you can get goods and services.  Economies of scale are the keys to the RLSA program.  The RLSA is a program that’s hard to judge on a decade of work; it’s a multi-decade strategy for economies of scale.  Arthrex’s programs, which were chosen over Jackson Lab’s programs, are expanding and growing with the economy. Mr. Johnson moved to pages 87-90, 4.08.07 i4, Design Criteria for Hamlets. [No comments.] He then moved to pages 49-50, Policy 4.7.1, Modify Town Size and Add Targeted Industry Uses, 4.08.07 C2. [The subcommittee had no issues.] Mr. Bosi noted the following:  Regarding flexibility, 2.5% of the acreage has to be set aside and entitled at 10 for each break or higher, but it does have a provision B that provides for alternatives.  Collier Enterprises has met with staff to discuss other alternatives for affordable housing that the county is receptive to.  Collier Enterprises will make the sites available for the county government as the first option.  It’s not just the set-asides that are being provided. September 21, 2022 11  He said he told the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee that this is the only provision in our code, other than villages within the Rural-Fringe Mixed-Use Districts, that requires affordable housing of a development.  We’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out where we’re going to spend some of the Housing Trust Fund money and affordable housing monies. He cited the town of Big Cypress, which has two sites over 90 acres that are entitled at 10-units-per-acre that will be made available to the county at $22,500-per-acre, fully entitled.  If the county were to purchase that, they would then have control of those sites. The county could dictate what levels they wanted to go to, but they would be in perpetuity in terms of being set-aside.  Even though this provision that was added to affordable housing was criticized by the Conservancy as not going far enough, it provides a real value to the regulatory framework of how the county can gain more meaningful, long-term affordable options and property owners have endorsed it. Mr. Curl cited that density and asked if there was a maximum distance that they can be away from a thoroughfare, such as Golden Gate Boulevard, so they don’t overwhelm a local street. Mr. Bosi said not with specificity. But when we agreed on the Big Cypress design plans, that population is more inclined to participate. Mr. Foley asked about No. 5, exclusions, and asked if they needed trip counts. Mr. Bosi said they don’t want to make it prohibitive so they eliminated those counts within the TIS and there are other fiscal arrangements regarding how this is proposed. Mr. Curl asked if they were still within the AUIR. Mr. Bosi said they’re background traffic and are banked and recognized by the TIS as impacts to the road system. Mr. Curl noted that the worst-case scenario is that if everyone in one of those condensed affordable housing developments gets into their cars at 8 a.m. to head to work and that overwhelms traffic. He wants to make sure those traffic numbers are quantified. Mr. Bosi confirmed they were. Mr. Johnson said that concern is addressed on p. 49 regarding “preferred,” which is preceded by “shall be.” The idea is towns and villages shall be preferred, so we would have to investigate CREs as not being allowed. This kind of language is not mentioned verbatim in the GMP. Mr. Bosi said the qualified target industries are higher-wage economic employment centers. We’re trying to provide for work opportunities to be developed within areas where there are currently none possessed in the emerging population. “Preferred” was used because we’re trying to encourage a range of activities, housing, governmental use, commercial activities, support services, industrial, business park industrial-type activities. He understood their concerns. The word “encouraged” is like our interconnection language. It “encourages” and gets us into binds that we can’t really enforce. September 21, 2022 12 Chairman Brooker said he had no issue with the intent or rationale behind it. But if you want to accomplish that goal, incentivize those things. Don’t use language in a code that really means nothing. With respect to the town sizes and modified village size, we just did affordable housing at the bottom of the PowerPoint. It appears all the sizes of the different types of residential communities is increasing. Is that true for reasons of sustainability? Mr. Bosi said it was. Mr. Johnson asked Subcommittee members to review Policy 4.14, add Transportation Interconnections, Minimize Use of Arterial Roads Between SRAs and Provide for Mitigation Actions, p. 47, Section 4.08.07 A1 h, i. Chairman Brooker said we just assume that an SRA is going to be geographically proximate to an arterial or collector, but pedestrian connectivity to an arterial roadway? A discussion ensued and the following points were made:  Multi modal mobility is not confined to the urban area.  At some point, there will be segments and sidewalks within Oil Well Road and within certain collector roads within the RLSA.  For example, as the county improves, such as Golden Gate Boulevard, they’re integrating sidewalks on both sides.  As long as it provides a direct connection to a collector road, it would satisfy that condition.  Mobility plans are not currently required in the LDC.  A mobility plan is not currently required of the SRA; we use the traditional TIS.  Open land is a designation on the map and doesn’t have an NRI Score above 1.2; it’s considered more environmentally sensitive.  It’s preferred that areas connect with a collector road, but there may be no opportunity.  If you have an SRA that incorporates open lands, you should have an opportunity to connect to an arterial.  It appears you’re requiring developers to set up an entity to maintain the roads.  When SRAs were first created by the state, they were a statutory comprehensive plan requirement. That was one of the provisions. SRAs have their own funding mechanism and taxing authorities, rights and authority. The county can’t require that developers own the roads because they’re paying for infrastructure up front. [A Subcommittee member considered that section poorly worded.]  Under stewardships, there is a one-year extension allowed after the five-year period. This comes nearly verbatim from the GMP.  The DSAC should be involved in GMP amendments, at least some of them, so it has input before everything is set in stone. Mr. Bosi said 4.07.08 b2 was a long time coming. As part of the first review, the conclusion drawn by the committee was that property rights, agricultural preservation and protection, and environmental protection were the winners within terms of the three scales we’re trying to evaluate. It was determined that we probably didn’t do enough to promote the protection of agriculture. This was identified in 2007-9 and it’s taken a long time for all these amendments. This was long overdue to help balance the scales of the three important areas. September 21, 2022 13 Subcommittee members reviewed other amendments and there were no comments/changes suggested. Mr. Curl noted that the five-foot minimum strip on each side of the roads for street trees was inadequate. After more than 20 years, many developments had to remove trees due to breaking through and damaging surfaces. He’s had to get permits for many removals recently. GL Homes removed about 150 oak trees. Maybe there’s a better solution, a different tree? Mr. Johnson said another type of canopy tree could be used. Mr. Curl noted that even at 8 feet, it’s still inadequate space for a tree. He wants that on the record because they’re talking about sustainability. Chairman Brooker said he wanted to note the Conservancy letter for the record. It admits that the Conservancy’s recommendations are outside the staff’s scope of work because these amendments are “only to implement the 2021 GMP RLSA amendments.” Without commenting on the merits or substance of the Conservancy request and revisions, we’re going to focus on implementing the 2021 GMP amendments. Mr. Bosi said that was correct. Many ideas are outside what the BCC adopted for the amendments. Those are for the next reviews that we go through on the RLSA. There are some areas that could be discussed and improved. Because it took so long to get these amendments adopted, the BCC tried to limit the scope of how much they’d tackle with one effort. Chairman Brooker asked if the Conservancy was involved in the GMP process. Mr. Bosi said they were. Mr. Curl said the League of Women Voters and others also were involved and at the conclusion of the public meetings, they still maintained the process wasn’t transparent and the government had done a lot of whittling and wordsmithing, so things came out that weren’t discussed in a public forum. There was a lot of animosity at the end of the process. Mr. Johnson said the LDC amendments will be going through many public hearings, such as the DSAC, the Planning Commission and the BCC, so if anyone has problems with the language they can come forward at the public hearings. The letters by Mr. Utter and the Conservancy will be an exhibit to these amendments as they go through the process. A discussion ensued to list the suggestions so they could be incorporated into a motion:  Instead of “dark-sky compliant lighting principles,” use the lighting verbiage in GMP amendment Policy 5.7 to be more specific.  For the credits on page 33, Mr. Henderlong will create a chart to clarify the intent and accumulation of the credits, how they interrelate from restoration, and what is the maximum depending upon each situation, whether by restoration or by right.  Make the wording – awarded, rewarded, received, assigned – that was taken from the GMP more consistent or use the same verb to make the intent clearer, while remaining consistent with the GMP. Is it assigned or awarded and is it the same? Clarify that. There may be instances where it should not be consistent or and the same word shouldn’t be used because it may involve different concepts. Mr. Henderlong asked if they wanted to include Mr. Curl’s comments about trees. September 21, 2022 14 Mr. Curl said it was OK not to include that because maybe there’s no solution. Ms. Fisher said she also found three typos in the amendments, but they were very minor and insubstantial. Mr. Johnson said those changes, on page 47, would be taken care of now, rather than before the full DSAC. [Mr. McLean joined the meeting at 4 p.m.] The typos Ms. Fisher found were summarized:  “Credits” should be capitalized throughout.  “Ancillary” is not a separate use on page 47.  Page 70, a chart involving non-residential uses, is incorrect. That should be moved from the right- hand column to the left column [Mr. Johnson moved 30% to the left column and 35% stayed as is.] This is described accurately in the text.  On page 91, language is missing at the end. This is just reiterating that permanent residential housing and the services and facilities that support those permanent residents may be permitted but not required. The last part of the line was kind of a hanging sentence. Mr. Johnson said there will be a companion change to the Administrative Code as part of this LDC amendment. He noted that the three suggested changes by the Subcommittee and the four walk-ons should be included in the motion. A discussion and listing of the changes and how to vote ensued, a motion was made, and a second, the motion was amended and the second was amended. Chairman Brooker made a motion to recommend approval of the LDC amendments, with the following revisions:  Wherever it states “dark-sky compliant lighting principles,” change that language to GMP Policy 5.7’s language and recommend that a LDC amendment be considered for lighting guidance in general.  On page 33, lines 16-18, only one type of restoration should be awarded per acre. The language should be clarified and staff will create a chart to make that easier to follow.  Under Restoration Stewardship Credits, the verbs “received, awarded, assigned, rewarded,” should be clarified so the intent is clear.  The three walk-on typo corrections presented by staff also will be added.  The companion Administrative Code changes also will be included. Second by Mr. Foley. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0; Mr. McLean abstained from the vote. Mr. Johnson thanked the Subcommittee for working through the amendments and helping staff prepare the narrative for the Executive Summary. b. Discussion of Landscape/Buffer and Miscellaneous Sections in the LDC (This item was moved to the next meeting) 5. Public Comments None 6. 2022 DSAC-LDR Subcommittee schedule reminder: September 21, 2022 15 December 14, 2022 Mr. Johnson said there may be a meeting before the December 14 meeting on November 9. Mr. McLean asked if they could move the December 14 meeting because that’s a Naples City Council, DRB or PAB day and he won’t know if he needs to be at a city meeting until the day before. He has the first Wednesday available. A discussion ensued over possible meeting dates. Mr. Johnson confirmed 3 p.m. December 6, if this room is available. Another discussion ensued over possible meeting dates in November for the Interstate-75 Innovation Zone Overlay/Activity Center No. 9, a special meeting for a long amendment. Mr. Johnson confirmed they’d meet at 2 p.m. November 9. Mr. Curl asked if they’d reached out to the Golden Gate City Civic Association or others. Mr. Johnson said they held a Public Information Meeting for the GMP, but no PIMs are required for the GMP amendments. 7. Potential Special Meeting in October Mr. Johnson suggested 3 p.m. October 18, the third Tuesday, if needed, for a discussion that would include Scrivener’s errors, but he would not ask them to meet if it’s just Scrivener’s errors. A discussion ensued over the lack of a quorum at certain DSAC-LDR meetings and the Subcommittee agreed a DSAC member could be an alternate if there won’t be a quorum. 8. Adjourn Chairman Brooker made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Foley. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4:20 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ____________________________________________ Chairman: Clay Brooker These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/chairman on ________________, (check one) as presented _______, or as amended ________.