Loading...
DSAC-LDR Minutes 03/18/20251 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 2 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. 3 •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. 4 •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 5 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 6 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 7 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. 8 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. 9 • 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 board s 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.1.L, 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 10 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 a new 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 11 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.