DSAC-LDR Minutes 11/19/2025 (draft)
1
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida
November 19, 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 the Growth Management Community Development Department Room
609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe DR. Naples, Florida with the following members present:
Chairman: Clay Brooker
Blair Foley (Excused)
Jeff Curl
Mark McLean (Excused)
Robert Mulhere
The following County Staff were in attendance:
Michael Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning, GMCD
Jaime Cook, Director, GMCD
Michele Mosca, Planner III, GMCD
Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD
Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst/Liaison, 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 this
record.
1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman
Chairman- Clay Brooker
Development Service Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee,
Wednesday, 19th November 2025
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion to approve- Jeff Curl
Motion seconded- Robert Mulhere
Motion passed unanimously
3. OLD BUSINESS
a. PL20240006969 – Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Overlay –
LDCA
Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager
3 Sections changes are being proposed for. LDC02.03.07 Overlay, LDC02.03.08 Rural
Fringe Zoning, LDC02.06.01 Generally.
Summary of changes
Increase number of based TDR credits generated per Acre
Changing the calculation of TDR bonus credits
Addition of Conservation TDR credits
Addition of Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay provisions
Changes to environmental restoration and maintenance TDR bonus credit
generation
Introduction of business and industrial uses in the receiving lands with
specific uses, development standards and locational criteria to be
identified within the LDC
Revising the table of allowable uses for RF-Mud receiving lands outside
rural villages
Changes to rural village design standards and density bonus for low-
income residential housing units
Addition of clustering provisions for RF-Mud sending lands.
Introduction of neighborhood commercial uses with affordable housing
projects with specific uses, design and development standards and
locational criteria to be identified within the LDC
Reduction of open space requirements for housing that is affordable
projects.
Allowance of active recreation in the sending lands as conditional uses
3
Additional development standards and locational criteria for housing that
is affordable within the receiving lands.
Jeff Curl- On the density/open space for affordable. Has anyone ever thought about the
parking lots and 10 contiguous space in the code to allow more parking and less landscape
islands? If you increase density, you need more parking, we need to look at densifying the
parking lots as well.
Eric Johnson- With the increase in the number of units you will have an increase in parking
spaces, so in case of that offer a less demanding landscape requirement associated with the
number of parking spaces?
Robert Mulhere- One way to achieve that is to specify that you could increase the number
of spaces in a row without providing the landscape island, provided the same amount of
landscape area is provided elsewhere within the site.
Jeff Curl- Page 36- Ground cover. I don’t understand why we need this.
Jaime Cook- In Type D buffer along the roadway. Almost everyone plants sod, this requires
you to plant something.
Robert Mulhere- On page 36, the last sentence in item C states, shall be a minimum width
of 3 feet and a maximum width of 5ft and achieve 100% opacity, that can’t achieve opacity,
so that last sentence wouldn’t apply to ground cover. Ground cover and opacity can’t be
related.
Jaime Cook- I have no issue with the removal of it.
Clay Brooker- On page 4- Section 2I, a, this applies to legal non-conforming lots or parcels
of less than 5 acres, this section applies to conforming lots?
Robert Mulhere- Yes this is the TDR bonus credits and how you get them.
Clay Brooker- On Page 5 it states, In the case of legal non-conforming lots or parcels less
than 5 acres, now all the standards apply. On page 4a apply only to conforming lots of any
size? I don’t know why we are drawing a distinction?
Eric Johnson- There is an issue that was discovered that required us to address legal non-
conforming lots of less than 5 acres. The first section on page 4 would apply to everything
else.
Clay Brooker- Page 6, lines 8-11, This bonus TDR credit will only be applicable within 2
years of the effective date of adoption which is 5/23/2023, we are past that date.
Robert Mulhere- We put a date there because we wanted to incentivize people to move
forward with providing the easement we wanted them to go forward in the 2-year period.
Eric Johnson- We can strike this line out and reinsert it once we decide to change the GMP,
or we keep it in and ask Mike to move forward with a GMP amendment.
Jaime Cook- Line 30 has the same date.
Clay Brooker- If the GMP states this how do it, we can’t state anything different. We can’t
do anything inconsistent with the GMP amendment.
Mike Bosi- In the staff report we will ask the Board of County commissioners to direct staff
to modify the GMP to provide further opportunity and recommend no end date to it.
Clay Brooker- Page 23 lines 36-39, states, any use not listed in table uses is prohibited
unless the county manager/designee determines that it falls within the same class. What does
that mean?
Jeff Curl- Wouldn’t it be better to say as outlined in section 106011 to reference the
comparable use determination?
4
Robert Mulhere- Should say “any use not listed in the table of uses is prohibited unless the
County Manager designee determines that such use is comparable with other uses listed in
the table of uses, through the process as determined through the comparable use
determination process”
Eric Johnson- If we cite the comparable use determination, that would require a Hex.
Mike Bosi- I am much more comfortable with the comparable use process. It used to be staff
that could make the determination but not any longer. That would be the more appropriate
way.
Robert Mulhere- I would rewrite this that any use that can be deemed comparable needs to
go through the comparable use process.
Eric Johnson- We will proceed in that manner.
Eric Johnson- Page 37, This is where Bob asked for relief for landscape island parking.
Robert Mulhere- Only for affordable housing projects, Mixed use and Non-Mixed use,
allow for up to 15 parking spaces instead of 10 before a landscape island.
Eric Johnson- The current requirement is 10 spaces; you want to increase it to 15 correct
Robert Mulhere- Except, that they would provide that additional landscape area elsewhere
in the project.
Clay Brooker- Page 34, Line 13, 100-foot-wide setback adjacent to a conservation area. In
another area I saw 150ft. Is that appropriate/inappropriate?
Michelle Mosca- I have a note that RLSA requires 300ft?
Robert Mulhere- The problem is the term Conservation. It shouldn’t apply to an internal
preserve for which you may be placing a conservation easement over, but if your building is
adjacent to the Picayune strand then ok. I understand having an enhanced setback but 100ft is
a lot, and this is affordable housing.
Mike Bosi- That is quite a demand on housing that is affordable, it drives up the price of land
because you have to part with so much acreage.
Robert Mulhere- We need to say External boundaries.
Jaime Cook- I would agree with that.
Robert Mulhere- It would need to say an External boundary adjacent to public conservation
area.
Clay Brooker- You know our thoughts on it, come up with a recommendation and can bring
it back to the next DSAC meeting. Page 39, Line 39, same concern. States 150ft here.
Clay Brooker- Page 52 Lines 45-49, An additional density bonus of 1 unit for each 1 unit
that is provided for low-income residents as identified in the affordable housing section. Is
Low income defined, is it different than housing that is affordable.
Michelle Mosca- Is that in the table in 20603, the category low income. That language is in
the future land use element. It was a 1 for 1, it was to encourage additional housing.
Clay Brooker- I would ask staff to look at “low-income residents” to make sure it is a
correct characterization in the affordable housing section of the code.
Eric Johnson- We have it defined in our definition section. With Robert leaving we are
losing the quorum to vote on this. Can we vote to bring this back to the next meeting?
Clay Brooker- We don’t need to bring it back, we can just continue it to the next meeting on
December 16th.
5
4. New Business
None
5. Public Speakers
No public speakers
6. REMINDERS OF UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
DATES DISCUSSION:
B. Tuesday December 16, 2025
7. MEETING ADJOURNED
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
the order of the chairman at 4:00 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
_______________________________________
Clay Brooker, Chairman
These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on __________________,
(check one) as submitted _______ or as amended ______.