Loading...
DSAC Agenda 05/02/2012DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA May 2, 2012 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 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 Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table 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 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. Call to Order - Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from April 4, 2012 Meeting IV. DSAC Positions - Vacancy Review & Vote — Welcome Chris Mitchell V. Public Speakers VI. Staff Announcements /Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — [Nathan Beals] B. Fire Review Update — [Ed Riley] C. Growth Management Division /Transportation Engineering — [Jay Ahmad] D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — [Jamie French] VII. Old Business A. LDC Amendment update [Caroline Cilek/Jamie French] B. Master Mobility Plan Phase III update [Debbie Armstrong /Reed Jarvi] VII. New Business A. Update on the BCC April 26th Workshop [Bill Varian] VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates June 6, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm July 11, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 —3:00 pm August 1, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 —3:00 pm September 5, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2012 TO: Judy Puig FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Development Services Advisory Board As you know, we currently have 1 vacancy on the above referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the application received for your review as follows: Mr. Gary McNally 96024 th Avenue NE Naples, Florida 34120 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time - frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Mitchelllan rom: gary_415 @msn.com ent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 4:39 PM o: Mitchelllan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 0 of Indicate Are you a registered otei�:in collier 'tounty? Ye Do you currently !told pu Ile office'? Do you currently or ever seirved oan u Callter Cottutj%Beard er Comtriiittee'? Ye .vironmental Advisory Board a conflict in state statutes, on Please lis# your commiunity activities: udicial a member Consumer in Electronics Federal Government Management Training Extended Program gement Training Programs Numerous Business courses at University Federal truction techniques and Management Trained as an Electrician By federal gov Board- asked to resi 18 month ;overnment trained EMS Captain for 7 iomedical Engineer Ems Trained and EMS Captain Owned Furnature Manufacturing Company Electrician Notes Each of the policy recommendations supported by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was evaluated by staff and the consultants to determine which recommendations would be pursued collectively in Phase III of the Master Mobility Plan. It was recognized that some of the recommendations did not require Growth Management Plan (GMP) or Land Development Code (LDC) changes at this time, and others had unique conditions, such that would require specialized research and development (Recommendation 10) or an oversight committee's involvement (Recommendation 2). These would clearly benefit from being pursued individually on a separate tracks, and therefore will be developed individually outside the Phase III work. The recommendations approved by the Board have been developed further during Phase III of the Master Mobility Plan. This Working Draft #1 Phase III Report outlines specific implementation strategies, including, where applicable, draft GMP and /or LDC language or concepts. These strategies will be developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) through an enhanced public involvement process to include two public workshops and a review by the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC). The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) will formally review the Final Report prior to being presented to the BCC for review so that the recommendations of these advisory boards will be part of the BCC's consideration. Following the BCC's final direction at the end of Phase III, any necessary GMP and /or LDC amendments will follow the usual and typical amendment process. Draft #1 The material contained in this working draft is organized as follows • Recommendation • The recommendation's and supporting descriptive text /examples from the Phase II report • Proposed changes to existing GMP objectives or policies shown in black italicized text in red strike —thru and underline format • Proposed New GMP Objectives and Policies shown in green italicized text • Proposed LDC Changes to specific code sections black italicized text in red strike —thru and underline format, or general concept descriptions in green text • Special descriptive notes may be found in the side bar area in red text Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 1— Use impact /mobility fee incentives based on calculated reductions generated by providing optimal employment to population ratios and a full range of housing types and affordability that result in reduced commuter - related trips, both within specific mixed -use developments and within larger sub - areas. Geographic Applicability — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Generally, mixed -use districts allow for diversity of uses, but code requirements or development conditions frequently do not require minimum or optimal ratios of residential, office, industrial, and retail uses. Often, non - residential entitlements within master - planned developments are partially developed or left entirely un- built. This diminishes the potential of these developments to capture trips internally or within sub -area markets. Based on analysis demonstrating the ability of land use diversity within a sub -area to reduce VMT that includes a full range of housing types and affordability, impact /mobility fee discounts may be provided to incentivize balanced land use. For example, the LDC could be amended to provide for optimal minimum ratios of various non - residential uses in a mixed -use development. Then, based upon voluntary compliance with these minimum ratios, impact /mobility fee discounts may be granted. The impact /mobility fee discounts would be applied to the non - residential uses as they are developed and achieve the optimal minimum ratios (such that the reduced trips generation /reduced VMTs are actually realized). Another example would be retrofitting an existing project to interconnect to nearby non - residential uses (e.g., employment, shopping, recreation, and education), thereby providing access for residents to these uses and reducing trips on the county's arterial Draft #1 Notes Trip reduction strategies, both for number of trips and length of trips, can take many forms. Mixed uses that support the trip - making needs of each other are a big part of any trip reduction scenario. Just as "preferential" locations can reduce trip length. The approach being recommended is to establish within the GMP and LDC a set of standards /guidelines and corresponding incentives that form the framework of what would be classified as Low Vehicle Mlles Traveled Development (LVMTD). Supporting the LVMTD standards and development guidelines would be a new multi -modal Mobility Analysis that would demonstrate how a development is (or is not) meeting the objectives of LVMTD in reducing the number, frequency, or length of trips from the project. Although mentioned briefly in this policy cluster, the operative GMP policy and LDC language for the Mobility Analysis is discussed in response to Recommendation No. 6. network. This reduction in VMT can be calculated, and a reduction in impact /mobility fees can be granted based on these calculated, reduced impacts. A detailed analysis and public vetting of the potential incentives and related reductions in impact or mobility fees will occur as part of Phase Three. By calculating the difference in VMT for integrated and isolated developments, alternative fees can be established and applied as a credit as non - residential uses are developed. This results in a normal fee for residential uses, reduced fees for non - residential uses, and a net discount for the development as a whole (compared to the base fee calculation) To illustrate a "real- world" application of this concept, the following example is provided: A mixed -use development with 200 single family units and 500 multi - family units is proposing to construct 650,000 square feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of office space to support the assumed optimal employee per population ratio of 0.5 within the mixed -use development. The calculated VMT reduction for this development is 20 percent. The residential impact fee of approximately $2.9 million is collected (based on fee rates equal to 100 percent of the adopted fee schedule effective October 2011). Upon construction of the non - residential square footage, the impact fees for the non - residential (office and retail) square footage are collected at a discount of 73 percent of the adopted rates. The total fee amount collected results in a net fee reduction of 20 percent, equivalent to the reduction of VMT produced by this development. By providing the entire discount against the impact fees for the non - residential land uses, the discount for the overall mixed -use development is predicated on the construction of the non - residential uses that provide the land use mix needed to support this development. 4 Draft #1 Notes Road Impact /Mobility Fees have two principle "factors" on the demand side of the equation; number of trips generated by the land use, and the average length of the trips. Both of those factors can and should be the target of VMT - reduction strategies. Some strategies that contribute to trip reduction values include: A mix of uses that promote internal capture (lower external trip - making). - Residential housing mix - Commercial support - Institutional uses - Recreational uses Transit supportive development, e.g., direct access to existing transit service. Employer —based trip reduction strategies - Ride - sha ring/ca r /vanpooling; - Subsidized transit support; - Flex -time; Telecommuting; - Off -peak operations; New Objectives & Policies Objective: Collier County shall implement a standard of development entitled `Low Vehicle Miles Traveled Development" or LVMTD. LVMTD may be single use or multi- %mixed -use development, but shall be designed to incorporate VMT- reduction strategies that either 1) reduce the need to travel; Z) reduce the length of trips, or 3) encourogelfacilitate the use of alternative modes. Policy: Collier County will include provisions in the LDC that establish the design standards and land use criteria for a development to be considered LVMTD. Policy: Collier County will include provisions in the LDC by which developments granted LVMTD status qualify for incentives, such as dedicated development review team andJor expedited development reviews, road impact fee reductions, reduced parking requirements, flexible design standards (e.g., building mass, dimensional and height restrictions, etc.), increased densities andJor intensities, reduced minimum open space requirements, reduced application fees, trip reduction "credits" (e.g., internal capture andJor pass -by capture) as part of T1S considerations, etc. Objective: Collier County shall implement through the LDC and the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance a process for establishing the value derived from the implementation of verifiable "low vehicle miles traveled development' (LVMTD) strategy commitments by o developer in exchange for road impact fee reductions. Policy: Collier County will establish the requirements for the preparation of a Mobility Analysis that would be used, in part, to quantify the benefits and demonstrate the viability of proposed VMT reduction strategies. Demonstrating the Draft #1 Notes Incentives for LVMTD that would result from either compliance with standards - based criteria or demonstrated VMT reductions and might include such incentives as. - road impact fee reductions - dedicated development review team and /or expedited development reviews - reduced parking requirements - flexible design standards (e.g., building mass, dimensional and height restrictions, etc.) - increased densities and /or intensities - reduced minimum open space requirements - reduced application fees, - trip reduction "credits" (e.g., internal capture and /or pass -by capture) as part ofTIS Concurrency considerations, etc. Mobility Analysis —See Recommendation No. 6 viability of one or more strategies would also include, as appropriate, the mechanism(s) for performance verification. Policy: Collier County will include provisions in the LDC and Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance for transportation impact fee credits to be granted to a fee payer that can demonstrate through an approved Mobility Analysis that specific LVMTO strategies have been incorporated into the project that provide a net benefit in VMT reductions. The Mobility Assessment will include a commitment for any needed verification requirements. Potential LDC Changes LDC will have to be amended to facilitate the implementation of this Objective and associated policies, including: 1. Creating a new requirement for the preparation of a Mobility Analysis: • a planning tool as part of each Rezone /SRA • a mechanism to obtain RIF reductions 2. Establishing a new sub -type of development called "low vehicle miles traveled development" (LVMTD) to include: • Balanced mixed -use development that encourages internal project and /or community capture • Transit and Non- Motorized Accessible Development Currently served by transit service • To be served by planned future service Currently served externally by non - motorized infrastructure • Multi -modal internal circulation system • Accommodates and /or provides transit service • Non- motorized travel • Enhanced non - motorized travel accommodations • Bicycle /pedestrian network circulation that interconnects w/ essential land uses Draft #1 Notes i 3. developing LVMTD guidance /standards /incentives for single- and mixed -use developments. • Low- & o- Travel development including live -work sites, associated workplace housing, and satellite work centers • Employer -based trip reduction measures c Flex -hours • Employees start /stop times • Business hours of operations, shifts, etc. l, Telecommute Preferential van /carpool & bicycle parking • Transit system contributions (one -time capital and /or long- term operational) o Bus shelter o Park -n -ride lot .3 Employer -paid transit passes c Bike - commuter accommodations ■ Showers, changing facilities w /lockers c Secure bike parking o Guaranteed ride home program Emergency transportation availability 4. Developing LVMTD incentives for single- and mixed -use developments including but not limited to: * dedicated development review team and /or expedited development reviews * road impact fee reductions • reduced parking requirements • flexible design standards (e.g., building mass, dimensional and height restrictions, etc.) • increased densities and /or intensities • reduced minimum open space requirements • reduced application fees • trip reduction "credits" (e.g., internal capture and /or pass -by capture) as part of TIS considerations, etc. 5. Developing a procedure for quantifying value of the estimated net VMT- reduction resulting from verifiable strategies committed to by a fee - payer. Draft #1 Notes Incentives related to road impact fee reductions or "offsets" would require amending the Consolidated Impact Fee • Incentives related to trip reduction credits would require modifications to the TIS Guidelines • A verification process would have to be established for those strategies requiring such a follow -up. Draft #1 Notes 9 Recommendation 2 — Recommend that the BCC appoint an advisory board or task force to be comprised only of residents or property owners within Golden Gate Estates to evaluate all viable tools and programs to reduce density in North Golden Gate Estates. As part of such evaluation, it is recommended that the advisory board or task force consider, at a minimum, the following: • Financial feasibility and cost, both to individual private property owners and Collier County government • Incentives that may be employed to promote the use of such tools and programs • Balancing private property rights and public policy objectives • Collateral benefits (in addition to density reduction and lower VMTs), including but not limited to, public safety, including wildfire and flood protection; hydrologic restoration and aquifer recharge; mitigation; and habitat preservation It is recommended that the advisory board or task force be tasked with making final recommendations for implementation, including any recommended GMP and /or LDC amendments, for consideration by the EAC, CCPC and ultimately for action by the BCC within 18 months of approval of this MMP recommendation by the BCC. Draft #1 Notes Recommendation #2 is to be combined` with the TDR program effort in the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). Due to the recent resignation of the person responsible for the WMP, Recommendation #2 is on hold until a replacement is hired /assigned. 0 RECOMMENDATION 3 — Incentivize approved neighborhood- serving retail and service uses in Golden Gate Estates, Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Receiving Areas, and Orange Tree to reduce trip lengths for neighborhood serving uses. Recommendation 3 Geographic Applications — Golden Gate Estates, Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Receiving Areas, and Orange Tree Description /examples of potential strategies: Consistent with Recommendation 1, provide a discount for the non - residential component of mixed -use development upon its construction in areas where mixed -use development is allowed. The extent of discount will be tied to a methodology that calculates the effect of non - residential development constructed above and beyond any minimum requirements and /or a demonstrated internal trip capture rate. It is recognized that additional land use changes are required to be consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Collier County Growth Management Plan. A. Review minimum and maximum development requirements (i.e., densities and intensities) within the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Receiving Areas to promote compact, mixed -use villages that support optimal employment to population ratios. Impact /mobility fee incentives would be provided for compact, mixed use villages based on analysis demonstrating reduced VMT to incentivize the desired type of development in areas targeted for infill and redevelopment. Providing for non - residential development within the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Receiving Areas would provide not only an internal benefit to the Receiving Area, but also would benefit nearby residents of the Estates. B. Incentivize the incorporation of transit infrastructure to support regional transit service (e.g., park- and -ride lots, transfer stations, etc.) and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in development Draft #1 Notes '! .� located at existing commercial nodes or those approved in the future within Golden Gate Estates. Amend Existing Objectives & Policies Amend the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IL AGRICULTURAL /RURAL DESIGNATION B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process, clustered development, density bonus incentives, and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: 1. Maximum Density for Receiving Lands Outside of a Rural Village: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum achievable in Receiving Lands not located within a Rural Village through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved as follows: Draft #1 Notes a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME. 3. Rural Villages: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. Rural Villages shall be comprised of several neighborhoods designed in a compact nature such that a majority of residential development is within one quarter mile of Neighborhood Centers. Neighborhood Centers may include small scale service retail and office uses, and shall include a public park, square, or green. Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village. The Village Center shall be the primary location for commercial uses. Villages shall be surrounded by a green belt in order to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide separation between villages and the low density rural development, agricultural uses, and conservation lands that may surround the village. Villages shall be designed to include the following: a mixture of residential housing types, institutional uses; commercial uses; and, recreational uses, all of which shall serve the residents of the Village and the surrounding lands. In addition, the following criteria and conditions shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: Draft #1 Notes C) Rural Village Sizes and Density: 1. Rural Villages shall be a minimum of 300 acres and a maximum of 1,500 acres, except within Receiving Lands south of the Belle Meade NRPA where the maximum size may not exceed 2,500 acres. The Rural Village size is exclusive of the required green belt area. Rural Villages shall include a Village Center and a minimum of two distinct neighborhoods. 2. The minimum and maximum gross density of a Rural Village shall be 2.0 units per gross acre and 3.0 units per acre, respectively. The density calculation for a Rural Village may include the base residential density permitted for the green belt area, if such density is shifted to the Rural Village area. 3. The minimum and maximum gross density of a Rural Village shall be 2.0 units per gross acre and 3.0 units per acre, respectively or up to 4.5 units per acre for Rural Villages that qualify for the Mobility Enhancement and Vehicles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Bonus set forth herein. The density calculation for a Rural Village may include the base residential density permitted for the green belt area, if such density is shifted to the Rural Village area. Density shall be achieved as follows: a) The base density for the Agricultural /Rural Designation of 0.2 dwelling units per acre (1.0 dwelling units per five acres) for lands within the Rural Village, and the land area designated as a green belt surrounding the Rural Village, is granted by right for allocation within the designated Rural Village. b) The additional density necessary to achieve the minimum required density for a Rural Village shall be achieved by any combination of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits. For each TDR Credit acquired for use in achieving the minimum density in a Rural Village, one Rural Village bonus unit shall be granted. Draft #1 Notes '.4 c) Additional density between the minimum and maximum amounts established herein may be achieved through any of the following, either individually or in combination: 1) Additional TDR Credits. 2) TDR Bonus Credits. 3) A 0.5 unit bonus for each unit that is provided for lower income residents and for entry level and workforce buyers. 4) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. 5) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre as provided in Policy 6.2.5 (6) b. of the CCME. D) Mobility Enhancement and VMT Reduction Bonus: The maximum density o 3_0 „units per acre may be increased, by 1.5 units per acre to a maximum of 4.5 units per acre and deviations from the Land Use Allocotion Acreage Requirements set forth herein may be chanted by the BCC at the time of approval of a rurol village that provides the allowing 1) A designated area of at least 50 acres specifically dedicoted to a Business, Research and Technology, or Commerce Pork or some similar employment eneratin use or 2) Enhanced and fully interconnected bicycle and pedestrian pathway focilities throughout the Village and connecting to externol roadways; and Draft #1 Notes 15 3) Alternative work hours that reduce peak our trips to the site by a minimum of 30 percent; or, 4) A transit subsidy sufficient to reduce project generated external trips or trips generated from development located outside of and within five miles of the rural village by a minimum of 15 percent annually; and 4) On -site or off -site (within 300 Lee t to f the project property boundary) improved carpool or park =and ride area and 4) Providing public bus shelters within the village center, within or adjacent to schools or other civic uses and within the dedicated Business Research and Technology or Commerce Park or some similar employment generotinq use. D) Land Use Mix: 1. Acreage Limitations a) Neighborhood Center— between 0.3 and 0.5% of the total Village acreage, not to exceed 10 acres, within each Neighborhood Center. b) Neighborhood Center Commercial — Not to exceed 40% of the Neighborhood Center acreage and 8,500 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. c) Village Center- Not to exceed 10% of the total Village acreage. d) Village Center Commercial - Not to exceed 30% of the Village Center acreage and 10,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. e) Research and Technology Parks, Business and Commerce Parks and Similar Dedicated Employment Generating Areas. — Draft #1 Notes Technelogy Park SHbd�strket in the (4r-bGP.A44Pd I kP 04Fket-, e,vck4ding parayp:aph j� tThe Park area shall not exceed 20% 41%of the total Village acreage. f) Civic Uses and Public Parks -Minimum of and deviations from the 10% of the total Village acreage. Policy: Collier County shall implement a comprehensive program to incentivize development of oreas approved for neighborhood-serving retail and service uses in Golden Gate Estates, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts, and Orange Tree. The purposed of such a program is to reduce VMTs. The program may include but not be limited to: variable impact or mobility fees; reduced parking requirements or other development standards, reduced regulatory requirements or expedited reviews; density bonuses or increased density "by_ right ". 31��i Draft #1 Notes 17 RECOMMENDATION 4— Review and revisit requirements that already exist for self- sustaining Towns and Villages within the RLSA /RFMUD Receiving Areas to provide for internal capture and use of alternative modes. Geographic Application — Rural Land Stewardship Area Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Maximize allowable gross densities and reduce the development footprint without increasing overall density. B. Optimize mixture of uses and providing a full range of housing types and affordability within Towns and Villages by establishing and incentivizing targeted jobs to housing ratio. C. Any impact or mobility fee incentive offered for the provision of commercial or other non - residential component or transit facility should be provided in part when such component or facility is constructed and in part when such facility or component is occupied or operational. D. Locate town centers in close proximity to the arterial network to encourage timely development, take advantage of available pass -by trips, to facilitate transit access, and enhance connectivity (and efficiency) between land use and infrastructure. E. Enhance connectivity for all modes through a local collector grid road network and enhanced transit service and bicycle /pedestrian connectivity. F. Enhance building form /code requirements to encourage walking /biking within public spaces. G. Develop impact /mobility fee incentives for TOD /mixed -use development located near major transit facilities or within activity centers and provide such facilities as integral components of their development. Draft #1 Notes The primary objective of Recommendation 4 will be largely implemented as a result of the Objectives and Polices associated with the new requirements for a Mobility Analysis (Recommendation No. 1). All new developments, including those towns and villages with the RLSA and RFMUD would be required to prepare the Mobility Analysis and demonstrate to what degree they are reducing external trips thru enhanced levels of internal capture, use of transit /alternative modes, etc. All of the planning principles outlined in Recommendation 4 are recognized components of the Mobility Analysis requirements designed to implement Recommendation 1. A thorough review of the specific LDC regulations governing the design principles required to be incorporated in RLSA /RFMUD towns and villages was conducted. Existing regulations were found that adequately address most of the attributes associated with strategies to reduce VMT, increase walking and biking, etc. Minor changes to the LDC should be considered to link the RLSA /RFMUD sections back to the Mobility Analysis H. Reduce parking requirements through shared parking arrangements and multi -modal parking credits (and allow higher floor area ratios) for Transit Oriented Design /mixed -use development located near major transit facilities or within activity centers. New Objectives & Policies None Potential LDC Changes LDC should be amended to facilitate the implementation of this Recommendation by creating direct links to the required Mobility Analysis section of the LDC, as follows: Amend Section 4.08.07.H. Development Document by adding a new paragraph: 3. The document shall include a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) as required by Section 6.02.03, and a multi -modal Mobility Analysis as required by Section . The Mobility Analysis shall clearly illustrate what vehicular, transit and non - motorized /alternative mode strategies are being deployed with in the SRA to reduce VMT. Amend Section 4.08.07.J. Design Criteria 2 Town Design Criteria b. Transportation Network - by adding a new paragraph iii: iii. The transportation network shall be designed to facilitate the delivery of transit services to, and throughout, the town, including but not limited to: • incorporation of bus turn - outs /stops along major internal collector roadways • incorporation of shelters, bicycle storage /parking facilities, etc. • interconnections to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure Draft #1 Notes 19 • interconnections to transfer facilities andlor park - and -ride Lacilities, if provided Note: pursuant to Section 4.08.07.J.3.b Village Design Criteria — Transportation Network, the same requirements for Towns are applicable to Villages. Amend Section 2.03.08. Rural Fringe Zoning Districts A. RFMU District 2. Receiving Lands b. Rural Villages (4) Other Design Standards (a) Transportation System Design - by amending paragraph vi. as follows: vi. The transportation network shall be designed to facilitate the delivery of transit services to, and throughout, the town, including but not limited to: • incorporation of bus turn- outs /stops along major internal collector roadways • incorporation of shelters, bicycle storogelparking facilities, etc. • interconnections to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure • interconnections to transfer facilities andlor park - and -ride facilities, if provided • the co- location of up blic transit and school bus stops where practical. Draft #1 Notes `G RECOMMENDATION 5 — Revisit policies within the Urban Areas to encourage: A) and further incentivize infill and redevelopment; B) internal capture; and C) Use of alternative modes within localized mixed -use developments. Recommendation 5 Geographic Application — Coastal Urban Area and /or Immokalee Urban Area Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Transition from a road -based impact fee to a mobility fee to provide the flexibility to expend impact fee revenue on capital infrastructure that support all modes of travel, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. As a rule, a mobility fee minimally increases the overall magnitude of a transportation impact fee (typically 1 -3%, depending on the value of non - roadway assets. B. Establish specific criteria through which developments may qualify for a limited density -bonus program that requires no change in zoning ( "by- right ") to allow additional land use entitlements in exchange for implementation of urban design that promotes alternative modes and integration of uses within development projects, including: 1. Interconnectivity of uses 2. Shared parking between uses 3. TOD /transit infrastructure and connections C. Consider designating additional areas to be targeted for future mixed -use infill and redevelopment that are currently outside of the allowable mixed -use development footprint designated by the Future Land Use Map. Mixed -use development allows for interconnectivity of uses, shared parking between uses, and TOD /transit infrastructure and connections within the Coastal Urban Area. D. Review minimum and maximum development requirements (i.e., densities and intensities) within allowable mixed -use areas to promote compact mixed -use developments that support optimal Draft #1 Notes employment to population ratio and better support alternative modes. Impact /mobility fee incentives would be provided for compact, mixed -use developments based on analysis demonstrating reduced VMT to incentivize the desired type of development in areas targeted for infill and redevelopment. E. Reduce parking and /or landscape requirements in exchange for enhanced interconnectivity to adjacent uses. F. Provide financial and regulatory incentives, such as: 1. Discount impact /mobility fees for compact, mixed -use urban development /TOD that provide major transit facilities or are located near major transit centers or within activity centers based on analysis demonstrating reduced VMT to incentivize the desired type of development in targeted areas for infill and redevelopment. 2. Identify areas, such as those within adopted Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) boundaries, where final zoning approval may be granted by the CRA Advisory Board or Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). For example, within specifically designated areas of the Coastal Urban Area and /or Immokalee Urban Area targeted for redevelopment, TOD /mixed -use development projects could be approved by the CRA Advisory Board if within a CRA or the CCPC for targeted infill or redevelopment outside the boundaries of an adopted CRA. 3. A Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) includes a compact geographic area with multiple existing or proposed travel corridors for common trips. A TCMA supports the provision of more efficient mobility alternatives, including transit, by featuring an area -wide (rather than specific roadway) level of service standard for the approval of local development orders. To promote infill, redevelopment, and more efficient mobility alternatives (e.g., enhanced transit service) throughout a larger urban area, expand the two existing TCMAs (Northwest TCMA and Draft #1 Notes East - Central TCMA) to encompass the entire Coastal Urban Area. 4. A Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) allows an exception to transportation concurrency within a specific area, so long as the impacts to the transportation system are mitigated through other established means. Collier County currently has designed a TCEA within the Coastal Urban Area along South U.S. 41. Within the Immokalee Urban Area, consider implementing a TCEA, similar to the existing TCEA in the Coastal Urban Area, to provide automatic approval for concurrency review of conforming TOD /mixed -use development. Non - conforming developments would be required to conduct a full development review /concurrency review. Amend Existing Objectives & Policies Amend FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. Urban Mixed Use District 5. Office and In fill Commercial Subdistrict 5. Office and In fill Commercial Subdistrict The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow low intensity office commercial or infill commercial development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed Use District located along arterial and collector roadways where residential development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadway S), will reduce VMT and enhance alternative modes of mobillity, and is generally compatible with nearby residential and commercial development. The criteria listed below must be met for any project utilizing this Subdistrict. For purposes of this Subdistrict, "abuts" and "abutting" excludes intervening public street, easement (other than utilities) or right -of -way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial" refers to C -1 through C -5 zoning districts and commercial components of PUDs. Draft #1 Notes a. The subject site is in the Urban -Mixed Use District. b. The subject site abuts a road classified as an arterial or collector on the Collier County Functional Class Map, as adopted in the Transportation Element. c. A rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety, up to a maximum of 12 acres. For a property greater than 12 acres in size, the balance of the property in excess of 12 acres is limited to an environmental conservation easement or open space. Under this provision, "open space" shall not include water management facilities unless said facilities are incorporated into a conservation or preservation area for the purpose of enhancement of the conservation or preservation area. A bonus allowance of up to 3 additional acres or a total oLup to 15 acres may be granted for projects that enter into a formal agreement with Collier County to provide two or more of the following: onsite transit infrastructure to allow for easy access in a comfortoble and safe environment to transit routes; transit supporting_faciliti es for employees and customers, such as additional bicycle racks, lockers, shower and changing facilities; subsidies for employee transit use; preferential parking or other employee provided incentives for carpooling, flexible or altered work schedules to provide for off -peok arrival and del2orture times provisions for new or expanded work - at -home opportunities. The specific minimum requirements to be eligible for this acreage bonus shall be set forth in the LDC. d. The site abuts commercial zoning: (i) On one side and that abutting commercial site is not within an infill Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District or the Urban Commercial District; or, (ii) On both sides. e. The abutting commercial zoning may be in the unincorporated portion of Collier County or in a neighboring jurisdiction. f. The depth of the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12 acres in size, for which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth of the commercially zoned area on the Draft #1 Notes abutting porcel(s). Where the subject site abuts commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the commercially zoned area is not the some on both abutting parcels, the Board of County Commissioners shall have discretion in determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest depth of commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case -by -case basis. g. Project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses if the subject property abuts commercial zoning on one side only. For property abutting commercial zoning on both sides, the project uses may include those of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district. h. The subject property in its entirety was not created to take advantage of this provision, evidenced by its creation prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on October 28, 1997. i. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side only: (i) commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met; and, (ii) uses shall be limited so as to serve as a transitional use between the commercial zoning on one side and non - commercial zoning on the other side. j. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting both sides, commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met. k. Lands zoned for support medical uses pursuant to the "114 mile support medical uses" provision in the Urban designation shall not be deemed "commercial zoning" for purposes of this Subdistrict. I. Land adjacent to areas zoned C -1 1T on the zoning atlas maps, or other commercial zoning obtained via the Draft #1 Notes former Commercial Under Criteria provision in the FLUE, shall not be eligible for a rezone under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, except through aggregation as provided in Paragraphs i. and j. above. m. For purposes of this Subdistrict, property abutting land zoned Industrial or Industrial PUD, or abutting lands zoned for Business Park uses pursuant to the Business Park Subdistrict, or abutting lands zoned for Research and Technology Park uses pursuant to the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict, shall also qualify for commercial zoning so long as all other criteria under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict are met. n. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer. o. The project will be compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties. p. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District is 250 acres. B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: 2. Density Bonuses Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Unless otherwise specified, Ddensity bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. h. Mobility Enhancement and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Bonus A "by- right" density bonus of the lesser of 1.0 unit per ocre or 20 percent of the otherwise permitted base density shall be granted in urban designated areas west of CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) for new or expanding mixed -use projects providing interconnectivity (for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles) both from the residential portion of the project to the non - residential portion and from the non- Draft #1 Notes residentioloortion to odiacent parcels not within the mixed use project and providing at least three of the following: a) A transit subsidy sufficient to reduce employees work trips by a minimum of 15 percent annually,- c) On-site or off -site (within 300 feet of the project property boundary) improved carpool or park and ride area; d) Providing on-site or off-site (within 300 feet of the 2roLec property boundary) a public bus shelter/bus transfer focility either on-site or within 300 feet of the project property boundary e) Enhanced and fully connected bicycle and pedestrian Lacilities; f) Alternative work hours that reduce peak our trips to the site by a minimum of 30 percent; q) Work from home allowances that reduce site related trips by G minimum of 30 percent. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shall establish a multi faceted program to provide for requirements and incentive to reduce VMT in the County's urban areas. The program may include, but is not limited to the following elements: a) A "by-right' density bonus of the lesser of 1.0 unit per acre or 20 percent of the otherwise permitted base density shall be granted in urban designated areas west of CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) for new or expanding mixed-use projects providing interconnectivity (for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles) both from the residential portion of the project to the non-residential portion and from the non-residentiol portion to adjacent parcels. 26 Draft #1 Notes b) The establishment of minimum and maximum densities, intensities and mixture of uses within allowable mixed -use areas c) A study to be completed within one year of adoption of this policy, to identify potential land use designation or zoning changes for areas which presently do not allow mixed -use or other high employment generating land use designations such as industrial or business parks designations, but which may be appropriate for such development. d) Incentives for providing shared parking between uses, TOD and related transit enhancing facilities and commitments including bus stops, shelters, transfer stations, park and ride facilities and transit subsidies. Incentives may include but ore not limited to reduced parking, setback, and landscape requirements; and, discounted impactor mobility fees associated with reduced trip generation and reduced VMT; e) Providing for rezoning or quasi - administrative approval of TODfmixed use developments within targeted urban areas, such as CRAs, by the respective CRA Advisory Board or by the Collier County Planning Commission, provided such developments meet established minimum thresholds for VMT reduction, TOD, reduced trip generation or internal trip capture. f) The establishment of a coastal urban area Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) establishing an area wide level of service and to promote mixed -use and urban infill development. Impact or Mobility fees may still be applicable under a coostal urban area TCMA, but may be incentivized to promote mixed -use, LVMTDs, TOD and other desirable design elements. Policy: Existing or proposed non - residential or mixed use projects in urban designated areas, which enter into a formal agreement with Collier County to employ specific methods to better manage project initiated transportation demand (reduced trips, particularly at peak demand times), may be granted one or more of the following: Draft #1 Notes a) Impact or mobility fee relief for new or expanded uses; b) Reduction in required landscaping buffer widths or other required vehicular use landscaping requirements; and c) Reduction in required parking for existing, or new or expanded uses. Specific methods to reduce project initiated transportation demand include: providing for onsite or nearby off -site transit infrastructure to allow for easy access in a comfortable and safe environment to transit routes; provision of transit supporting facilities for employees and customers, such as additional bicycle racks, lockers, shower and changing facilities; subsidizing employee transit use; preferential parking or other employee provided incentives for carpooling, flexible or altered work schedules to provide for off -peak arrival and departure times; providing for new or expanded work -ot -home opportunities. LVMTD Incentives: In the case of existing facilities for a proposed new or expanded facility during the submission of a site development or site improvement plan, or as may be included as a condition of a rezone or conditional use petition or as part of a developer's agreement, any or all of the following incentives may be granted as indicated: Section X.XX,X A reduction in the required amount of off- street parking by up to 10 percent based upon an executed agreement to provide and maintain at least three of the following mobility enhancement and VMT reduction strategies: a) A constructed vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle interconnection to on adjacent property where one does not presently exist,• 2 Draft #1 Notes As recommended in Recommendation No. 1, a new Section in the LDC should be created and entitled: Low Vehicle Miles Traveled Development" or LVMTD. All strategies and incentives to accomplish a reduction of VMT should be provided for in this new Section. Some examples include the following: For non - residential uses and mixed uses, by providing for enhanced transit, pedestrian and bicycle access and related facilities, or by utilizing other means to reduce the need for employees and customers to access a site by private passenger vehicles the trip generation associated with a particular project can be reduced and thus the required off - street parking and loading requirements can also be reduced. Incentives are provided herein to promote the inclusion of various LVMTD strategies through maximized opportunities for alternative forms of mobility and reduced peak demand trip generation. Such strategies shall be maintained and continued so long as the use continues. ,9 b) A transit subsidy sufficient to reduce employees work trips by a minimum of 10 percent annually, c) On-site or off-site (within .300 feet of the project property boundary) improved carpool or park and ride area; d) Providing a safe and comfortable public bus shelter /bus transfer facility; e) Enhanced and fully connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities; f) Alternative work hours that reduce peak our trips to the site by a minimum of 15 percent; g) Work from home allowances that reduce site related trips by a minimum of 15 percent; or A reduction in the required amount of off-street parking by up to 20 percent based upon an executed agreement to provide and maintain at leost four of the following mobility enhancement and VMT reduction strategies: a) A constructed vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle internal interconnection and to adjacent property where one does not presently exist; b) A transit subsidy sufficient to reduce employees work trips by a minimum of 15 percent annually, c) On-site or off-site (within 300 feet of the project property boundary) improved corpool or park and ride area; d) Providing on-site or offsite (within 300 feet of the project property boundary) a public bus shelterlbus transfer facility; e) Enhanced and fully connected (internal to the project as well as external) bicycle and pedestrian facilities; f) Alternative work hours that reduce peak our trips to the site by a mi ni I mum of 30 percent, Draft #1 Notes 30 g) Work from home allowances that reduce site related trips by a minimum of 30 percent, or, A reduction in the required front or side yard setback or landscape buffer of up to 20 percent but in no case resulting in less than 10 feet for a front yard or landscape buffer adjacent to a right -of woy, or 5 feet for a side yard or internal property line landscape buffer, based upon on executed agreement to provide and maintain at least four of the strategies set forth in Section X.XX.X , above; or, A reduction in impact or mobility fees for non - residential uses for new or expanding non - residential or mixed use projects located in specifically targeted areas including: the Boyshore Gateway CRA, the RFMUD, the Orange Tree Settlement Area, Golden Gate Estates zoned commercial areas, the Immokalee Urban Area, and any other area approved by the BCC, the RLSA. The reduction shall be based upon o numerically demonstrated reduction in site generated trips andlor through the provision of facilities that will enhance and encourage transit and other alternative modes of mobility, thus resulting in a numeric value of reduced VMTs. This incentive shall be implemented consistent with the conditions and limitations set forth herein or in any other adopted resolution or ordnance providing for such limitation or conditions; or, A "by-right' increase in base density of the lesser of 1.0 unit per acre or 20 percent of the allowable base density for new or expanding mixed -use projects located west of CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) and providing interconnectivity (for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles) both from the residential portion of the project to the non- residentiol portion and from the non - residential portion to other adjacent parcels not within the mixed -use project and providing at least three of the following: o) A transit subsidy sufficient to reduce employees work trips by a minimum of 15 percent annually; b) On -site or off -site (within 300 feet of the project property boundary) improved carpool or park and ride area; Draft #1 Notes c) Providing on-site or off-site (within 300 feet of the project property boundary) a public bus sheiterlbus transfer facility either on-site or within 300 feet of the; d) Enhanced and fully connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities; e) Alternative work hours that reduce peak our trips to the site byaminimum of 30 percent; f) Work from home allowances that reduce site related trips by a minimum of 30 percent Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 6 — Coordinate county multi -modal planning efforts with land use strategies identified under Recommendations 1 -5. Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Coordinate land use strategies with transit planning efforts undertaken as part of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) process. B. Coordinate land use strategies with multi -modal planning efforts undertaken as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) process. C. Coordinate land use strategies with bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts undertaken as part of the Comprehensive Pathways Plan process (subsequently integrated into the LRTP). New Objectives & Policies Objective: Collier County shall implement a strategy for evaluating the level and quality of the multi" -modal attributes of existing and new development areas. Policy: Collier County will develop and adopt in the LDC the requirements associated with the preparation of a multi- modal Mobility Analysis. Components of a Mobility Analysis shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) For mixed -use development, a land use trip generation analysis demonstrating what land use strategies are to be used to minimize external trips a. Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique) to calculate external trips (internal capture), external walk trips, external transit trips, etc. Draft #1 Notes A multi -modal Mobility Analysis creates the linkage between Land Use and Transportation policy. 33 b) For single -use development, a demonstration of what VMT- reduction strategiesjtechniques are to be used c) An analysis of current and proposed transit access d) An analysis of local street connectivity e) An analysis of non- motorized travel suitability f) Documentation and support for LDC standards deviations resulting from the use of LVMTD strategies Policy: Collier County will identify within the requirements for preparing a Mobility Analysis in the LDC, those VMT - reduction strategiesjtechniques that ore "pre- qualified" and which strategiesjtechniques require verifiable conditions (perpetual or otherwise). VMT - reduction values will be established for each technique. Net reductions will be used to calculate impact fee reductions, project trip impact reductions, etc. Policy: Collier County will establish in the LDC, minimum standards for the various mobility factors within the Mobility Analysis, against which proposedjexisting conditions would be compared. At a minimum, standards would be established for: a) local street connectivity b) transit (e.g., availability, distance to, infrastructure, etc.) c) pedestrian facilities d) bicycle facilities Policy: Collier County will consider requiring the preparation of a Mobility Analysis for purposes that include, but not limited to, the following: a) Aso planning tool in the review of applications for RezonejPUD/SRA /SDP as a measure of meeting LVMTD objectives b) As a tool to evaluate existing conditions c) As a criteria in planning and prioritizing capital improvements d) As a mechanism to obtain RIF reductions Draft #1 Notes 3 i Potential LDC Changes LDC will have to be amended to facilitate the implementation of this Objective and associated policies, including: 1. Create a new requirement for the preparation of a multi-modal Mobility Analysis for use as: • a measure of meeting LVMTD objectives o verification requirements, if needed • a planning tool in the review of applications for Rezone /IUD /SRA /SDP as a measure of: transit access and support /utilization 1 street connectivity o bike /ped suitability trip generation "credits" • a tool to evaluate existing conditions Demonstrating /documenting need o Grant application support documentation • a criteria in prioritizing capital improvements TDP LRTP Comprehensive Pathways Plan • a mechanism to obtain RIF reductions, including any required post - development verification conditions that may be needed 2, Create standards for the various mobility factors within the Mobility Analysis, against which proposed /existing conditions would be compared 3. Develop LVMTD guidance /standards /incentives for single- and mixed -use developments, such as: • Establishing and incentivizing targeted jobs to housing ratio • Encouraging a balanced land use mix • Providing for essential public services /facilities • Increased FARs • Reduced setbacks, reduced open space, increased height limits, etc. Draft #1 Notes 35 w Shared parking � Tr nsit^h'iendly"deve|npment(hydesignandsupport) � Employer assistance strategies 4. Develop a procedure for quantifying value nf the estimated net Vk8T-neductiou/esu|bn8 from verifiable strategies committed to by a fee-payer. Draft #1 Notes :a i RECOMMENDATION 7 — Plan for the provision of multi -modal infrastructure through land development and roadway standards (e.g., complete streets) within large -scale planned developments and the county road network. Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Design future roadway corridors with adequate cross section for: 1. Bike lanes and shared use side -paths as appropriate 2. Bus bays and shelter areas 3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure such as queue -jump lanes and signal priority B. Adopt Complete Streets guidelines for local roads within large -scale planned developments. C. In the Coastal Urban Area activity centers, RFMUD Rural Villages, and RLSA Towns and Villages better define urban design guidelines to enhance the off -road bicycle and sidewalk environment, including furniture zone, sidewalk area, building fa4ade, and shade features (street trees and building arcades). Cost —to- benefit ratio would be evaluated at LDC adoptions and at the time that individual construction projects are considered. Amend Existing Objectives & Policies TE Policy 3.3: The County shall acquire a sufficient amount of right - of -way to facilitate arterial and collector roads of no less than a cross section of six (6) traffic lanes, appropriate turn lanes, medians, -bike lanes or paved shoulders or shared use pathways consistent with the Pathways Plan, eo4 ede-s + 44^^ eet - ^sidewalks, drainage canals, bus bays and transit Draft #1 Notes 37 shelter areas, and landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right -of -way standard associated with width needed to accommodate six travel Lanes may be considered when it can be demonstrated, through a traffic capacity analysis and /or right - of-way constraint analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at build -out will be less than the standard. It will be the responsibility of the Complete Streets Team to review all proposed right -of -way acquisition strategies, whether for new or expanded facilities, to ensure consistency with the Complete Streets Standards fGuidelinesl. TE Policy 4.6: The County shall provide for the safe movement of non - motorized vehicles and pedestrians through implementation of 4&-o Complete Streets Standards fGuidelinesl adopted in the Land Development Code. she Yineer-peFete dike -Bike lanes, sidewalks and pathways, G6 deenged shall be incorporated as art o in -new e^�„ n roadways and expansion of roadways pursuant to the Complete Streets Standards fGuidelinesl. New Objectives & Policies Objective 13: Collier County shall establish a comprehensive Complete Streets Program that incorporates multi -modal context sensitive design principals and functional use criteria into the plan /design decision - making process for all public roads and all private roads. Policy 13.1: Collier County will establish a Complete Streets Classification system, and classify all roads in Collier County for the purposes of this regulation. Policy 13.2: Collier County will establish an interagency cross - functional team (Complete Streets Team) charged with developing Complete Street Standards [Guidelines] to be incorporated into the LDC. Policy 13.3: Collier County will adopt a Complete Streets Program within the LDC that includes a set of context sensitive design standards [guidelines] for each classification Draft #1 Notes 38 of roodwoy, a review procedure, a deviation procedure, and dispute resolution process. Policy 13.4. The Collier County Complete Streets Team will be responsible for the review of proposed street design details for all public and private roadways above a minimum classification as identified in the Standards [Guidelines], to ensure consistency with the adopted Complete Street Standards [Guidelines]. Potential LDC Changes LDC will have to be amended to facilitate the implementation of this Objective and associated policies, including: 1. Developing a comprehensive Complete Streets Program to include: • Establishing an interagency Complete Streets Team with appropriate review and decision — making authority; • Adopting a Complete Streets Classification System; and • Adopting Complete Streets Standards [Guidelines] Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 8 — Implement enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and safety improvements. Geographic Application — Existing roads countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Identify opportunities to add marked bike lanes or shared lane arrows (as appropriate) concurrent with resurfacing projects. B. Identify opportunities to add median and right -turn refuge islands to improve pedestrian safety as appropriate. bicycle.boulevards, retrofitting existing development, etc.) to allow more direct pathways for pedestrians and cyclists. D. Develop and promote bicycle and pedestrian education and law enforcement awareness programs that foster appropriate use of facilities. Amend Existing Objectives & Policies TE Policy 4.7. The County shall incorporate marked bike lanes, shared lanes arrows, or paved shoulders (as appropriate), in roadway resurfacing projects as is physically possible pr-eblem• Draft #1 Notes This would be implemented in new developments thru the Mobility Analysis requirements /incentives. Typically this is a private property issue in cases of trying to retrofit existing conditions, and thus would be problematic unless associated with a condemnation effort. New Objectives & Policies Policy 13.5: Collier County will include pedestrian safety considerations during the development of the Complete Streets Standards [Guidelines], including, but not limited to: a) Crosswalk enhancements b) Median island refuges c) Continuous right-turn lone refuge islands Policy 4.9: Collier County will coordinate with MPO and low enforcement agencies in the development of a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian safety program, to include: a) Identification and analysis of high crash locations, and the identification of potential safety improvements or strategies b) Bike and pedestrian safety education programs c) Enhanced low enforcement initiatives Potential LDC Changes LDC will have to be amended to facilitate the implementation of Policy 13.5. See the Complete Streets LDC Amendments. No LDC amendments would be necessary to implement Policy 4.9. Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 9 — Enhance localized connectivity to reduce VMT and increase travel efficiency as well as optimize transit, emergency vehicle, and school transportation operations. Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: the County. Existing Objectives & Policies TE Policy 9.3: The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The Collier County Transportation Division shall develop guidelines, which identify the conditions that would require the interconnection of two neighboring developments, and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets. TE Policy 9.5: The County shall encourage projects which provide local resident, pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist movement between and among developments on neighborhood streets in a deliberate balance with its efforts to route cut - through traffic away from neighborhoods and Draft #1 Notes A: This is already provided for in current regulations; implementation can be evaluated as part of the Mobility Analysis C: Two existing TE Policies, 9.3 and 9.5, additionally there are 12 related references to requirements for interconnections in 7 different sections of the LDC. No changes to Policies 9.3 and 9.5 shown at left for informational purposes are being proposed. M to the arterials and collectors designated in this Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. New Objectives & Policies Objective: Collier County shall plan for and encourage the interconnection of local roadways and pathways within and between developments to permit local trips (whether motorized or non- motorized) to circulate and reach community and neighboring destinations without having to exit a development and travel along the arteriol network. Policy: Collier County will develop and establish within the LDC a "link-node", or similar standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity. The calculation of the link-node value or similar "connectivity indices" will be a component of the Mobility Analysis. Policy: Collier County will develop and establish within the LDC a methodology for measuring the bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project. The calculation of the bicycle/pedestrion coverage and connectivity value will be a component of the Mobility Analysis. Policy: The County will consider the coveragelconnectivity measures when prioritizing improvements to the existing bicyclelpedestrian system. a) The County will consider whether or not a minimum standard of interconnectivity is an appropriate consideration in the approval of new development master plans. Potential LDC Changes LDC will have to be amended to facilitate the implementation of this Objective and associated policies, including: Draft #1 Notes L Establishing a "link- node ", or similar standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity. The link -node value is a ratio of project's internal road segments to intersections. The calculation of the link -node value or similar "connectivity indices" would be a component of the Mobility Analysis. a) The County will consider whether or not a minimum standard of interconnectivity is an appropriate consideration in the approval of new development master plans. 2. Adopt a "Coverage & Connectivity Indices" methodology and consider a minimum standard a) Pedestrian Route Directness (PRD) Ratio b) Pedestrian Network Coverage Ratio c) Pathway Network Coverage Ratio d) Pedestrian Environment Factors Composite Score a. Ease of Street Crossing b. Sidewalk Continuity c. Street Network Characteristics (grid vs. cul -de -sac) d. Pedestrian Enhancements, e.g., Shade Trees, Street Furniture, etc. e. Condition of Infrastructure a) Bike Friendliness Factor (BFF) a. Bike Lanes b. Pathways c. Bike Parking 3. Require the application of consideration of minimum standards as part of a required "Mobility Analysis" The County will consider whether or not a minimum standard of interconnectivity is an appropriate consideration in the approval of new development master plans. Draft #1 Notes Recommendation 10 — Evaluate the transition from a roads -based impact fee to a mobility fee to provide capital funding for multi -modal infrastructure, including buses, stop /station area infrastructure, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure (e.g., signal priority, queue jump lanes, etc.) and transit supporting bicycle features (e.g., bicycle racks, lockers, etc.). Recommendation 5 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. As a rule, a mobility fee minimally increases the overall magnitude of a transportation impact fee (typically 1 -3%, depending on the value of non - roadway assets), but allows flexibility for spending fee revenues for non - roadway modes. B. Criteria may be established to manage the modal distribution of fee revenues such that greater emphasis may be placed on roadway infrastructure in suburban areas and non - roadway infrastructure in more urban areas. Draft #1 Notes Along with the process to update the impact fee study, Recommendation 10 will be studied and the results presented to the BCC for further direction. 5 Recommendation #11: Continue to improve traffic operations by maintaining appropriate signal timing plans (including pedestrian movements) and through the use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) technologies. Recommendation Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: Congestion Management Systems /Intelligent Transportation System (CMS /ITS) projects are proposed by Collier County Traffic operations to improve traffic operations throughout the County. Some of these projects include: 1. Real Travel Time Assessments: This technology uses Anonymous Wireless Address Matching Using Bluetooth System detecting vehicles equipped with enabled Bluetooth networking devices, including cellular phones, mobile GPS systems, telephone headsets, and in- vehicle navigation and hands -free systems. Every Bluetooth device has an electronic address, known as a MAC address, used to identify it to other network devices. Each roadside reader senses these addresses emitted by enabled devices as they pass the reader station the time and the location of the device is transmitted to the host processing system at the Traffic Management Center (TMC). As probes are detected at successive reader locations, the host system merges travel time readings to calculate average travel times and speeds for a roadway segment. This data is then analyzed and organized and Draft #1 Notes The Collier MPO's Congestion` Management /Intelligent Transportation System (CMS /ITS) Committee studies this program on an on -going basis, and will advance specific recommendations as appropriate to either the MPO or the the BCC for further direction. MINSHOIRMIEW®RUM]OZE displayed on the county arterial map. This information will then be used to evaluate before & after traffic signal timing deployments, the impact of ITS implementations and provide the engineers & planners a true measure of roadway operations and capacity. This project has been approved for Local Agency Program (LAP) funds which should be available in the next 4 -5 years depending upon funding levels. 2. Arterial Monitoring Cameras: In FDOT fiscal year 2013/2014, Collier County Traffic Operations, through LAP funding, will be receiving 25 arterial monitoring cameras to assist the TMC in traffic surveillance and incident management making the operations of the TMC more efficient. Another 50 additional monitoring cameras will be added thorough the LAP process over the next 4 -5 years. 3. Expansion of the Fiber Optic Network: Again through LAP monies, Collier County Traffic Operations will be expanding our existing 60 -mile fiber optic system by approximately 15 miles. This expansion is to take place in FDOT fiscal year 2012/2013 and will allow us to monitor and control additional signals from our TMC saving valuable traffic technician time while providing better overall operation of the traffic signal system. The system will continue to be maintained as needed and upgraded as funding becomes available. Future projects to upgrade and maintain the system include: replacing system software and TMC Video Wall and Work Stations, installing 50 uninterrupted power supplies for traffic signals and advanced intersection signs, and signal reti m i ng. Draft #1 Notes Recommendation 12 — Coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes (ATM), and Collier County Land Development Services regarding the implementation of commuter -based services and /or infrastructure to reduce delay for vehicles carrying multiple persons during peak travel demand and emergency vehicles. Recommendation Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Coordinate regarding the feasibility and benefit of implementing carpool /high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in targeted areas along 1 -75 during peak travel demand. B. Coordinate interchange activity centers with park- and -ride and /or transfer facilities to provide access points for commuter transit service. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shall incorporate provisions in the Land Development Code that provide incentives to land owners to provide opportunities for the implementation of park -ond- ride lots and transit transfer facilities as part of LVMTD developments proposed within the Interchange Activity Centers. Policy. Collier County, through the MPO planning process will identify potential locations for either public or private park - and -ride and transit transfer stations to serve both major arterialsjcollectors and the interstate system. Draft #1 Notes There is ongoing coordination with FDOT to bring awareness to ATM by promoting commuter services annually during the month of April. The 2035 LRTP Needs Plan currently shows a need for an HOV lane on 175 from Pine Ridge Road north to Lee County. Any further identification of additional, future needs for HOV lanes would require additional modeling. The ATM department is currently working on a pilot program to identify Park and Ride sites on Government owned property. The LRTP and the TDP both identify future locations for Park and Rides. The MPO's 2035 LRTP Minor Update will incorporate the coordination of interchange activity centers with park and ride and /or transfer facilities. 48 RECOMMENDATION 13 — Plan for the incorporation of alternative modes or connection to nearby multi -modal infrastructure or facilities (e.g., trails, park- and -ride lots, etc.) during the design or new or expanded roadways /corridors. Recommendation 13 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Multi -modal corridors are designed to accommodate not only automobile users, but also transit, bicycle, and pedestrian users to varying degrees, depending on the function and location of the corridor. To develop a long -term plan for future multi -modal facilities, identify necessary future or expanded multi -modal corridors and implement corridor preservation strategies. B. Consider the connection to nearby existing multi -modal infrastructure or facilities during the design of new or expanded roadways /corridors. C. Coordinate future or expanded multi -modal roadway corridor design needs with environmental preservation objectives (wildlife crossings, habitat preservation, etc.). D. Coordinate future or expanded multi -modal roadway corridor design needs with other infrastructure program needs such as potable water and sewer systems and storm -water utilities. E. Identify and implement intersection improvements to relieve "bottleneck" locations and reduce VHT. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shall consider, during the design of all new and expanded multi modal roadway projects the treatment and facilities or facilities enhancements for alternative modes of mobility, including as may be appropriate for such new or expanded roadways: transit Draft #1 Notes M facilities or enhancements; bicycle and pedestrian mobility enhancements; connectivity to existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and to nearby multi-modal infrastructure or facilities such as transfer stations, trails or pork-and-ride facilities, Policy: Collier County shall coordinate new or expanded multi -modal roadways design needs with environmental preservation objectives, including wildlife crossings and habitat preservation. Policy: Collier County shall coordinate new or expanded multi -modal roadways design needs with other infrastructure improvement programs, including potable water and sewer systems, and storm water management utilities. Draft #1 Notes s) L) RECOMMENDATION 14— Incentivize employer -based transportation demand management (TDM) programs to encourage a change in travel behavior by shifting trips away from peak travel times and /or eliminating work - related vehicle trips. Recommendation 14 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. County program to recognize work places that support transportation demand management. B. Public- private partnerships for on -site transit infrastructure accessible to transit route in exchange for reduced parking requirements or off -sets (credits) to impact /mobility fees. C. Reduced parking requirements in exchange for providing facilities to support multi -modal commuters (e.g., bicycle racks, lockers, shower facilities, etc.). D. Reduced parking requirements in exchange for carpool program where preferential parking is provided for carpool vehicles. E. Reduce parking in exchange for employer- subsidized transit passes for workers F. Reduced parking requirements in exchange for flexible work hour /week and /or telecommuting program. G. Review home -based employment allowances to potentially increase work - from -home opportunities in targeted areas. Note: Some strategies would require monitoring. Draft #1 Notes M New Objectives & Policies Policy: Existing or proposed non-residential or mixed use projects that enter into a formal agreement with Collier County to employ specific methods to better manage project initiated transportation demand (reduced trips, porticulorly at peak demand times) as documented in an approved Mobility Analysis may be granted one or more of the following: a) impact or mobility fee relief for new or expanded uses; b) reduction in required landscaping buffer widths or other required vehicular use landscaping requirements; and c) reduction in required parking for existing, or new or expanded uses. Specific methods include; providing for onsite or nearby off-site transit infrastructure to allow for easy access in a comfortable and safe environment to transit routes; provision of transit supporting facilities for employees and customers, such as additional bicycle rocks, lockers, shower and changing facilities; subsidizing employee transit use, preferential parking or other employee provided incentives for carpooling, flexible or altered work schedules to provide for off-peak arrival and departure times; providing for new or expanded work -at -home opportunities. Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 15 —Through regular and ongoing communication and coordination between Collier County and regulatory agencies and stakeholders, identify opportunities and implement strategies to enhance efficiency and reduce costs of the permitting process. This objective should be accomplished while balancing the protection of water, wildlife, other natural resources and private property rights, and with consideration for a particular sub - area's socio- economic characteristics. Recommendation 15 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Pursue a /memorandum of Understanding between Collier County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding wildlife crossings and strategies for a cost - effective and coordinated approach to compensation. Plan for the Florida Panther and other listed species. C. Pursue a fast -track program with outside agencies for projects that support mobility. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County will coordinate with other regulatory agencies and stakeholders on an ongoing basis through County initiated open and publicly accessible multi - agency and stakeholder meetings, to maintain an open dialogue and understanding with respect to the County and other agency needs, objectives, and progress, and the concerns of stakeholders, related to new and expanded transportation facilities and efforts to reduce VMT while addressing Draft #1 Notes 53 measures to best address and potential impacts to habitat and listed species Where mutual agreement exists, the County will work with other agencies to develop general or issue specific memorandums of understanding. Draft #1 Notes 54 RECOMMENDATION 16 — Use the mitigation cost component of the County's current roadway impact fee or future mobility fee to fund specifically identified mitigation strategies. Geographic Application — Countywide Note: The CCPC approved this recommendation 7-0 as written above, but with the deletion of the following two examples: A. Explore a countywide Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that specifies impact fees towards a regional mitigation program. B. Consider tying wetland mitigation to the basin or impact area where the project is located. New Objectives & Policies Objective: Collier County shall develop a comprehensive environmental mitigation improvement program to be funded in port by the portion of the adopted Road Impact Fee cost component that is attributable to environmental mitigation. Policy: Collier County shall develop and maintain a comprehensive environmental mitigation improvement program that identifies strategic improvements that can be, or are to be used to mitigate for roadway improvement impacts. Policy: Collier County shall identify through the required Impact Fee Study, that portion of the adopted Road Impact Fee cost component that is attributable to environmental mitigation, and provide within the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance and applicable regulations, a mechanism to earmark such funds, when collected, for use on specific mitigation program improvements identified in the CIE's Schedule of Capital Improvements. Draft #1 Notes An HCP is not being pursued at this time. Road Impact Fee Study: • Total Construction Cost Component of Fee: $3,870,418 per Lane Mile • Mitigation Cost Component: $156,338 (+/- 4% of Total Cost) 5S Policy: Improvements identified by the environmental mitigation program that ore tobe funded /n whole or/npart by the Rood Impact Fee earmarks shall 6e adopted os part of the Capital Improvement Element's Schedule ofCapital Improvements, Potential LDC Changes The Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance and the associated accounting and monitoring/reporting practices will have tobe amended to facilitate the implementation of this Objective and associated Policies. Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 17 — Recommend further research on and evaluation of cost - effective methods to address wildlife /vehicle collisions. Recommendation 17 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. Continue to work with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and FWS to better define the optimum size of wildlife crossing to ensure they remain effective for target species and their prey. B. Monitor the effectiveness of crossing alternatives, such as the Roadside Animal Detection System (RADS) to be deployed by FDOT at the US 41 /Turner River Road area. C. Identify planned roadway bridge improvements and new roadway bridges to determine if they are candidates to also serve as wildlife crossings. D. Identify additional funding for wildlife crossings and other methods to address wildlife /vehicle collisions. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shall coordinate with applicable State and l=ederol jurisdictional and with stakeholders, to evaluate and utilize cost effective methods to address wiidlifeJvehicle collisions. Consideration may include: designs that may be most effective for particular species or multi - species affected within a particular area; monitoring effectiveness of crossings and other methods, such as Roadside Animal Detection Systems (RADS), in Collier and elsewhere; utilization of planned roadway bridge improvements or other forms of overpasses that may also serve as wildlife crossings; and, potential funding for such measures. Draft #1 Notes RECOMMENDATION 18 — Identify short -and long -term opportunities to increase efficiency of and access to County services and infrastructure. Recommendation 18 Geographic Application — Countywide (unless specifically noted) Description /examples of potential strategies: A. In addition to employment and neighborhood serving uses, identify and plan for long -range needs for key public uses, such as: • Primary and secondary schools, vocational schools, and community colleges • Public buildings (satellite constitutional government offices), EMS, Sheriff's office, fire stations, jails, landfill /transfer station, etc. • Medical facilities (hospital, urgent care, medical office, diagnostic and outpatient facilities) B. Incentivize compact, mixed -use development as a method for supporting reduced VMT and efficiency /increased use and incorporation of County services and infrastructure. C. Identify infrastructure co- location opportunities to consolidate infrastructure needs, potentially reducing VMT and reducing capital and operating costs. D. Target centralized facilities and satellite facilities to serve future population growth east of CR 951. (Geographic Application: Collier County— Master Mobility Plan 5 -11 Golden Gate Estates, Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Receiving Areas, Rural Land Stewardship Area, Immokalee Urban Area). E. Consider enhancing existing and implementing new paratransit and transportation disadvantaged services to further this recommendation. S11 Draft #1 Notes New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shall coordinate with all County, applicable state and federal agencies, as well as other public service providers, to identify long and mid-term capital needs and shall then consider all opportunities and most feasible locations for: a) Co- utilization and expansion of government and other publiclsocial service facilities to provide convenience and reduce capital costs and VMT by maximizing the use of such existing satellite facilities; and b) New satellite offices in consideration of additional costs versus saving from reduced VMTs; and c) New or enhanced poratronsit and transportation disadvantaged services. M Draft #1 Notes 59 RECOMMENDATION 19 —Enhance e- government (Internet- based) services to reduce vehicle miles of travel and capital and operating costs. Recommendation 19 Geographic Application — Countywide Description /examples of potential strategies: A. E- government services not only reduce travel need, but they allow people who might otherwise not be able access county resources and services. Examples of existing e- government services provided in Collier County include virtual public library, e- permitting, virtual school /classrooms, and electronic bill payment. In an effort to reduce VMT and lower capital and operating costs, the County should continue to enhance e- government services. New Objectives & Policies Policy: Collier County shalt annually review all existing e- government (internet based) services to determine measures for enhoncement, improvement and increased utilization such that service users have the maximum opportunity to conduct government business via the internet. Particular emphasis and priority shall be placed on identifying the most appropriate locations for co- utilization or for new satellite facilities to serve population growth east of CR 951, within or proximate to Golden Gate Estates, grange Tree, Settlement Area, the immokolee Urban Area and the REMUD and RLSA. Policy: Collier County shall annually review all existing non - internet based services being provided to identify new e- delivered services that could increase opportunities for service users to conduct government business via the internet. Draft #1 Notes 0' '} RECOMMENDATION 20 — Review MMP outcomes/measures as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process and, as necessary, update the LDC/GMP or other regulatory instruments. Geographic Application - Countywide New Objectives & Policies FLUE Policy 4.12: As part of the EAR process, Collier County shall review and recommend changes to the Growth Management Plan policies and any associated LDC regulations that were developed and implemented a port of the Moster Mobility Plan process, and evaluate their outcomes and measures. FLUE Policy 4.13: Collier County will develop procedures to monitor the application of the specific policies and regulations that were outgrowths of the MMP process to determine how often and to what extent the strategies were used. Monitoring reports shall be compiled for use during the EAR process. Draft #1 Notes Examples: Number of Mobility Analyses performed; strategies used, incentives awarded, etc. Quantification of environmental mitigation set-asides (from road impact fees) and an accounting of specific mitigation projects implemented using the funds. April 4, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon De John Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Mario Valle Ronald Waldrop (Vacancy) Excused: Ray Allain Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning April 4, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 7, 2012: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2012 Meeting as submitted. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Note: Clay Brooker could not vote because he did not attend the March meeting.) IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS /UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Continuing review of Standards and Gravity Sewers — Maximum Depth • No changes have been made • Evaluation of cost analysis B. Fire Review: (The Fire Code Office was not represented.) • Monthly Activity Report for February 2012 was submitted o Plan Reviews conducted — 854 (January 2012 — 686) o Expedited Reviews: 7 were conducted ■ Overtime hours (16) were reimbursed by the contractor(s) who requested an expedited review C. Transportation: Jay Ahmad and Reed Jarvi Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering • Update: Odwell Road Project • Paving is underway • Recent "Change Order" was submitted for fencing and other items ■ Deadline was extended — days were added • Anticipated completion: end of June — eastern and western segments • Update: Collier /Davis Project o 30% completion (slightly ahead of schedule) o Anticipated completion: December, 2013 2 April 4, 2012 Update: White Blvd. 123rd Street Bridges Project o Received bids • During a general discussion during the February meeting, the BCC directed County explore option to construct a temporary bridge at 23ra Street in lieu of a permanent bridge ■ Revise design/specs • The low bidder was asked to submit a "Change Order" and quote ■ Amount of quote: $916,000 • Other options are under consideration ■ Detours ■ New Bid process: request bids only for temporary bridge from other bidders o Current bids will expire in 120 days o Will return to BCC • May begin new round of bids - Scope of Work has changed • Single bid for revised project Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning: • Update: I -75 1Everglades Blvd. IJR ( "Interchange Justification Report") • Draft of Report should be completed by Friday, April 6th • Will present at next DSAC meeting o Process: • Draft will be sent to DOT to finalize (3 to 4 months) • Final version will be sent to Feds for approval Master Mobility Plan o Phase III Team has met twice o 3rd phase — implementation of Comprehensive Plan changes and LDC changes o Will present to DSAC at the May 2na meeting • Important Dates: • April 12 — (9:00 AM —12:00 N) Workshop with Planning Commission at BCC Chambers • May 15 — Public Meeting (early evening) • June 19 — Workshop with Planning Commission • After approval has been obtained, will present to BCC D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management and Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Div. Florida Building Code became effective on March 15th o The Business Center remained open until 5:00 PM. • Activity Report (A copy of the March 2012 Monthly Statistics was distributed to the Committee.) April 4, 2012 o Level of complexity — more data and tables on "CityView" to access o Report provided a "snap shot" — an 18- month overview o Building Department Statistics ■ All Permits Issued by Month ■ New Construction Permits ■ Building Inspections (including 800 series which were not tracked previously) o Land Development Services Statistics ■ All Land Development Applications ■ Pre - Application Meetings by Month ■ Commercial Zoning Certificate Applications ■ Temporary Use Permit Applications ■ Site Development Plan ( "SDP ") Applications ■ SDP Re- Submittals (Corrections) ■ SDP Amendment Applications ( "SDP -A ") ■ SDP -A Resubmittals ■ SDP Insignificant Change Applications ( "SDP -I ") ■ SDP -I Re- submittals Jamie French stated job bankers (building inspectors) were hired as "spikes" (trends) were noted — A/C and electrical were the most requested trades. Dalas Disney suggested adding one more category to measure the dollar volume of business — construction dollar volume. Mr. French cautioned he could only provide estimates. Chairman Varian stated in March there were 2,200 Permits and 8,000 inspections. He asked if the figures could be broken down into trade permits, i.e., mechanical, remodeling. Mr. French stated his concern about breaking down the numbers was that an inspection could have already taken place in addition to the number of corrections or revisions. Chairman Varian clarified there were approximately 120 permits for new construction and asked about the remaining permits. Nick Casalanguida stated the top 5 business permits can be provided. Dalas Disney stated of the 7,000+ inspections noted in February 2012, some will track and correlate as new construction. The remainder should be trade permits and "other." He stated his interest was the correlation between new construction work and the building inspections. Nick Casalanguida explained determining a correlation will be complicated because while a permit may have been pulled, the work may not start for 2 to 3 months later. Additionally, a pre - construction permit may be issued before an SDP is approved and the gap could be as much as three months. April 4, 2012 Mario Valle commented the other aspect of the bulk number of inspections will be in remodeling/renovations. The figures may tie into being closer to the number of inspections for new construction. While there may not be structural inspections, there will be framing, insulation, and the mechanical trades. Those figures will track closer together than just the trades. Chairman Varian suggested tracking the following categories: plumbing, electrical, mechanical, building, site, and "other" Nick Casalanguida stated the report can be configured to meet DSAC's needs and requested that the members discuss and determine a consensus. Jamie French asked the members to email their comments to him. He Stated if the Committee wished, the report can track the number of inspections instead of permits in order to obtain the level of activity in the field. He stated DSAC members to specify the level of detail they wanted included in the report. • SIRE Active Review Project (in process) o DSAC members have requested the ability to copy /paste a Reviewer's Letters /comments onto their own documents via Word format o Currently PORTAL issues only PDF documents o Trying to utilize SIRE to transfer data from PORTAL into Word o Also consulting with CityView representatives to determine if PORTAL'S scope can be changed Chairman Varian stated he is a member of the SIRE working group — the focus is to help "build" the system — the group offers comments /adjustments as the system is under development. Jamie French confirmed applications can be searched by company name, owner's name, address, and permit number. New Topic — Fire Review: David Dunnavant asked if a Workshop had been scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners concerning Fire Review. Nick Casalanguida stated he met with the three Fire District Chiefs; the discussion was productive. They admitted not understanding the complexity of a Fire Review. He also met with Ed Riley, Fire Code Official. He gave a brief overview of the current review process: • The Fire Code Office reviews the building plans, • Plans are accepted or rejected and corrections are made as required, • Once the plans are approved, a permit is issued. • Problems can occur in the field when a District Fire Inspector decides that changes are necessary — Ed Riley may not know anything about the changes. Mr. Casalanguida explained the Field Fire Inspectors do not work for the Fire Code Office — they are employed by the Fire Districts. One solution is to place the Field Inspectors under the control of the Fire Code Office. April 4, 2012 • While the suggestion has the support of the three District Chiefs, it is not known if the Union will concur and support the proposed change. • The Field Fire Inspectors are firefighters with additional duties. The salaries can become an issue. Building Inspectors earn $55,000, while Field Fire Inspectors can earn between $80,000 to $100,000 per year. He continued, as each Field Inspector retires, Mr. Riley can hire non - firefighters to conduct inspections. Until that time, the Fire Code Office would absorb the Field Fire Inspectors who will report to Horseshoe Drive. As employees of the Fire Code Office, they will follow the same process as the Building Department Inspectors and if the Fire Districts pay their salaries, the Union may not object. The Inter -local Agreement between Collier County Government and the Independent Fire Districts will be amended to achieve consistency by applying the same performance standards and customer service requirements. Scheduled hours between the Building Department and the Fire Code Office will be included in the Inter -Local Agreement. Mr. Casalanguida noted the Fire District Chiefs and their Boards are independent — there is no accountability. If Mr. Riley worked along with the Fire Chiefs and a forum was scheduled every quarter with an open discussion about process, there would be accountability. There would be a learning curve during the first year of the new system. He stated on April 23rd a meeting will be scheduled with all interested parties at the Horseshoe Drive conference room and invited DSAC members to attend. He further stated he will request the Board of County Commissioners impose a deadline of 180 days to accomplish the negotiations. If a new Inter -Local Agreement has not been agreed to by the end of the period, with input from DSAC and the CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association "), it all "goes away." David Dunnavant asked if Immokalee and Big Cypress were included in the process. Mr. Casalanguida stated when the transition takes place, the Fire Code Office may open a satellite office for inspectors. Questions were directed to Jamie French concerning an issue with the Chamber of Commerce and complaints made about the Building Department's review times. He stated there are no negotiables with Staff. Staff is also aware that if a plan meets the minimum Building Code criteria, it should not be failed. Nick Casalanguida stated as changes or improvements are requested by clients, there must be an orderly process and a mechanism developed to prioritize recommendations. Chairman Varian stated it was suggested to the Chamber to funnel any issues or complaints directly to DSAC for discussion and vetting. Jamie French noted if permits are too difficult to obtain, new business will not come April 4, 2012 to Collier County. He stated the Business Center is available for a "pre" pre -apps meeting to provide a cursory review of a project for a new client in order to determine the best way to work out specific points of a plan in advance of submittal. There is no cost to the client, and a meeting can be requested through PORTAL after plans have been submitted to ask questions of the Reviewer concerning his/her comments. Mario Valle suggested contacting Commercial Realtors through NABOR ( "Naples Area Board of Realtors ") as a good source of information for pinpointing issues. New Topic —Record Room Chairman Varian asked if plans can be scanned to a disk or emailed in lieu of coping. Jamie French stated a disk can be ordered (cost: $5.00) but the turnaround will not be as quick (possibly 24 hours) as requesting a copy. New Topic — Project Rejections Chairman Varian noted there have been issues with NOA ( "Notice of Acceptance ") not matching the design pressures entered on the plans by the design professionals. He recently met with Tatiana Gust to discuss the problem. Tatiana cited an example of 200 plans from one builder that were rejected due to: (1) expired NOAs, and (2) others did not meet the wind pressures. He recommended if the NOA was the only item being rejected, to place a note on the residential Permit card to alert the Inspector to check with the builder. Another suggestion was to remind design professions to check the NOAs against the County's pressures. Tatiana Gust stated one problem is trying to educate the technical applicant about what is required by the County and why. Classes are offered and educational models are being designed to help alleviate the situation. VI. OLD BUSINESS: (None) VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Collier County's Corridor Preservation Ordinance Draft — Reed Jarvi (Copies of Reed Jarvi 's PowerPoint presentation were distributed to the Committee.) • Corridor Management Plans have been successfully created in Broward, Palm Beach, and Pasco Counties. • Collier County's proposed plan has not been compared to other plans. • Purpose: Provide advance notice of future plans, meet long -range needs, promote orderly growth, and eliminate building on Protected Corridor land April 4, 2012 • "Protected" corridors — design plans are at 60% or greater and could be funded for Right -of -Way acquisition/construction • "Planned" corridor — future possibility — location is not specifically known • Provide owners/builders with a mechanism to work with the County to avoid conflicts between Transportation Corridors and development sites George Hermanson asked if credits were available toward future developments. Reed Jarvi stated the Impact Fee Ordinance has provisions for credits for land that has been dedicated to the County. He will research the issue and report to DSAC. Clay Brooker noted the purpose of the Ordinance was to save the County spending money to purchase ( "take" private land for public use under Eminent Domain) properties that were built in the corridor's path. The County could also be required to pay "severance damages," i.e., damages that occurred to the remainder of the property as a result of the taking. He stated several corridor management plans have not been successful and suggested the County Attorney's Office research the plans that were overturned by the Courts and the reasons why the plans were rejected. Other concerns: "Bert Harris" Law o In 1995, the State of Florida enacted the "Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Protection Act" that created a new cause of action for aggrieved property owners. If property owners can demonstrate that a governmental action "inordinately burdened" their property, they could be entitled to some form of compensation. Is density of the entire parcel transferred to the remaining portion of the property which is outside the Protected Corridor? There can be dimensional issues. Set -backs will be measured from the Protected Corridor's new boundary which, in turn, pushes the vertical construction further back. Mr. Brooker cautioned the issue should be carefully vetted to achieve a balance between the needs of the County and the rights of individual property owners. Reed Jarvi referred to Page 6 of the proposed Ordinance at #6: "If no funding is available, the County shall not require the preservation of the land needed for the Transportation Corridor, but shall work with the property owner /developer to encourage site planning and utilization that preserves and limits encroachment into the future Right -of -Way to the greatest extent possible. " Clay Brooker cited Page 5, under "A. Development within Protected Corridors:" "2. On both residential and commercial property, the set -backs for new construction shall be measured from the future ROW line April 4, 2012 shown on the 60% or greater design plan of the Protected Corridor. 3. Development shall follow current Land Development Codes and site specific resolutions and ordinance to determine permitted, interim uses and /or improvements allowed within the anticipated future ROW. " Dalas Disney stated his concern that the "Protected Corridor" places property into a type of limbo where it can't be developed and can't be sold. During the period of time from identification to actual development of the Corridor, the land is useless — it becomes "burdened" without compensation of the land's true value. David Dunnavant noted in 2010 — 2011, the Legislature placed a heavier evidentiary burden on the taking authority than the land owner and some of the corridor plans that had previously been upheld might not survive a challenge under the new requirements. Laura DeJohn asked if the transportation corridor plan had been incorporated into the Master Mobility Plan. She stated if the Mobility Plan is headed in a different direction and the County is trying to evaluate the best growth model for future transportation mobility for the County, the dictum to "to not perpetuate sprawl" appears to be contradicted. Reed Jarvi stated the Master Mobility Plan is specific to new development but also review connectivity between two -lane roads and subdivisions. Long range plans are developed using modeling, data obtained from the Census Bureau, and review of the ability of existing roads to handle anticipated increase in traffic. He stated he will research the questions /issues discussed. Presentations will be made in May to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners in June. B. Update — LDC Amendments: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Caroline Cilek noted the LDR ( "Land Development Regulations ") Subcommittee met on March 19"' and reviewed several new Amendments. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 10.01.02 — Development Orders Required — Early Construction Authorization ( "ECA ") Author: Jamie French The LDR Subcommittee recommended: • forwarding Amendment to the County Attorney's Office for review (language), and • presenting it to DSAC for review. Jamie French stated the purpose is to provide the ability to move forward with "Florida Specialties " - types of projects (also discussed during the March 7 th DSAC April 4, 2012 meeting), i.e., to pull permits and start construction more quickly to attract new manufacturing client to Collier County or assist an existing business to expand its facilities to meet the demand of a specific contract. He continued the intent was not to by -pass any other provisions of the Building Code but to allow an alternative approach. All conditions of the Code must be met and either a performance -based bond or cash bond may be required as surety. If the project were abandoned by the developer, the County would restore the property to the original condition if necessary. Caroline Cilek explained there were limitations to early construction, i.e., the sites be cleared and comply with environmental issues. She referred to Page 4 of the Amendment, stating the criteria was outlined in Paragraph "C." • The "red" language denoted changes made by the County Attorney's Office which will be presented to the Planning Commission and the BCC. George Hermanson objected to the requirement for a bond as unnecessary. Caroline Cilek replied the bond was required because the SDP had not been approved and it was considered as a "good faith" effort. Dalas Disney agreed with Mr. Hermanson, stating the risk was on the developer — adequate protections were in place and it was an unnecessary, additional expense for the developer. Jamie French stated the BCC directed the County to develop an alternative approach and not place an additional burden upon the tax payer. He stated after the SDP has been approved, the bond will be released. He cited examples of failed projects. Suggested Revisions: • Page 4 • Line 70 — Change the term "zoning approval" to "SDP approval" (Zoning approval should already be in place.) • Line 73 — Add language following the last sentence to clarify a bond or surety will be released after the SDP has been approved o Line 87 — Add the word "application" following the word "permit" o Line 88 — Change "though" to "through" Dalas Disney moved to approve the revised Amendment as discussed. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Blair Foley was absent from the conference room.) David Dunnavant asked if the County Attorney's Office made other changes to the Amendment. Caroline Cilek noted the process related to timing was removed since it was a procedural issue, i.e., requirement that an initial review was to be completed within 15 days. 10 April 4, 2012 2. Section 10.02.13 — Planned Unit Development ( "PUD") Procedures Author: Nick Casalanguida Purpose: To add a minor change provision authorizing the County Manager or designee to make a text change to remove the requirement of an affordable housing contribution from a PUD, Development Agreement, or Settlement Agreement. The procedure would be an administrative approval process. Public notice to abutting property owners will be required. If a notified property owner submits a letter of objection, the text change will be reviewed during a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. (The BCC was notified in December via an Executive Summary.) (Note: The change will be included in the new Administrative Code.) Clay Brooker explained to amend a PUD currently, a full public hearing before the Planning Commission is required for a "substantial" change. The process has been shortened for an "insubstantial" change. The proposed Amendment allows a request to remove the requirement for an affordable housing contribution from a PUD to be categorized as an "insubstantial" change. He stated the Amendment had not been reviewed by the LDR Subcommittee during its March 19th meeting. The proposed Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission in May. Clay Brooker moved to approve the Amendment as presented. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Blair Foley was absent from the conference room.) Caroline Cilek noted the following Amendments had been reviewed and approved by the LDR Subcommittee: • Section 4.02.14 — Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC- ST Districts and Section 9.094.02 — Types of Variances Authorized • Section 4.02.01 — A/C Encroachment • Section 4.06.02 — Buffer Requirements • Section 5.05.02 D — Group Housing FAR change • Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( "Usable Open Space ") • Section 2.01.02 — Essential Services (adds an "Aviation" component to the permitted uses — clarifies that the Marco Island airport can exist) Clay Brooker confirmed the Subcommittee voted unanimously to approve the seven Amendments. Ms. Cilek noted Staff made changes to Section 1.08.02 concerning usable open space specifically to Page 3, Line 17, and cited the change: "areas, which are accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development, or the general public." 11 April 4, 2012 George Hermanson moved to approve the Amendment s as submitted. Second by Mario Valle. Discussion: David Dunnavant stated he did not have an opportunity to review the text. Dalas Disney stated DSAC's approval was based on the Subcommittee's recommendation. Clay Brooker concurred, stating the motion is to approve the Amendments that the LDR Subcommittee had reviewed and unanimously approved. Marco Espinar asked about the list of protected wetland plants referenced in Section 4.02.14 at Page 4, Line 39 that was amended by the EAC. Steven Lenberger noted the regulation states, "No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. The plants specifically protected by this regulation include all wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the Florida Administrative Code. " The protected plants are: • Red mangrove — Rhizophora mangle • Black mangrove — Avicenna nitida • White mangrove — Laguncularia racemosa • Needlerush — Juncus roemerianus • Salt cord grasses — Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosurdes, S. spartinae • Seashore saltgrass — Distichlis spicata • Buttonwood — Conocarpus erectus (added by the EAC) • Costal fringe rush — Fimbristylis caroliniana (added by the EAC) Mr. Lenberger noted Chapter 17 -301 of the Florida Administrative Code no longer exists. Marco Espinar recommended adding the language to the Amendment. George Hermanson amended his motion to include all wetland plants noted on the Big Cypress list plus the two varieties added by the EAC. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. (Chairman Varian left at 5:15 PM. Vice Chairman Dunnavant presided over the meeting.) 3. Section 5.05.08 — Architectural and Site Design Standards Caroline Cilek stated Staff met with several members of the CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") concerning changes made to the Amendment which has been originally initiated by the CBIA. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning, stated she had been requested to review the architectural standards. She found two issues that did not work in the Code: 12 April 4, 2012 PUDs are required to go through the hearing process. • Architectural standards were previously amended to require that any requested exceptions to the Code should go through the hearing process. • She stated a PUD should be allowed to go through an administrative process to request a deviation from the architectural standards. The other portion referred to buildings in a shopping center which are required to meet primary fagade requirements. The proposed amendment was designed to make the fagade requirements for secondary facades ( "back" of the building) more functional and less burdensome for developers and architects. Caroline Cilek stated the changes were made because Staff could not recommend the CBIA - sponsored Amendment. Clay Brooker asked if the three updates were Amendments that DSAC or the LDR Subcommittee had previously reviewed and approved. Caroline Cilek explained she was presenting the updates for informational purposes only and a vote (motion to approve) was not necessary. Dalas Disney asked why the revisions reviewed and recommended by DSAC were removed by Staff and only the new Amendment would go forward. Ms. Cilek responded Amendments that were not supported by Staff could not go forward. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted to sponsor a "private" request, the CBIA would be required to pay $3,000 but there was no cost if Staff sponsored an Amendment. In response to a statement by Staff, he asked what was the intent of architectural standards -- if not to make buildings more attractive? (Clay Brooker and Mario Valle left at 5:30 PM.) Carolina Valera stated buildings that are part of a shopping center or a PUD are currently not allowed to request deviations from the standards in the Code and every single fagade must meet primary fagade requirements. She proposed to reduce the number of primary facades from four to three. One fagade would be exempt from meeting primary fagade requirements if it did not face an arterial collector or an exterior road. This would enable developers to design a usable service area for the back of the building. Members asked what language has been proposed by CBIA and deleted by Staff. Caroline Valera noted the standards proposed were those of CBIA. An extended discussion ensued. Members were concerned that Staff arbitrarily changed amendments which had previously been reviewed and approved without prior notice or explanation. Dalas Disney asked if a DSAC member could propose the Amendment in its original form. He noted County Manager Ochs specifically requested assistance 13 April 4, 2012 from CBIA to review the Amendment and propose changes. CBIA held a number of meetings to obtain input from Industry. Vice Chairman Dunnavant asked if there was written documentation explaining why Staff could not support the CBIA - sponsored Amendment. Caroline Cilek stated she had been given direction to bring forward only those Amendments that Staff could support. CBIA provided input and Staff made changes. She further stated CBIA was advised last week that its recommendations were not support by Staff. Dalas Disney asked if Staff's reasons could be shared with the DSAC members. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated County Manager Ochs requested that CBIA submit recommendations, from the Industry's perspective, to make the Code more user - friendly for permitting and development. Blair Foley agreed with Dalas Disney. He noted there were a number of re- development issues, including parking and water management, items that DSAC had been working on for six or seven years. He stated, "We finally had support from the County Manager — there was a list of about 20 or 30 different items that were being considered for modification in the Land Development Code to help where we are right now in this economy — but now it's in the gutter." He noted the Amendment had been discussed last month and the items were reduced to three (including a drive -thru sign) — this was all part of the effort put forth by the County Manager and CBIA. George Hermanson asked if it would be possible to place the Amendment back into the Cycle. Blair Foley clarified the Code was originally designed for the development of raw land but Industry had specific components concerning the re- development of blighted properties within the County and was attempting to obtain some relief from the overall standards. Everything is gone. He asked if it would be possible for CBIA to obtain a waiver of the fee. Laura DeJohn asked if due process required DSAC to "weigh in" on the Amendments. She asked if the package going forward would contain back -up materials indicating where and how the Amendment started, the original author, and the chronology of revisions before Staff terminated the process. Caroline Cilek stated she could revise the Header (Page 1) of the Amendment to identify what had been approved by DSAC. Laura DeJohn noted it had been a unique situation — it was a major movement of people from Industry volunteering their time at the request of the County Manager to work on ideas. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated DSAC and the CBIA spend time -- the ideas and suggestion revisions have been summarily dismissed. "The question is whether it's going to the Planning Commission with some explanation of what had been requested and why it was changed." He stated members requested a copy of the reasons. 14 April 4, 2012 Carolina Valera stated when the Amendment was revised approximately two years ago every standard was discussed, analyzed and debated by the Committee which consisted of architects, engineers, and planners before going through the Land Development process. There was input throughout the hearing process. She stated when she met with the CBIA and asked for specifics concerning their suggested changes, they were not able to justify what was the basis for any of their amendments. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted CBIA was asked to participate because the LDC provisions have increased costs to develop, and have had a negative impact on Industry. She stated when Staff is requested to prepare an Amendment to the Land Development Code, Staff must be able to justify why the proposal was made — why the change was made, i.e., did it create a hardship or additional cost. She noted the CBIA- sponsored amendments did not identify a specific author. It was difficult for Staff to shepherd an amendment that was not fully justified. Q. Does "Staff" refer to the County Attorney's Office or internal staff on Horseshoe Drive? A. I am referring to Collier County government. It was noted in the past there were other Amendments that Staff did not support, and while the cover or heading may have specified that Staff did not recommend the Amendment, it still went forward. If an Amendment has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, suggested by CBIA, and approved by DSAC, even if Staff may disagree on points, it is Staff's responsibility to move it forward. Staff should not have the ability to single - handedly stop an Amendment from moving forward. Carolina Valera stated if the Board of County Commissioners directed Staff to strike through every portion of a specific Amendment, it would be done. She further stated she was requested by management to bring something that would help the development community go through the review press for architectural standards. She noted there were two issues that caused problems during compliance reviews, and explained "her hands were tied because the Code doesn't allow me to offer anything else." Issue #l: Primary facades within a PUD Issue #2: To allow buildings that are part of a PUD to request deviations from architectural standards. Dalas Disney stated he sat on a Committee for 22 months along with Carolina and her predecessor to review the Code — none of the architects in the group agreed with every suggestion — but time and time, the suggestions from the prior meeting were not included because "someone" didn't like them. The Code is supposed to be the best we can get — but it is not all good. "If you are saying the County Manager told you to ignore the Amendment because CBIA would not pay to sponsor it — that is one thing. I would like to understand who is saying the Amendments are not good." 15 April 4, 2012 (Marco Espinar left at 5:45 PM.) Ms. Valera stated "we were requested to ask the CBIA to justify the Amendment. If we found the justification was solid, it could go forward." Vice Chairman Dunnavant acknowledged that Caroline Cilek and Carolina Valera met with CBIA representatives but someone else in the County said the Amendments were to be "justified." He explained the answer was that every one of the Amendments proposed by the CBIA were based on cost reduction — the whole exercise was to reduce the cost to develop in this community. "To cavalierly state that you didn't receive a reason is absurd. The reason for every proposed CBIA amendment was to reduce the cost impacts to develop in this community related to this particular section in the Code." Caroline Cilek noted a part of the County Manager's request was not to change the community's character. Dalas Disney asked how the community's character would be impacted by whether or not Spandrel glass was used in construction. From an appearance standpoint, he stated it is difficult to determine if glass is Spandrel in most instances. It would be good to have a revision concerning its use. Carolina Valera stated she drafted a proposed Amendment at the "eleventh hour" that she thought would make a difference. She noted she was not included in the discussions with the CBIA or DSAC. She brought forward "something" as requested. Dalas Disney agreed her proposals were excellent but he objected to the dismissal of everything else contained in the Amendment. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated CBIA brought their comments to DSAC for review. DSAC suggested revisions — every Amendment was brought with the intent to try to improve the application of the Code to design standards. Laura DeJohn asked if a motion should be made to include attaching supporting documentation to the CBIA's proposed Amendments that were dismissed and overhauled by Staff It was noted request had been made to Staff to not include such documentation. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated there were pieces in the proposed Amendment that should not have been objectionable to Staff and to state that none of it would be brought forward because the proposed Amendment was not part of a previous process was difficult to understand. (George Hermanson left at 5:55 PM.) Caroline Cilek reiterated Staff worked closely with the CBIA throughout the process. 16 April 4, 2012 She stated she could add the previous language to the document and would present a new draft at the DSAC meeting in May. Ms. Cilek concurred "tweaks" will happen through the entire process whether initiated by the EAC, Staff, or the CCPC. She noted some Amendments had been completely changed by the time of presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • May 2, 2012 • June 6, 2012 • July 11, 2012 • August 1, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chair at 6:00 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman David Dunnavant, Vice Chair The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on , 2012 "as submitted" " OR "as amended" " 17 Master Mobility Plan - Phase III 03.26.12 Draft of Language for GMP Policies and Potential LDC Changes Major Highlights ❑ Create a Low Vehicle Miles Traveled Development (LVMTD) form of Development (Recommendation No. 1— Page 3) ❑ Establish Requirements for a Multi -Modal Mobility Analysis (Recommendation No. 6— Page 32) ❑ Establish a Complete Streets Program (Recommendation No. 7 — Page 36) ■ Guidelines /Standards /Regulations ■ Interagency Cross - functional Team ❑ Develop a comprehensive bicycle /pedestrian safety program (Recommendation No. 8 — Page 39) ❑ Establish Connectivity & Interconnectivity Measures (Recommendation No. 9 — Page 41) ❑ Establish Comprehensive Environmental Mitigation Program (Recommendation No. 16 — Page 54) ■ Identify Strategic Improvements /Target Areas to be Included in CIE ■ Mitigation Set -aside from Road Impact Fees Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity March -12 Architectural Reviews Sprinkler Reviews Underground Reviews Fuel & LP Gas Reviews Hoods & FSUP Reviews Alarm Reviews SDP Reviews Total # of Plans Reviewed Number of Work Days Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day ASAP Reviews per Building Department: Total # of ASAP Reviews': Total ASAP Reviews per Day 'Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure Scheduled Meetings /Hours: 616 51 11 4 11 100 68 861 22 39 8 Architectural Per County 2 Architectural Fast Track 1 Architectural Phase Permit 27 AC Change outs 9 Low Voltage 3 Tents 1 Fire Sprinkler 51 2 Ed: 26.00 Hrs. Bob: 27.50 Hrs. Jackie: 5.33 Hrs. Ricco: 48.42 Hrs. Maggie: 0.25 Hrs. Classes and Seminars attended by FCO: Participant 3/19 Fire Service Awards, Tallahassee Ed Riley 3/20,3/21 Expert Testimony, 16 ceu's, Fort Myers Linda Rutkoski Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office 'Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors In addition to the above - mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields numerous phone calls, walk -ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings. Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 10 11 ( 5 Reviews) Summary of Methodologies Methodology Means of Analysis Standard for Good Acceptable Range Link -Node Ratio Connectivity Link -Node Ratio The ratio of the number of links (road Number of Blocks /Polygons (per sq. mi.) 135 segments) to the number of nodes 1.4-1.8 (Ewing 1996) (intersections /dead -ends) 1,409(1) 300-600 A measure of the number of 1.3 Block Density (Number of blocks /polygons per square mile Blocks /Polygons per Sq. Mi.) (or other unit of area) uses block Cervero and Kockelman (1997) density as a proxy measure for Cervero and Radisch (1995) connectivity, increased block >50 Frank et al. (2000) (census block density is thought to represent density) increased connectivity — more blocks means smaller blocks and more intersections. Block Length Establishing thresholds for lengths of Cervero and Kockelman (1997) blocks (shorter block lengths presume 300 — 600 feet to yield greater connectivity) Pedestrian Route Directness (PRD) Hess (1997) Uses the ratio of actual distance to Randall and Baetz (2001) traveled distance (1.0 is perfect) 51.7 Comparison of Results Using Different Methods of Analysis of Connectivity FDOT Sponsored Case Studv (2004) - Gainesville, FL (1) For a random sample of blocks Grid Network Neighborhood Curvilinear Neighborhood Acceptable Range Link -Node Ratio 1.45 0.87 1.4-1.8 Number of Blocks /Polygons (per sq. mi.) 135 6.1 >50 Block Length (average in feet) 61P) 1,409(1) 300-600 Pedestrian Route Directness (PRD) 1.3 2.47 1 -1.2 (1) For a random sample of blocks Other Methodologies Number of Intersections (Intersection Density) — The number of intersections per unit of area (higher number = more intersections and presumably greater connectivity) - Cervero and Radisch (1995) Cervero and Kockelman (1997) (# dead ends and cul -de -sacs per developed acre) Reilly (2002) Street Connectivity Indicator —The Ratio of the number of intersection to the number of intersections plus cul -du -sacs in area; a range of 0.7 — 0.9 represents a good -high range of connectivity — EPA's Smart Growth INDEX Model, Criterion (2002). Connected Node Ratio (CNR) — Also known as Internal Street Connectivity, the number of street intersections divided by the number of intersections plus cul -de -sacs. The maximum value is 1.0. Higher numbers indicate that there are relatively few cul -de -sacs and, theoretically, a higher level of connectivity - Criterion Planners Engineers, October 2001. Percentage of 4 -way Intersections —The percentage of intersections that are four -way is used as a measure of connectivity. A perfect grid would be 100% - Cervero and Kockelman (1997) Boarnet and Sarmiento (1998) Street Density — The number of linear miles of streets per square mile of land. A higher number would indicate more streets and, presumably, higher connectivity. - Handy (1996) Mately et al. (2001) Block Density — A measure of the number of blocks /polygons per unit of area uses block density as a proxy measure for connectivity, increased block density is thought to represent increased connectivity — more blocks means smaller blocks and more intersections. 50 or more blocks /polygons per square mile is an acceptable level of connectivity - Cervero and Kockelman (1997) Cervero and Radisch (1995) Frank et al. (2000) (census block density). Effective Walking Area (EWA) — The ratio of the number of parcels within a one - quarter mile walking distance of a node to the total number of parcels within a one - quarter mile radius of that node. Values range between 0 and 1. A higher value indicates that more parcels are within walking distance of the pre- defined point, reflecting a more connected network - EPA's Smart Growth INDEX Model, Criterion (2002). Pedestrian/ Bicycle Friendliness Factor (P /BFF) — Incorporates a block density calculation with other system - related factors, e.g., continuity, bike lanes, width and quality of sidewalks /pathways, nearness of buildings to the sidewalk, bicycle parking, traffic safety /calming features — Hotzclaw et al (2002) Pedestrian Network Coverage (PNC) — Percentage of street frontage with improved sidewalks on both sides; 70 -90% in urban areas represents a good - excellent level of coverage - EPA's Smart Growth INDEX Model, Criterion (2002). Pedestrian Environment Factors Composite Score — Evaluate /Score various attributes of the pedestrian environment, e.g., 1) ease of street crossing, 2) sidewalk continuity, 3) street network characteristics (e.g., grid vs. cul -du -sac), 4) pedestrian enhancements (e.g., shade trees, street furniture), 5) condition of infrastructure — Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas (1993 ) Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary March -12 Number Number Average #of 1st %of 1st Percentages of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews Total 616 2437 3.96 1st Review 448 2232 4.98 2nd Review 139 158 1.14 3rd Review 22 36 1.64 4th Review 7 11 1.57 Total 2 -4 Reviews 168 205 1.22 Fire Sprinkler Reviews Total 51 142 2.78 1st Review 28 113 4.04 2nd Review 15 19 1.27 3rd Review 8 10 1.25 Total 2 -3 Reviews 23 29 1.26 Underground Reviews 11 35 3.18 Total 1st Review 7 30 4.29 2nd Review 3 3 1.00 3rd Review 1 2 2.00 Total 2 -3 Reviews 4 5 1.25 Fuel & LP Gas Reviews 4 7 1.75 Total 1st Review 1 3 3.00 2nd Review 2 1 0.50 4th Review 1 3 3.00 Total 2-4 Reviews 3 4 1.33 Hood & FSUP Reviews 11 27 2.45 Total 1st Review 3 17 5.67 2nd Review 5 6 1.20 3rd Review 2 3 1.50 4th Review 1 1 1.00 Total 2- 4 Reviews 8 10 1.25 Fire Alarm Reviews Total 100 304 3.04 1st Review 66 281 4.26 2nd Review 23 15 0.65 3rd Review 10 7 0.70 4th Review 1 1 1.00 Total 2-4 Reviews 34 23 0.68 DIY 1st Review 553 2676 4.84 Corrections 240 276 1.15 Overall Totals 793 2952 3.72 309 69% 100110 Days 10 Day Max 97/3 Days 95/3 Days 100/3 Days 97/3 Days 14 Day Max 20 71% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 10013 Days 2 Day Max 4 57% 100/10 Days 8 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 10013 Days 3 Day Max 1 100% 100/10 Days 3 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 3 Day Max 0 0% 100/10 Days 6 Day Max 80/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 88/3 Days 4 Day Max 46 70% 100/10 Days 6 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 10013 Days 2 Day Max 380 69% 100110 Days 97/3 Days Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 O O li itd i_ cu 4- Ln srs sar 3a Q) Q0 cz m