Smart Growth Lee

Time and Place: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 from 6-8 p.m., 1^st Floor, Lee County Administration Building, 2115 Second Street, Fort Myers, Florida.

1. Chairwoman Dr. Banyan called the Lee County Smart Growth (SG) Advisory Committee meeting to Order at 6:05 p.m. Attorney Fredyma reviewed and said the affidavit of publication is sufficient and asked it to be entered into the record.

LAST	FIRST		LAST	FIRST
Banyan	Dr. Margaret	P	Hammond	Dr. Bill	E
Call	Carrie	P	Lindblad	Ellen	P
Chilmonik	Robert	P	Luft	Jack	E
Fineberg	Margaret	P	Noethlich	Neal	P
Fluegel	Walter	E	Paul	Liz	E
Ford	Lee	P	Romanello	Damon	E
Grey	Whitney	P	Tyrer	Jill	P
Hamel	Ron	P	Mantis	William	E

Name

Commissioner Hall, District 4

Wayne Daltry, SG Director

John Fredyma, Asst. County Attorney

Lucy Crook, Recording Secretary

Action Needed: Accept and approve the minutes as amended by discussion of the members.

Motion made by Mr. Noethlich to accept the February 18, 2009 draft minutes as written; seconded by Ms. Gray. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Mr. Daltry asked for additions to the Summary of Code Outcomes. (Ms. Fineberg arrived at 6:10 p.m.). Hearing none Mr. Hamel made a motion to proceed with the 10 issues in the review; seconded for discussion. There was no discussion. Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion on Interest Groups (Handout attached): Mr. Daltry gave an example of a group of land owners who do not see mixeduse development. He asked to define Land User Group that would go through the permitting process. Some of the discussion below:

· Landowners zoned AG but not using it as AG. What might they do with the land that could require permitting, i.e., 10 acre horse stable; plant nursery, etc.

· The major landowner in this group should be on the list, not just the attorney or leasing manager. (Mr. Daltry added this under #21).

· Mr. Daltry noted more additions: Working water fronts, health, social services and lawyers.

Administrative Code and the County Code and Ordinances (handout) – Mr. Daltry will check against the 10 principles for relevancy. There are some oddities such as the code that accommodates pedestrian with no accommodation to cross the street is not referenced in the Summary of Code Outcomes Discussion handout.

Mr. Daltry was requested to explain the County Administration Code v. the Land Development Code in detail. Administration Code is direction from BoCC to the staff. The Codes and Ordinances would be the collection adopted over time. The Land Development Code consists of sign ordinances, building code, and code division reorganized years ago and recommended BoCC to readopt them all. He reviewed each code on handout County Administrative Code. An example for AC 13-3 Community Planning San Carlos Community Planning will have their first staff meeting to discuss how to provide assessment for infrastructure. The process is the community decides the allocations but staff has the answers for what infrastructure can take when a developer comes in. This is the SG. He gave an example of an upcoming discussion under Community Planning with a community handling golf course conversion into a housing development.

Walkable Community - Chairwoman Banyan said to reference disabled access under Interest Groups. (Mr. Hamel left at 7:05 p.m.). Discussed sidewalk, bus shelter funding through impact fees. Attorney Fredyma explained it is the methodology that prevents the percentage of fund increase and explained the only alternative for increase would be to change the methodology and set a new method for roads. She said provide incentives for developers to minimize parking spaces and provide bus shelters.

Walkable Community v. Complete Streets – Chairwoman Banyan explained that when referring to Walkable Community it is more than walking The term Complete Streets encompasses the definition more fully and she is trying to use the term Complete Streets.

Discussion on the Transit Authority - the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process is to identify sources and prioritize funds; also talked about the Community Development Districts (CDD) and special taxing units process; and penny sales tax for an independent Transit Authority, etc.

Summary of Environmental Activity, Not in PowerPoint handout – Mr. Daltry summarized the briefing given to the Commissioners recently on environmental activity within Lee County. He noted that most of the issues have followed the SG Initiative.

D. Incentives for Infill and Redevelopment (from last month, at this website)

Mr. Daltry explained that the handout, Conclusions from Complete Street Review, is Dan Moser’s critique on areas that may need improvement in Lee County for the Committee to review. Additionally, Darla Letourneau (public) has a Resolution from the Bicycle Pedestrian Community to be presented to BoCC next week for your review and support.

Homework Assignment: A draft ordinance of more Complete Street from Miami Dade is attached to review on what might be incorporated into the Lee County Land Development Review for discussion at next months meeting. Ms. Letourneau explained why the ordinance is worthy. There is a national group, “Complete Streets Coalition.” Legislation has mandated that Complete Streets becomes national within two years. There are bills moving to have Legislation authorized by September 2009. This is going to be the first national debate on SG and Livable Communities. Mr. Daltry referred to the Miami Dade Transit System power point he presented last year noting it works within the Florida general laws and their issues are similar to Lee County with redevelopment, etc.

Ms. Letourneau explained that March is Bicycle Month and they are taking the opportunity to present this at the March 24, 2009 BoCC meeting with the intent to start the conversation with Commissioners to support the concept of Complete Streets.

MOTION made by Ms. Gray to recommend that the SG Committee endorse the Resolution to include Mr. Daltry as the presenter at the March 24, 2009 Board meeting; seconded by Mr. Noethlich for discussion. Hearing no discussion, or opposition, the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Daltry reviewed Conclusions for Complete Street Review handout: Ms. Call made note that the last sentence on page 1 includes Chairwoman Banyans earlier request to include mobility limitations, visual impairment, or other disabilities.

Under the Code - Bicycle/Pedestrian Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) during Road Construction and Development that Affects the Right-of-Way, Mr. Daltry said at the Board Goal Session there was much attention given to SG issues. The direction given was to build SG Mission into each component of county management. He said it was made clear to management to refocus with SG objectives and to come back with a comprehensive format to achieve a Smart Community. SG was the compelling theme in this year’s session.

Discussion Roads, Shoulders and Bike/Pedestrian: Ms. Letourneau said there is a major issue of maintenance with roadway shoulders. In monitoring the roadways, the roads are not swept quarterly, or shoulders maintained systematically as policy states and asked the Committee not to overlook it. Mr. Daltry answered that at the Goal Secession, the Board said the maintenance issue, which is a funding issue, should not be confused with the degree of public safety and to be sure of proper marking for bike/pedestrian facilities beginning with designated bike lanes.

Unmarked Shoulders - Ms. Letourneau said the unmarked shoulders are not maintained because D.O.T. said it is not their responsibility. Mr. Daltry said to check the maintenance schedule for County roads and to try to get it applied to Bike Facilities using the caveat of Community Planning effort to incorporate higher standards in areas supporting Complete Streets. That is why the objectives of the Board today was important because County Transportation maintenance program for non motorized facilities will include bike/pedestrian issues. County staff was committed to have answers back to the Board in a month. The effort is to amend the process to SG to make a Complete Street Community. The interview with Interest Groups on the code process will enable us to know where to amend the process.

Chairwoman Banyan was concerned that the critical issue of Public Transportation is not referenced on the Conclusions from Complete Street Review. Make sure that this is added.

Ms. Tyrer said the Complete Streets website sent to members was not a correct address. She asked why SG has not been included on the Red Sox process and is there a way for the Committee to be involved? There is concern about the above discussion on amending the process to SG. Mr. Daltry noted that this it is a LPA process.

Attorney Fredyma explained in detail that it is soon to be a zoning process because it is a DRI. It would be inappropriate for the Board members to talk about the project. Only in a public meeting would it not violate the Ordinance.

Mr. Noethlich said the process that the Committee set up asks are we going to do SG because he does not see a process. (Dr. Chilmonik departed at 8:09 p.m.).

UPDATE: Mr. Daltry said the Estuary River Management Recovery Program that came out of the SG Initiative is at battle again. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) voted to direct the Army Corp of Engineers to cease discharges of water into Caloosahatchee Estuary. Yesterday the BoCC went to war and directly addressed the Army Corp of Engineers to please ignore SFWMD. Independently, the Governor Crist is going to be asked how the suit Florida filed against Georgia for saltwater intrusion into estuaries is any different than this.