Loading...
CCPC Agenda 04/21/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA APRIL 21 , 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2016, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTICE: ITEM 9C,THE ARCHITECTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS,AND ITEM 9D 2015 LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 2 WILL BE HEARD AFTER ALL OF THE LAND USE PETITIONS AND BEFORE 3 PM. THEREAFTER, IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 3,2016,March 17,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PDI-PL20150001083: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD, to amend Section I, Legal Description, Property Ownership and General Description, by adding ten new deviations for the parcel described as Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, relating to a joint project plan, landscape 1 buffers, building setbacks, architectural standards, signage and parking; and to add Exhibit E, which depicts the 15 foot Type D landscape buffer along the south property line of Lot 4,Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat.The subject PUD property consists of 2,562+ acres, located on the northeast of corner of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-PL20140002809: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance no. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,F lorida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Highview Roost Road RPUD to allow development of up to 60 single-family detached dwelling units or 86 single-family attached dwelling units on property located on Roost Road, south of Manatee Road in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.59+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] C. An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code to make comprehensive changes to architectural and site design standards, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two —Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts,section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts;Chapter F our—Site Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.12 Design Standards for Outdoor Storage, section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, section 4.02.37 Design Standards for Development in the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District(GGDCCO),section 4.02.38 Specific Design Criteria for Mixed Use Development Within C-1 Through C-3 Zoning Districts, section 4.05.02 Design Standards, section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, section 4.05.09 Stacking Lane Requirements, section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way, section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, including section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Chapter Six — Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, section 6.06.03 Streetlights; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including section 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects Within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; Section Four,Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner] D. An Ordinance of the Board Of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,more specifically amending The Following: Chapter One —General Provisions, including section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Three — Resource Protection, including section 3.02.10 Standards for Subdivision Plats, 3.05.04 Vegetation Removal and Protection Standards, 3.05.07 Preservation Standards; Chapter Four —Site Design and Development Standards,including section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements, adding section 4.05.10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, including section 5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls, section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, section 5.04.05 Temporary Events, section 5.04.06 Temporary Signs, section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards, section 5.05.12 Specific Standards for Public Utility Ancillary Systems in Collier County; Chapter Six — Infrastructure 2 Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including section 6.01.01 Utilities Required to be Installed Underground, section 6.02.06 Potable Water Facility Level of Service Requirements, section 6.02.07 Sanitary Sewer Facility Level of Service Requirements, section 6.06.03 Streetlights; Chapter Nine — Variations from Code Requirements, including section 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including section 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments Thereof, Section 10.02.11 Submittal of Streetlight Plans; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 3 March 3, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,March 3,2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Wafaa F.Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 25 March 3, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,March 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary could do the roll call,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning,Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: My mind just went blank. Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Diane. Addenda to the agenda. We have a request from staff to continue the architectural review matter, and that is Item 9D,and it is--they're asking for a continuance to the March 17th meeting. Is that fair to say, Jeremy? He's nodding his head yes. Okay. Is there a motion by the Board? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen(sic), seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. The next item,there is no other items for changes unless staff has any. Anything from staff? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is March 17th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the March 17th-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will not. I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 2 of 25 March 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. It's St. Patty's Day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah,that's right. Well,my beard will have to be green then, I guess,that day. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Approval of the minutes. We had electronically been distributed the February 4th minutes. Are there any changes or corrections to those? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On February 23rd,the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the Westclox Street PUD rezone,and that was approved 5-0 subject to Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And then the Chairman's report,two things,just more or less housekeeping matters. The packets that you received this time weren't necessarily in the order that the Planning Commission has customarily received them. Usually it's the staff report,which is the pages up till the signature page,then the ordinance with the PUD or whatever documents being reviewed,and then the backup. There was a little confusion this time. Staff and County Attorney's Office have worked together to get that in order. So from now on our packets will be hopefully more in order than what they were this time. And,also,during the week there have been some flurries of continued changes going on with a couple of the items. So that the Planning Commission has a better understanding prior to the applicant's presentation as to where staff is going on the changes, I've asked staff for those areas where there's been significant changes just to come up and mention those after the announcement of the issue so that we know staff has seen those when the applicant goes to make their presentation. So that will be a slight change for today's order. ***And then from there we'll move into the consent agenda. There is no consent items for today, which will take us directly into our first advertised public hearing. It's Item No. 9A. It's PUDZ-PL20150000204. It's been continued from a series of other meetings;February 4th,February 18th,to today's meeting. It's the Abaco Club RPUD at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive. All those wishing to speak on this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the Planning Commission's part. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. Page 3 of 25 March 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I talked to Mr. Anderson and a slough of staff on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I've had meetings with the applicant,the applicant's representative,the engineering firm hired by the applicant. I've also met with various county departments concerning several matters on this,and I think that's all. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on my other right. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: None for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Just staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like staff to first address any of the significant changes that have come up since the staff report was issued. Dan, it's yours. MR. SMITH: Good morning. Daniel Smith,principal planner,zoning division. During the PUD document that was sent out to you in your packet,there's been some changes that have been taking place,and I just want to give you an overview of some of the major changes. What we found out is that there was some conflicts between--in the document with the townhomes and how they relate to the road right-of-ways. We have talked to the applicant, and they have agreed to remove townhomes altogether as a principal use. So most of the changes you're going to see in the document that I've presented in front of you is--that I handed off is basically removal of the townhomes and any changes with that,the footnotes,that's going to be removed for anything related to townhomes. There's also a transportation issue that was changed,and it had to do with exactly when the turn lane would be implemented;that's going to be discussed during the meeting,and that's--that's another change. And then there's a stormwater change on Page 8,and that has to do between--regarding the county's agreement and this PUD. So those are the three major changes before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, Dan. That kind of sets the stage so that we know you've reviewed those when we listen to the applicant's presentation. So with that--and we're still going to have a staff report after--a more detailed staff report after the applicant's presentation-- MR. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but at least we know,Bruce,what you are hopefully going to be talking to us about, staff has reviewed in its new context. So go ahead, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much,Mr.Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo. And I have with me today Mr.Michael Greenberg from Neal Communities; Alexis Crespo from Waldrop Engineering,who's the project planner;Jeremy Arnold,an engineer with Waldrop Engineering; and Jim Banks--there you are--the transportation engineer. I've displayed on the visualizer an aerial of the subject property. Abaco Club is just under 16 acres, and it's located at the southwest corner of Woodcrest Drive and Immokalee Road across from Heritage Bay. Access to the project would be from Woodcrest Drive. This property is within a residential density band around the activity center at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The Growth Management Plan allows a density of seven units per acre. The Abaco Club density is 6.5 units per acre. The total number of multifamily homes is 104. Page 4 of 25 March 3, 2016 Eventually,Woodcrest Drive will extend south,and then it will connect with Tree Farm Road,which will extend west to connect to Collier Boulevard.These two roads will form a bypass route around the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. As depicted on the PUD master plan, lying between where the homes would be constructed at Abaco Club and the homes that are presently under construction next door at Bent Creek is a water management pond which is 100 feet wide, and it's located on the Abaco Club property. We are in agreement with staff and have incorporated all prior stipulations into the PUD document, except we do disagree with the staff recommendation against approval of Deviation No.9.This deviation would eliminate a landscape buffer on either side of the water management pond between Abaco and Bent Creek. My client and the developers of Bent Creek have agreed that neither of us want a landscape buffer in this location so that the residents of both communities can enjoy the amenity of the views of the pond. As a result of a meeting held on Monday with the staff and Chairman Strain,and an email yesterday from the County Attorney's Office,there are five minor changes to the PUD document that is in your agenda packet. Daniel identified three of them. The other two are we have limited multifamily buildings to two stories not to exceed 35 feet,and we have added language to Paragraph 4A regarding the requirement for a developer's agreement for joint use of the stormwater pond that was requested by the County Attorney's Office. And I'll display a succinct summary of those. I and the other members of the project team are here to answer any questions that you may have,and we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission;anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Where do I find the change from 45 feet to 35 feet note? MR.ANDERSON: That will be in the Development Standards Table. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: On Page? MR.ANDERSON: On Page-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three. MR.ANDERSON: --3 of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That's the same table on the staff report Page No. 5? MR.ANDERSON: Should be,yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: All right. So that change will be made for the multifamily? MR.ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Two stories not to exceed 35 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. And when--question to staff And in reviewing deviations, I notice that you're using the criteria of not being detrimental in evaluating the criteria. In your analysis of the deviation,the statements are often made that this deviation is not detrimental. Is that a code standard,or is this a common language,or why the word "detrimental"? MR. SMITH: That's just been a--Daniel Smith,principal planner. That's just been a common language that's used in previous staff reports for anything that,as far as staff is concerned,is justified for the deviations. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Maybe I can help him out a little bit. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse me. I can't hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not picking up there,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's not on? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No, it's not on. Page 5 of 25 March 3, 2016 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah,perfect. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Under Section 10.02.13 of the Land Development Code,when it deals with master plans, it does have a standard for deviations there and,historically, staff has applied that as the standard for deviations. So there is a section. It's 10.02.13. I can look it up and read it for you if you'd like for me to find it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. I just wonder why the word "detrimental" is the guideline for evaluating deviations. And I do have a concern about too many deviations because I feel --I feel the county has taken enough time to review and adopt standards,and then many of those standards are waived just by judgment of staff as not being detrimental,and the applicants are using too many deviations in the name of flexibility, and I cannot see in my mind where,as an example,placing a sign closer than 10 feet to the right-of-way will add flexibility. 1 mean,the word "flexibility" is used too often in reviewing the deviation,and the word "detrimental" is used too much as well in accepting those deviations. I feel if the county has standards,unless there is a very strong reason to propose or accept a deviation,there should be none. As an example,the signage. The signage is, if you leave it flexible for the sign makers and the developer,the county will go back to where it used to be in the 1970s. You could drive the streets,and you see billboards,you see free-standing signs,you see huge signage everywhere,and it was too much clutter. So they decided to adopt a sign ordinance,and it has standards. Now developers and sign makers are saying it limits our flexibility. Well,exactly, because you don't want to leave everything flexible for everybody. You want to have minimum standards. So once you adopt minimum standards, I don't see the reason for having too many unnecessary deviations just because they're not detrimental to the county. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And for the record,Ray Bellows,manager with the zoning section. I agree with you wholeheartedly; however,there are--other concepts that come into play when we look at deviations as well. There may be tradeoffs,and staff looks at the totality of the request being made in the deviations. Are they making up for that deviation elsewhere on the site and--or are they providing above code requirements in other areas. So certainly we want to look at is there a--for some deviations, is there some land-related hardship, such as a canal that pushes the signage back off the road. Those are typically better justifications for granting or staff supporting a deviation. But another one is certainly if there is a health/safety issue that would come into play;that is one criteria we also look at as well. But we, I think--that's been an ongoing discussion with staff and with our various applicants about the amount of deviations,plus the suitability of these deviations. And the more we deal with these cluster housing types where their lot area, lot width is reduced,that means the remaining area for the required landscaping and water management areas gets pressed,and that's where you start seeing more deviations, especially in road right-of-way issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You feel that applies to size and location of signs,as an example? MR. BELLOWS: No, size and location of signs,those deviations probably are more aesthetic than anything or marketing driven in many cases. And we had a policy maybe 10 years ago just outright not supporting any sign deviation. But as we start looking at various design alternatives that some agents are applying,it may make more sense-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Give me specifics. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I'd have to come back with you. I can't think of specifics offhand other sites where sign deviations were approved. But, generally speaking,where sign deviations are approved where staff supports it, such as those projects off Immokalee Road where there's a canal that pushes those frontages back 100 feet off the road right-of-way,that's an example where staff would support a sign deviation. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do we have a master plan showing the buildings for this project? MR. SMITH: No. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Location of buildings? Page 6 of 25 March 3, 2016 MR. SMITH: No. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So how could we claim that in the name of flexibility we're going to waive this and that and the other thing? I can see if you have a very small piece of land and you have a final site plan and you have a very strong architectural theme,that you--the developer would want to do certain things to follow the theme of the development. And I'll give you a stupid example but the one that comes to my mind. If there is a small piece of land,maybe five acres or something,and you want to do a development designed after the Swiss villages, okay, and you want to have certain features that lends itself to that,then you can have narrow streets,you can have closer setbacks,but when you're assigning tracts of land in a PUD with no building or definitive master plan,and in the name of flexibility--and I don't see a lot of flexibility with this development. It looks like the site plan is going to be very straightforward. And there is a lot of exception,and a lot of reduced setbacks are claimed in the name of flexibility, and I personally don't see any. So this is something that concerns me personally,the very casual--maybe casual is not the right word--the very lenient way of recommending approval on the deviations in spite of the fact that the county has standards. And during my short tenure on the Planning Commission,the few applications that I have been part of reviewing, I can feel a tendency to approve certain deviations in all of them. So if the deviations are good, I think you should go back to the county and advise them that the standards they have adopted are incorrect, and in the name of flexibility,or whatever it is,they should reduce the location of the signs from 10 feet to 5, the entrance sign from 30 feet to 100 feet or 80 feet,and have them correct the ordinances. But to review and approve and be lenient in accepting so many deviations in every application is not a good planning practice for the county or for myself to accept. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a similar concern,and that has to do with Deviation 7,which is the location of the off-site preserve. As my fellow commissioners realize,that we've had that deviation come before us on other petitions. And the code is clear about that being an option for preserves less than one acre in size. And from time to time we've allowed a location of off-site preserve if it was a fraction over one acre, but in this case it's almost a quarter acre more than the county code allows,and I have a problem with that because so far the petitioner has not shown why there are circumstances to support that precedent. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few comments. I've taken a quick look at the handout that's been provided with some of the changes and corrections.And on Page 3 in the Development Standards Table,I've got a question about the change to the footnote for minimum distance between principal structures. It used to be Footnote 3 under the primary column on the left,which then made it apply to all three uses. And when I read Footnote 3, it says,the minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to zero where attached garages are provided.That's a typical request when we deal with townhouses. I don't see it necessarily applying to multifamily,so I'm curious from the applicant's view how they thought that--how that's going to--how they think it's going to work with a multifamily application. MR.ANDERSON: We can delete that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we get in--on the next page of the handout,which is the same as our packet, it talks about--it's the master plan.On the left-hand side it says, 6-foot-tall fence wall/hedge. And I believe in our conversations,that meant in your minds that it was optional whether you do 6-foot-tall fence,wall,or hedge. Now,we're only talking about that buffer on the south between the edge of the drainage easement and the right-of-way, and I don't know why we wouldn't want that to be a wall there and not necessarily limit Page 7 of 25 March 3, 2016 it to optional. You're backed up against another project whose single-family backyards are going to be up against,you know,multifamily. So do you have any objection of leaving--making that a wall instead of an optional? MR.ANDERSON: Yes, sir. We would request to be able to retain the options that are provided in the Land Development Code. And I don't believe our neighbors have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that your neighbors weighed in on the removal of the buffer between the drainage easement and their property. I didn't see any notations about this being specifically discussed or brought up by your neighbors. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ANDERSON: I think they went over the PUD with a fine-tooth comb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they go over all their PUDs with a fine-tooth comb. It doesn't mean they catch everything, I think--if I'm not mistaken. Deviation No. 9 involves the buffer that would normally have been required around the maintenance easement,or between the maintenance easement and the residential on both of these projects. And staff is in disagreement with the removal of that; however,the neighboring property has clearly weighed in on that and said they have no objection to that--removal of that buffer because they'd like to see it removed so that they can retain the views that the pond offers,and I can understand you would like that as well. I'm not sure that it's necessary to say no to that deviation. It seems practical where all parties agree in this case. And then the last item that I have remaining based on the handout is you've included a new stormwater reference on 4A. And 5C is left in,but 5C has already been taken care of. So I'm not sure we need 5C anymore. Heidi is shaking her head no? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,we don't need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in my review of what's been handed out versus what we started with,those three items,the Footnote 3 being removed from the Development Standards Table,the addition of a 6-foot wall to that 15-foot Type B southern buffer for the area that it's shown in,and the removal of 5C are concerns I have. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I agree with the chairman on Deviation 9. I can't see--although I would like to see some clusters of trees along that far shore there,just to line the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we take out the buffer,then the only trees that would be required are those required to be on the lots per code,and that would be on both sides. So Bent Creek would have whatever they're required by code minimum for their backyards,and so would this project. And maybe,Dan, you could tell us what that might be so we know if--the extent of the landscaping back there? MR. SMITH: Well,foundation planting--Daniel Smith,principal planner. Foundation plantings are required per code. Foundation plantings are,at a minimum,based on the square footage of the--of the structures themselves. There can't be necessarily any guaranteed foundation plantings will be on the side facing the water. I can't guarantee that based on code. The B buffer,code does allow for clustering against waterways,and that was one of the reasons why they put that in there is so they could cluster 60-foot openings for water views. That's why staff didn't support the deviation is because there is a clustering portion in the code that allows for smaller hedges and trees to be clustered. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But I'm not talking about a hedge at all. I'm talking about just some trees along that bank and,you know-- MR. SMITH: The only trees that are going to--are based on what Bent Creek currently has,which is an A buffer,trees every 30 feet on the other side of the pond. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That's trees be clustered. Page 8 of 25 March 3, 2016 MR. SMITH: On the other side of the pond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the backyards of these multifamily units,these two-story units, basically the foundation plantings,which are more like ground plantings? MR. SMITH: Well,there's trees, shrubs that are--it's a square footage that's required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: And there's nothing that I can guarantee--you know,without looking at the building and going through the process, I assume there's going to be some sort of plantings the applicant is going to put in. I just don't know what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,maybe we'll try to find that out so we get to Stan's point. Is your landscape architect present, Bruce,or can your planners or anybody from your team tell us what kind of plantings are going to go in the back or,as an alternative, suggest a planting that would work for you even though you may not have planned it right now,but that also meets some minimum planting in the back that Stan would--would consider? MR. ANDERSON: If you'd give us a few moments,the project planner,Ms. Crespo is going to take a look at that for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. On your master plan,the retention pond that the county has, it says that the county does not require buffers on their ponds. Is that true?Well,I mean,that's what it says here. Heidi, is that true? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you refer me to which section you're on? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm looking on Page 3 of 22 of the master plan,and it says,no buffers are required,and I know the county has that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The county used to have the property until last week. And while the county did have it,yes,they have--they are--there's a--there's some leniency in regards to how the county handles its stormwater ponds. But this pond has been re-deeded back to the property owner. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,it's been re-deeded,okay. And how deep is this pond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About 20 feet, I think,the last--it was dug out by Bent Creek, and it went from dry detention to wet detention,and I believe they just used the standard formula for depths,so it could be about 20 feet deep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And are both communities going to maintain this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The maintenance is supposed to be done by the community that's being--Abaco community,and it would be passed down to the successor and assigns if it was assigned to an HOA,for example. And, Heidi,jump in if-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,currently it's under a maintenance agreement with the Bent Creek so the developer-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,we had trouble with them. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --or HOA is currently responsible for maintenance. So if the rezone goes through,there will be a companion developer contribution--a developer agreement that we've been in discussions on business points and pretty much have just one issue remaining. And under that agreement,the HOA of this new project will be responsible for maintenance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. From the other development, Standard Pacific, I understand that Bent Creek is the one who dug the dry retention pond,made it deeper,and then used the fill for their project? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's my understanding as well. There's a contribution agreement that sets forth those details. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do we have any of that? I mean,do you--you're saying you don't quite have the agreement with Abaco. Do you have an agreement already with Bent Creek? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We've been in discussion with business points that will then go into a developer agreement,and staff just needs to issue final approval of the language that we've--that we've been in discussion. So we're pretty close. We're just waiting for the nod from the various staff departments. Page 9 of 25 March 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she asked if we already have an agreement with Bent Creek,and we do. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: With Bent Creek,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Bruce, I noticed in here that you're not asking for-- I mean, I shouldn't say that. There's been so many revisions on this,but you're not asking for any deviation on the road,so it will be 60 feet,will be the road? MR.ANDERSON: They are considered accessways because they're all internal. They're not going to be dedicated to Collier County. They'll be privately maintained. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I know. But they will be 60--it will 60 feet of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. If they're considered accessways,they're like driveways. You don't plat them as a right-of-way, so there's no width to them. They're part--like a driveway to your house. They just don't factor in as a right-of-way with dedicated utilities and things like that in them. They become more flexible in design for the applicant to move them in an SDP process instead of a fee-simple platted process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a little problem with that. Our streets are getting too narrow in these developments,way too narrow. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This isn't a subdivision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These aren't a street.Yeah,this is not a-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This is not a street. It's not a subdivision. They don't subdivide lots and put right-of-way. A street is a right-of-way in a subdivision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be an SDP like a condominium. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you have a condominium and multifamily,you don't have roads and right-of-ways. You've got internal accessways and driveways,and they don't get platted separately. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county never would inherit them. The HOA would always take care of them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know, I know. And I do understand that. And that's-- MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner Ebert,there will be sidewalks, I believe,on both sides. Yes,yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to place sidewalks on both sides of your accessways? MR.ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Are the sidewalks right next to the pavement or removed from the pavement?Will there be a separation, like a 5-foot grass area or some-- MR. ANDERSON: I'm told four-feet separation, sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And how are you going to put the signage at five feet from the driveways?You're requesting a waiver from 10 feet to five feet. MS.CRESPO: Good morning. For the record,Alexis Crespo,with Waldrop Engineering. That specific deviation is for way-finding signage internal to the community, such as those smaller signs that say Buildings A through C this way, Buildings D through F that way. So they're small in nature. I believe the code limits them to between four and eight square feet in size,and to set them back that far from the pavement would be putting them in people's yards,and that's why we were requesting the reduced setbacks. But due to the clustering of the site in the eastern portion of the project,those will be very low travel speeds on the accessways. It's not-- it won't be long street lengths that would generate higher travel speeds where you'd have a safety issue with the signage being close to the roadway. And I just want to make sure you understand we're not requesting reduced setback for the main entrance signs. Those will fully comply with the setbacks from Woodcrest and applicable rights-of-way for the larger entry signs. And just to close out on that, staff did ask us to provide examples of other planned unit developments Page 10 of 25 March 3, 2016 that had gotten the 80 square feet approved,which is a fairly nominal increase over the 64 square foot,and we were able to document five or six PUDs approved within the last year that were allowed that larger sign area,and it's not simply for the naming of the community but for architectural embellishments,other things that go in that sign face area to create the aesthetic appeal that Neal Communities is seeking for their signage design. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're on that deviation,though,you're asking for the deviation from 5.06.02.B.5,which refers to the edge of roadway or from private internal roadways within the PUD. You don't have any internal roadways,do you? MS. CRESPO: I believe the accessway falls under the general definition of roadway. It's simply not a platted right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then from staffs perspective, if they're--if they're basing their sign layout along their driveways,has that been uniformly applied under that basis? Because those driveways can be any width,any size,anywhere they want to go. So I'm wondering if Deviation 5 is even needed because they may not--they may have the latitude already since they're no longer platting the roadways. I mean, it's something to consider. I don't know if it's been looked at because previously with the townhomes there,we had to assume that the option would always be to have platted roads. But with the townhomes out,that might change Deviation 5, and I would have to spend some time researching or ask staff if they know offhand how that-- MR. SMITH: Yeah. Daniel Smith,principal planner. That deviation was primarily for the platted right-of-ways when townhomes--when we were first talking about townhomes. This may not even be needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The roads will be platted, but they will be privately owned. MR.ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. ANDERSON: They will not be platted. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You will not have a condominium plat? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll have phased condominiums,but you don't plat roads in an SDP, so-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: We're not talking about an SDP. For them to convey title,they have to have a plat,and the plat-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --would be a condominium plat. It's not a county plat. It's not up to the county standards. But you're going to have to identify accessways,the roads;you're going to have to identify utility easements;you're going to have to identify any particular easements that you like for all kinds of utilities,water/sewer,cable,power,phone,all of that;you're going to have to identify any sign easements. So there will be an exhibit that will be recorded. It may not be,what do you call it,a public plat or something, but it will be,and it will have the dedications on it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows, manager. On a multifamily project--and that's the only use left remaining now that the townhomes that would have been platted and all that information that you just stated would be part of that type of process,but since this is now just a multifamily project,there's no need to have a road right-of-way. It will all be kind of a drive access as shown on this site development plan. So Deviation 5 would not be required in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then without--unless the applicant objects,we would delete Deviation 5,and that would take care of some of-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And 4 and 6 as well,Deviations 4 and Deviation 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's up to the applicant. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Would you think about deleting them as well? MR.ANDERSON: No, sir. We feel that we need those. Page 11 of 25 March 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us--any other questions from the Planning Commission? Okay. Bruce? MR.ANDERSON: I'll ask Ms. Crespo to address the landscape issue and also that of the preserve area. MS. CRESPO: Alexis Crespo with Waldrop. I tried to pull up the building permit or planning section of your LDC. I believe that it does require building permit or plantings,foundation plantings on all sides of the buildings,and we'd be happy to commit to ensuring that those foundation plantings would be provided along the western sides of those multifamily buildings facing Bent Creek in order to soften the looks of those buildings. I'll note we did limit the height of the buildings to two stories to reduce the overall scale so that they'd be much more consistent with what's being developed in Bent Creek so it's not your,you know,more typical multifamily community that may be three and four stories and larger buildings in scale. And I'll also note general tree requirements are also in place that would--could be planted in those rear yards to,again,provide additional vegetation in those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the width of that easement; do you know offhand? It's a 5-acre county tract,but I don't know--I don't remember what the width was on it. MS. CRESPO: I believe it's 200 feet including the 100-foot-wide water body and the easements on either side of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? MS. CRESPO: If I may just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. CRESPO: --address the off-site preserve,because we certainly understand the county is examining this item,and it's not appropriate in every case that comes before you. Staff has supported the request for the 1.22 acres to be mitigated off site. This is in the last urban piece you have on Immokalee Road, so this is really the edge of the urban development footprint. So we were looking to be able to maximize the ability to develop the property in context of that urban land use area. And I also want to point out that there's no connectivity to off-site preserves. We're bound by roadways to the north and east,and then Bent Creek is fully developed to our south and west. So there really would be no advantage to providing that on-site preserve in that it would be a very isolated pocket without any off-site continuity. And so for those reasons Steve Lenberger was supportive,and we'd respectfully request your approval as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce? MR.ANDERSON: If I could,please, I'd like to speak briefly about the deviation process. Differences from the Land Development Code have traditionally been allowed in PUDs,historically.They were just simply written into the PUD and never called out as deviations. It's only recently that staff has wanted to call them out and identify them as deviations,but, traditionally and historically,PUDs have been--have contained differences from what the Land Development Code requires in many instances. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think--I think if you go back a little bit in history--and you were definitely there as the county assistant attorney--you would recall that when the PUDs became a popular way of zoning land was because there was a contractual agreement,and the developers were asked to donate a fire station site,as an example,or a school site. And the county felt that negotiated zoning was illegal, so they created the PUD zoning to allow for flexibility for larger tracts and to allow the county to negotiate,for the benefit of the community, extractions from the developers. So that was the essence of the PUD zoning at the time. Over time it evolved. Then the practice came about that you include deviations from the development standards,which has nothing to do with zoning, like your road construction,the width of the right-of-way,the utility easements. Page 12 of 25 March 3, 2016 So many things are not zoning issues,but those come in play at the time you record your plat or you get your construction plans approved, stuff like that. Now,the minimum acreage for a PUD is what,five acres? You can apply for a PUD for any size? MR. BELLOWS: Within an activity center,there's no size limit,but outside activity centers there's-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. The practice has evolved that you ask for deviations at the same time you're coming for zoning,and those have nothing to do with, like,the signage. I don't see why is that a flexibility issue or a design issue.As an example,you're asking for a bigger entrance sign. What is the justification for the bigger entrance sign? Now, in my personal view,and maybe this is something new,I have no problems with the density, I have no problems with the site plan,although it's not very creative. It looks like it's been designed by an engineer or a surveyor. All the streets are straight shots. Nothing is meandering around the lakes to create interesting points and different views and stuff like that,but that's fine. But to include the bigger signage in the name of flexibility and the criteria for evaluating it is that it's not detrimental to the county,creates a problem for me. I would be very happy to support your petition if the sign deviations are removed from it. I also understand that because the site is too small,you have not included any more specificity on the site plan, location of the buildings,types of buildings,because you may have to react to market conditions if you develop it in phases. And if you develop a bad product,you want to change yourself quickly so you would have a successful development. All of those are fine with me. But the deviations, in my mind and my view as a professional planner,as someone who's been here for a long time and lived through the history of the county, as a newcomer to the planning board, I find the deviations are just a killer for me. I don't--I just can't swallow it. So that's my statement,and I was hoping that you would consider removing the deviations concerning the signage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dan,do you have a staff report? MR. SMITH: Can I mention something-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SMITH: --quick? Because there's something that was brought up, and I just want to make sure the Planning Commission is aware of this,there's no misconception. When we talk about foundation plantings,usually there's room for foundation plantings,and this specifically the Deviation No. 9. The PUD document allows for a zero-foot setback to the LME, lake management--maintenance easement,and the problem is with having any foundation plantings,there it--we don't want any required plant material in the lake management easement,because that's supposed to be a 20-foot area for access. So there's conflicting things there with the zero setback in the development standards from the lake management easement. I just wanted to make you aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they were to agree to plant--the foundation plantings will be planted in the rear setback outside of the LME,then they would have to set the building back enough to accommodate the foundation plantings. MR. SMITH: That's correct. I just wanted you to be aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they seem to have agreed to that,and so that's where I think it's heading,and that's what their site plan that I've seen the buildings placed on provide. I mean,there's--that site plan seemed to have room in the back,so... MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner Assaad,we are prepared to drop the deviation related to signage on the internal roadways, and as far as the community sign, I wonder if we could work out a little compromise. The biggest reason for that deviation is so that the architectural embellishments that will make it look like a nice sign are allowed. Perhaps we could craft the deviation such that architectural embellishments are not counted as part of the 64-foot size limitation on the sign. Would that be acceptable? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I appreciate your dropping the internal sign deviations. That makes Page 13 of 25 March 3, 2016 it a lot more acceptable to me. If you exclude the embellishment from the calculation,then you could have a huge embellishment around the sign. So to leave the embellishments or the overall sign of the entrance sign unregulated makes it worse, in my view. MR.ANDERSON: Well,we could still limit it to the 80 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. That sounds good.That sounds fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then,what you're saying is you're going to drop Deviation No. 5,and you're going to modify Deviation No. 6 to remain the same? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They're dropping Deviation No. 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they didn't say anything about 4. Are you guys dropping 4 as well? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't have a problem with these deviations for the signs and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're consistent with what we've done,yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see any-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're doing it for others,and I don't have any problem with supporting them, so I don't know where we're going through all this. If everybody else is going to say no to it,then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,the sign code was made for one size fits all. We have 23 pages of a sign code that is extremely hard to understand that includes things like architectural emblems,that also includes the fact that if you have one sign here and one sign here,you have to connect them with some mysterious geographic shape and it all becomes part of the sign even though there's nothing on it. So the sign code has a lot of issues. And the deviations of those on a case-by-case basis for a creative PUD--which PUDs are allowed by code to be there for additional creative standards. I don't have a problem with the idea of deviations. I think they're warranted and they're needed. Not only that, if you were to take a look at what's a deviation from our code as written,everything in a PUD is; otherwise,you don't need any of it. So the mere fact we have the PUD means we're creating deviations from our standard codes. So I'm--I just think the deviation process has worked well. We've scrutinized it on a case-by-case basis for all the 15 years I've been on this board. And from my history of 40 years in the county, I don't see any problem with that as a standard trying to move forward in modern times. So I'm supportive of your deviations. I think Deviation 5 is unwarranted because it's no longer needed. I think Deviation No. 9 has been addressed by the compatibility acknowledged by the neighboring properties who are the affected parties and, I mean,the rest of them to me are fine to go forward with. But I'm not trying to prevent you from getting a unanimous vote and working your situation out with Commissioner Assaad,and I think to whatever you want to do that, go right ahead. Dan,did you have a staff report? MR. SMITH: Thank you. Daniel Smith,principal planner, zoning. Services staff recommends that the Collier County commission forward the petition for PUDZ-PL20150000204 to the BCC for the recommendation of approval for the following conditions: Removal --we're going to keep Deviation 9;however,we're going to make a change to allow for 10 feet of foundation plantings toward the west side of those buildings? I need some direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we'll get that from the applicant. Alexis? MS.CRESPO: I don't know that we're able to commit to an exact width at this time based upon our site plans being in flux. What is the--what is the code required width for-- MR. SMITH: Code required width would be 10 feet for a building that's over 10,000 square feet. MS. CRESPO: So you're not seeking any additional width of the foundation planting area? MR. SMITH: No. MS.CRESPO: What was staff seeking in lieu of-- MR. SMITH: This would allow 10 feet for foundation plantings on the west side of those buildings. MS.CRESPO: On the west side of the buildings. We can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means your LME--you'd have to be 10 feet back from the LME in Page 14 of 25 March 3, 2016 order to fit the foundation plantings in. MS. CRESPO: We can accept that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: So that would include removal of Deviation 9 and foundation plantings for the west side of the building to be a minimum of 10 feet. Other corrections would be as follows: On Page 1,under principal uses for residential,townhomes would be removed. Page 1,Exhibit A,removal of final subdivision plan as a development order since the subdivision plan is not required for the multifamily development. Page 2,recreation area section,add a location reference to the master plan regarding recreational uses. On Page 3, remove fences and walls. They're not needed for the project entrance. On Page 3, in the table of residential standard,remove townhomes,change the footnotes to correspond to multifamily developments only, add two stories along with the building height in the table,and remove Footnote 3. Six, I don't know if this was resolved,the--my recommendation is to change the 6-foot wall/fence--or fence/wall/hedge on the south side of the development to read,6-foot-high wall/fence required with a hedge. I don't know if we've resolved that comment. That was on my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the applicant agreed to it,but-- MR. SMITH: Okay. That's my recommendation is to change the 6-foot-tall fence/wall/hedge on the south side of the development to read 6-foot-high wall/fence required with hedge. Page 7 under the transportation Section C,required turn lane is to be required with the occupancy of Building 1 instead of Building 5. On Page 8, under stormwater,Note 8 would be added,prior to any joint use by the owners of the county stormwater pond within the Collier County's drainage easement for Immokalee Road,the owner shall enter into a developer's agreement with Collier County. On Page 5 --oh. Page 8,removal of 5C. And my question was,the last one is,the removal of Deviation 5. It's not needed. Are we still removing that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SMITH: Okay. That would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the applicant already said they agreed to that,so... MR. SMITH: All corrections stated on the record today. Ends my recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public here to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll move back to the applicant. Are there any final comments that you have,Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Alexis might have something. MS.CRESPO: We're in agreement with those changes with the exception of the change to the PUD master plan for the fence/wall along that segment of the southern perimeter. We are requesting that we satisfy the opacity and screening intended by the code with a hedge. We feel that that will work from a maintenance perspective long term. Sometimes walls create maintenance issues between communities, especially where there's this tight of space. We're limiting the height to two stories, so whether that be a 6-foot hedge or a 6-foot wall, it will effectively screen the same portion of the proposed multifamily buildings from the rear yards of the adjacent neighbor. So we feel,again,the code provides the hedge as an allowable way of screening these differing uses, and we would respectfully request consideration to maintain the option for a hedge. Thank you. Page 15 of 25 March 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing,and we'll start with a discussion from the Planning Commission. I've made some notes of my own,and each of you may have your own notes. I'd like to make sure we get them summarized into a stipulation format so when there's a vote they can either be included or not included in the vote. The ones that I've made note of was removal of Footnote 3 from the standards table,which has been acknowledged;the requirement of a 6-foot wall or fence and buffer along the south property line,which the applicant has said they don't agree with;removal of 5C,which the applicant does agree with; sidewalks on both sides of the accessways,which the applicant volunteered;deletion of Deviation No. 5,and allow Deviation No.9,and No.9 would have some amendment to the discussion that the foundation plantings will be planted in a--there will be foundation plantings,and they will be planted within a 10-foot rear setback area on the west property line outside of the LME. And those are the notes that I've made,and I know that Mr.Assaad had some other notes he may want to make. Charlette may have some,and so I'm open to suggestions from this panel for the rest of it. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other items? Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would make a motion to approve with all of staffs recommendations. My motion would be not to require them to have a wall and a hedge,which was one of staffs recommendations. I think what the code requires in the opacity and the lowering of the building is fine. So my motion would be to include all of those comments and suggestions from staff except for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? First of all,as far as the wall--I mean, I'm willing to go along with the majority on this issue. I mean, it's not a deal breaker for me for the wall or fence,especially since the neighboring property owners did not object to it,and their--their attorney or their representatives have been active with this group in how they've laid it out. But I want one clarification. It's not that the code doesn't require it. The code has it as an option in that kind of buffer, and it's up to this board,then,to also exercise the ability to exercise that option. So since it's already in the code as an option between unlike uses,this is a multifamily to single-family, I thought it would be warranted. But,again,there's other reasons why it's not as necessary,and it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me. So I will go along with the motion. Anybody else have any comments on the motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it will just be a hedge,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will just be a hedge,yeah. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 5-2.Thank you all. We'll look forward to seeing you next time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He also had to-- it said requires EAC review? Page 16 of 25 March 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah. Did this require EAC review? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The staff report said so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion from the perspective of the EAC to approve this project with the stipulations that were so noted on the first approval? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Stan. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-1 on the EAC side. Okay. With that,thank you, Bruce,and we'll see you next time. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. And does this constitute any consent hearing if one would even be needed,sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've passed out a pretty detailed--well, I didn't see one needed. Unless we vote to ask for a consent,a consent isn't required. Okay. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***The next advertised public hearing is PL20140001311. It's for the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development,CPUD. It's on the corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there disclosures? We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I have a conflict,so I won't be participating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You'll need to fill out one of the conflict forms. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Nicole and I talked with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I talked with the applicant;we had a meeting. And I talked with staff numerous times. I did talk with Nicole as well. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No contacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,there's no substantial corrections from staff that I know of at this time so, Richard, it's yours. Page 17 of 25 March 3, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me are David Genson,representing the property owner; Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor,who is the professional planner on the project; and Norm Trebilcock,who is our transportation engineer on the project. I've put on the visualizer an aerial showing the location of the property. It's on both the east and west side of Goodlette-Frank Road. And within the PUD itself there are different designations between business and then industrial IC district. The original PUD was approved for 620,000 square feet of IC uses and 550,000 square feet of--I'm sorry and--strike that back--620,000 square feet of business uses and 150,000 square feet of office and 40,000 square feet of retail in the business district. We're making some changes to those allocations by removing 70,000 square feet of the IC uses and placing 50,000 square feet of additional office in the B district and 20,000 square feet of retail in the B district. We're adding some additional uses to the PUD that are your typical retail uses you would find in your little strip retail centers,similar to the strip retail center on the corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road where South Street is located and Five Guys and those types of uses. So we're adding those types of uses to the retail type uses. You could see that the retail center is actually up and under construction,and the tenants are anxious to move in and open up their stores. We're asking for one deviation,which is actually where the sign--the directory sign could be located. We would like to--and I'll put up the master plan. We'd like to be able to locate the directory sign, instead of having to be right here at the entrance,move it a little bit closer to the intersection. We believe it makes it-- it's a better location for visibility so people can actually see the directory sign before they get to the turn lane to turn into the project. It's the only deviation we're requesting,and staff is recommending approval of that deviation. We've had two neighborhood information meetings for this project,and we have met with the representatives of Collier's Reserve as well to discuss the project,and we've not heard any objections from the neighbors or from Collier Reserve. One other change we did make was to the hotel.We're increasing the height,and we're reducing the setback from 500 feet to 350 feet from Immokalee Road,and we discussed all of that with the residents of Collier's Reserve. They were very involved at the last amendment. Now that you can see that the retail building is where it is,you have the memory care building where it is,you have the long-term care facility where it is,and the quality of construction, I think a lot of the unknown concerns for the residents of Collier's Reserve were resolved by seeing the quality of development to the location on the site, so they were understandable and acceptable to the changes to the hotel use that we're proposing within the PUD. There's only one point of disagreement in the staff report,and that has to do with the number of trips generated in the PUD as it exists today versus the number of trips that could potentially be generated based upon the revised amendments. Your comprehensive planning staff believes that if you increase the number of trips,we would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan although all the other level-of-service standards have either stayed the same or gone down for the analysis as to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We are going to agree with the recommendation of your staff at this point because we think we can live within the existing transportation trips that are in the transportation studies; however, I don't want that to be interpreted to mean we agree with staffs analysis as to what the standard is for future changes as to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. So for purposes of today's hearing,we are okay with capping the trips to the existing analysis in Mr. Trebilcock's report,which I believe is 1,754 unadjusted p.m.peak-hour trips,and they're both the two-way trips. I think I got that right,but we can take those numbers directly from his report. I don't think I've left anything off as to what the proposed changes are. I did spend some time with Heidi talking about what would be left in the PUD after these changes are made as far as IC and B uses. Page 18 of 25 March 3, 2016 After the reallocation of the 70,000 square feet from the IC district to the B district,there will be 105,592 square feet of unused IC today for anybody zoned IC within the project, and 76,547 square feet of-- I got that backwards, sorry. 76,547 square feet in the IC district unused,and 109,592 square feet of unused business district after the allocations are made. So there is--there is remaining square footage in both the IC and the B district available to property owners within those districts if the PUD amendment is approved. I think I hit all the highlights. And if you have any questions,we're available to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is the hotel going to be? MR.YOVANOVICH: This is the better drawing to see it. Right behind--this is the memory care right up here. It's going to be down here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not where we originally okayed this,correct? We okayed it on Goodlette Road. MR.YOVANOVICH: No. We--based upon the minimum setbacks,we're in the general same location,and we have spent time with the Collier's Reserve people to specifically talk about this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. I thought we originally,though--where you have--where the long-term building is,that curved building, I thought that's where the hotel originally was going to go in your plans. MR.YOVANOVICH: I believe you're correct. Right around where the Altec is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, right. And then once the L Tech got built,we met with the Collier's Reserve people and said,we still need a hotel. We'd like to put it over here. They saw that both the retail would block the view as well as the memory case. They liked the new location based upon how the site has developed in reality. And it's actually further away from them than we had originally proposed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And I notice that you are contemplating another light,a future stoplight? MR.YOVANOVICH: I think that's always been in the plans. I don't think that's something that's new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I drive through this intersection a lot,and if you look at all the development around there,for as developed as it is,this is one of the least traffic impacted intersections I've ever seen. I mean, it just--I don't know why anybody would have a problem,even with all this going on. It's just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you, Stan. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is it--well,when it comes to transportation, I'll ask something there on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,there isn't a--okay. They have reduced their application to be consistent with what they've currently got approved for transportation today,just so you know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no questions. I've found the application complete,and I disagreed with the comprehensive staffs position,but you've already resolved that by not pursuing it,so I'm fine with going forward from here. Staff report,then,at this point. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning,Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach,for the record. And I just had one question I wanted to ask of Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton, if we've resolved the issues with the post office yet. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The United States Postal Service is a property owner within this PUD in the IC district,and they were provided notification. I have spoken with some of the representatives of Mr. Ruffing(phonetic),and they have not indicated at this point that they have an objection. I haven't gotten a letter of no consent,but they have not provided an objection,and they are aware of the hearing today. Page 19 of 25 March 3, 2016 So that was part of the reason I wanted to make sure that Mr.Yovanovich put on the record the amount of industrial square footage that's still left,because the deed that was conveyed to the post office didn't limit their square footage or identify,you know,how much buildable area they had. So there is available square footage,and my understanding from the way staff applies the square footage in this type of scenario,is that it's a first-come,first-served basis. So at this point there still is square footage available for the post office,but it's a first-come,first-served basis. Does that answer the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have it. I think Nancy did. MS.GUNDLACH: Answers my question. Okay. Staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of staff? Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes, I have a question. Nancy, in light of the information regarding the location of the hotel that was just presented to us, in that buffer that's between the future site potentially of the hotel and the adjacent preserve,there's some small writing there that talks about that buffer. And it says that it would be an alternate A,five feet wide and trees 60-foot on center,and it's very small writing,so maybe I'm not reading it right. And I'm just wondering if that will stand in light of the fact of the hotel location,or will that be revisited? MS.GUNDLACH: It will stand. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard,do you have anything you want to add to your presentation before we close the public hearing? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing,and we'll entertain a motion. For discussion purposes,one stipulation that came out of the discussion and presentation was that the trips from this change will still be capped at the current standard in the PUD,and that's the only item I heard brought up as an issue. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question to follow up again with Nancy, if I could,please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It also says A or C. And I'm a little confused there what--does the C refer to the buffer there? It says A or C,and then it's not alternate A. MR.YOVANOVICH: That refers to the right-of-way cross-section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the cross-section. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. All right,great.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Having no other questions, is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'll move to approve PUDA-PL20140001311, Creekside Commerce Park,with the stipulation outlined by the Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan,seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 20 of 25 March 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show the vote was 6-0 with one abstention. And with that,before we move into the next one,we'll take a break and return at 10:30,a little bit over 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from break. If everybody will take their seats. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Take your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any time,Diane. We'll just kind of wait for you; it's okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We're just sitting here waiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last item up is Item 9C. It's RZ-PL20150000901. It's the Goodland rezone located on Block Y of the Goodland Isles subdivision. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No contacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane--or, I'm sorry. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? And I have had several meetings with staff. I don't know if I had just an email or even a conversation,maybe both,with Fred Hood,and I think that's it. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,there are some changes in this particular project,so I'm going to ask that on this one staff highlight us on some of the change--the change or changes that staff has recognized. MR. SMITH: Thank you. Daniel Smith,principal planner,zoning. There was some changes made since your packet went out. Staff has uncovered some acreage conflict between the application,the survey,and the backup. I had talked to the applicant. The applicant has agreed to these changes because of this oversight, is in agreement with the staff moving forward. Just one clerical. In the staff report on Page 10,I--the setbacks that are for village residential I put down as 10 feet. It's actually 20 feet. That's a clerical error. I just wanted to mention that. But regarding the application, in the backup provided by the petitioner,represents 1.7 acres as owned and being considered for this rezone. The Florida land use and cover classification system maps provided, however, show 1.36 acres to the mean high-water line with .34 acres submerged. LDC Section 1.08.02 definition of density residential does not allow land submerged beneath tidal waters and marine wetlands. So, in essence, moving forward,the density is not going to change for the land use portion of it,but as far as the acreage, we're going to be looking at--instead of seven units,the maximum is going to be five units based on the acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the applicant is in agreement with your findings? Page 21 of 25 March 3, 2016 MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,we'll move now to applicant's presentation. Mr.Hood? MR. HOOD: For the record,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering representing the applicant. Yeah,everything that Dan said is true. We found the discrepancy on the acreage on,I believe,it was Monday, and brought it to his attention and also to the Chairman's attention--or the Chairman brought it to my attention,actually,when I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff--staff actually--the county found that error. And I think your firm was aware--was made aware of it on Monday,from what I understand from Dan,so... MR.HOOD: That's correct,that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.HOOD: So the purpose of the application is to take the property that is in total 1.70,but for density reasons it is 1.36--to take that property and down zone it from C4 with the Goodland zone--sorry, Goodland zoning overlay district to a VR Goodland zoning overlay district and provide the property the ability to construct single-family homes on. That's the long and short of it. We wanted to take--the applicant wanted to take the commercial intensity off of the project and wanted to allow the more residential nature of the neighborhood to remain the same. So they are aware that taking the commercial zoning off of the property will likely--we'll never see it again,but that's what they want to do,and that's where we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,with that correction, it seems pretty straightforward,Fred. I don't think I have any comments. You had a lot of discrepancies in the way you talked and wrote about the number of units or lots you were going to have,but I think the clarification from staff kind of changes all that. So it's going to be no more than five. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the staff reports--or going forward,that will be reflected as the right number. At this point I don't think I have any other questions or concerns. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: The only concern that I have,and it's probably a sidebar to this petition somewhat, is the fact that the Goodland road is currently under water during major rain events,and that is the primary road to and from the Goodland community. And,you know, I'm just wondering how prudent it is to put more residential in there when that road right now is compromised during storms. So that's my only--my only point I'd like to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only counter to that kind of is they do have a right to proceed as they're currently zoned,which is commercial,which would be far more intensive in cases of flooded waterway--flooded roadways than residential might. So it may not be--we may be actually making it better by the reduction in intensity and density than the way it could be built the way it is now. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I had that thought as well,Mr. Chair. It's just the point that in the transportation review that was not mentioned,and I just would like to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Hearing no other questions of the applicant, is there a staff report? MR. SMITH: Thank you. Zoning services staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-PL20150000901 to the BCC for recommendation of approval with the following stipulations: One,mobile home development is prohibited because new rezones to permit mobile home developments are not allowed within the coastal high hazard area per the Growth Management Plan; Two,the maximum allowed density is four dwellings per acre typically denoted in ordinance--in ordinance as VR4; and, Three,archaeological monitoring by a certified archeologist shall be required during any excavation activity on site per the Historic Archaeological Preservation Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? Page 22 of 25 March 3, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public here wishing to speak on this item? Ma'am, if you'll please come up and identify yourself for the record. MS.BEATTY: Yes. My name is Diane Beatty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can pull that towards you. There you go. MS. BEATTY: Diane Beatty. I'm a homeowner and a director of the condo association adjacent to the property for rezoning. The homeowners asked me to attend because there was some concerns from the original meeting that they had the Rose museum on Marco talking about this rezone to the side setbacks that were changing. We were understanding that now it was a minimum with the commercial of a 15-foot side back--setback to change to a 5-foot side setback. One of the buildings in our condominium complex faces directly towards this lot. So if that is the case-- if I'm misunderstanding that, I'll take that back to them. But if the change is from 15-foot to side foot--5-foot setback,we feel that that will dramatically affect that condo building's value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the setback stated on the mapping, it's 10-foot side setback. Ray or Dan,do you have any change or difference to that? MR. SMITH: No, it is--Daniel Smith,principal planner. It is 10-foot setback. MS. BEATTY: Is this a reduction from a 15-foot or any reduction in the setback from the C4 zoning? MR. SMITH: This is a completely different zone. There's still going to be buffers that are going to be required between the existing residential and this piece of property. MS. BEATTY: Okay. MR. SMITH: So I believe that's going to be a 10-foot A buffer that's going to be also included with that. MS. BEATTY: So 20-foot between the-- MR. SMITH: Absolutely, correct. MS. BEATTY: Wonderful. That was our main concern. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Okay. If there's no other members of the public wishing to speak,the applicant--Fred,I don't imagine there's much you want to have a final comment on. MR. HOOD: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty straightforward. Okay. With that,do you have any--are you in agreement with the staff stipulations? MR. HOOD: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Unless--there's no questions from the Planning Commission,we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion subject,I assume,then,to staff stipulations and the new revision of the number of units as Dan had articulated to us in the beginning. Does anybody-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Andy. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 23 of 25 March 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you very much,Fred. That was probably one of the shortest ones you've ever had. MR. HOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,we'll--I believe we're just about at the end of our agenda, but we've got to continue this meeting. We've got to carry this meeting on past noon because Andy challenged me to be done before noon,so I think we've done it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Two meetings in a row. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I see you're doing--we're doing really good. Is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. New business? The only old business I'd like to remind staff,at some point I would like an update on our request to codify or define the man cave exotic car issue with the LDC as to how you're going to schedule that,when it might be coming through,what LDC cycle it's going to be in, things like that. So could you kind of make sure you don't forget to come back and remind us of that. I don't want that falling through the cracks. I know the Board added a bunch of moratoriums--temporary moratoriums and things to the plate, and I just want to make sure this one isn't forgotten in the process. MR.BELLOWS: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Andy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all. Page 24 of 25 March 3, 2016 There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:41 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 25 of 25 March 17, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,March 17,2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Wafaa F. Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman ABSENT: Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 70 March 17, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the St.Patrick--I mean,Thursday, March 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by the secretary,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Alcha kahe wildo(phonetic). COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis is absent. Ms. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. I don't believe we have any continuations or requests like that on today's agenda. We have one item that has been continued to today,which is the last item, for the architectural standards. And other than that,I don't have any other changes. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting happens to be, like, three weeks off. It's--next meeting is April 7th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on April 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum then. And,electronically,we were all sent the minutes for February 18,2016. Does anybody have any changes to those,or is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlene, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use petitions presented at the last board hearing. Page 2 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next item is Chairman's report,and I did watch the Board of County Commissioners'meeting, or actually had it on in the background,on Tuesday. And something caught me--caught my eye,and it was because of what this board has discussed on the last agenda item today,which is the architectural standards,and also the discussion or the differences we had with deviations at the last meeting that Mr.Assaad and all of us talked about a little bit. And this can play either way. And I think it's important,though,for us to realize, if we hadn't already--and this gentleman,Mr. Schmieding with Arthrex--and I probably said his name wrong--was able to vocalize at a presentation succinctly what many of us already believe we're here for,at least I do,and his statement was: We originally came here because of the quality of life the community offers to employees,for our visitors,and for my family,and continues to be one of the primary reasons we prosper in this area.Then he said,keep doing that great work. Protect the quality of our community. That's our little advantage we have over the other areas. And to me,that was the synopsis of everything I hope that this board keeps striving for. We are different than other communities in the United States. We are number one for health and happiness. Two or three weeks ago there was a Gallop poll,and they announced the standards nationwide. Number one in the nation is Naples, Immokalee,Collier County metropolitan area,and we are--and Marco Island,and we are number one in the health and happiness index. And I think that goes to great efforts to say what not only the Board of County Commissioners does but everybody else that volunteers and works to advise the Board on the community affairs. So I think Mr. Schmieding did a good job in summarizing everything. And he's a major employer in our county. He won--he had been there for receiving awards that day,and in the end he said something I thought was interesting,too,because he runs a medical--high-end, high-tech manufacturing operation. Arthrex currently employs 1,500. And if you recall,their biggest--their manufacturing facility's out in Ave Maria,and they have offices at Creekside. And they plan to add 3-to 400 per year for the next five to 10 years. I replayed that 3-to 400 per year for the next five to 10 years,and that is where he was stating. So I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of medical technology coming to this,and it's a very clean industry for our county. So I wanted to make those of you aware who may not have seen this that that did occur. And the Board seemed very receptive to everything that was going on and being talked about. So with that, I'll move into the rest of the agenda. Oh,one item; deviations. I think as a result of last week's--or the prior meeting,we should have a discussion on deviations so that we understand how they may be best to go forward. So putting it on the agenda as discussion item under new business for--we can either do that today or next meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark,I was going to bring that--I was going to bring workshop up for old business because we had discussed it about lot sizes,spacing,right-of-ways and, in fact, I put deviations in there,too. But when we had the one workshop,we were going to go into another one. Am I correct, Ray, in saying that,because there were some questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we don't--first of all, if we call it a workshop,we're not supposed to have a court reporter for a workshop,which is not good,and it would be separately scheduled,or after one of these meetings. I'd suggest we just add a discussion-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as a new business item and just talk about it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,very good. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can--if everybody's prepared,we can try to do that today and start it. And if we need to have some research done,we can at least get it on the record of what our concerns are,and maybe by the next meeting have staff produce some research on how these are typically looked at. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect,perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd prefer to do it at the next meeting so that if we need--you know, staff needs to do any research,they can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you--I think,Charlette,then we want to--at this meeting, is Page 3 of 70 March 17, 2016 there anything that we should now direct staff into what kind of research to do? I mean, it's a broad subject; that's why I thought if we touched on it today,set some parameters,and if any of those parameters needed further research,then we can come back in three weeks and discuss it with that research available,then, if the staff could do it in that time frame. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It just seems like Diane's bringing up something broader than just deviations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Well,it has to do with--yeah, it is not really much more than deviations, so... COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Then I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at new business,then, let's just have a discussion about our deviation issue,and if we need more information from staff,they'll have time to bring it back in a future meeting. So we'll add that as a new-business item. The next item is consent agenda. We don't have any from the last meeting,so that takes us into our first advertised public hearing. Actually,there's two of them,and they'll be done as companion items. ***9A and 9B. They're both for the Naples Bridge Center located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway between Santa Barbara and I-75. One is PL-20150002525/CP-SS2015-3. The other is CU-PL20150000873. The conditional use is a companion to the small-scale Growth Management Plan change that 9A is. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I talked with Wayne briefly about it. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne,the presentation's all yours. MR.ARNOLD: Great. Thank you. Good morning.My name's Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor &Associates. With me today,Mike Delate from our office,professional engineer working on the project; environmental consultant,Marco Espinar; and our traffic consultant,Norm Trebilcock, should you have any questions related to those areas. The request before you,as Mr. Strain indicated, is a companion of two items,a small-scale plan amendment that changes the text of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and creates a new map exhibit that would be added to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Currently there is a prohibition on conditional uses on this segment of Golden Gate Parkway. So without a plan amendment,the Bridge Center is not allowed to expand. And so we are asking for there to be an exception for the conditional use prohibition for the two subject lots,and so we've added language to that effect,and we've also,of course,created a map exhibit that essentially identifies the location of the property. The companion item is a conditional use. The conditional use for the site goes all the way back to 1980 and has been amended a few times. It was last amended in 2006 to allow expansion of the building itself. The Bridge Center subsequently purchased the adjacent lot,which is the subject of our application, Page 4 of 70 March 17, 2016 and wishes to essentially expand,add parking and open space and water management on that site. The neighborhood information meeting was held. We had one member of the public who happens to be the most immediate neighbor to the east attend. We also had an attendee from the Golden Gate Civic Association that spoke in support and said their group had voted to support the expansion of the Bridge Center. So it was a good neighborhood information meeting. What really came out of that was initial dialogue with our immediate neighbor to the east,and we committed to provide a 30-foot-wide vegetated Type B buffer to that neighbor. He specifically was requesting that that would be vegetation,and that's what we have offered on our plan. That represents--that's the conditional use site plan that we're required to prepare,and you can see we've depicted the existing location of the approximate 3,500-square-foot Bridge Center. We're showing and committing to a maximum of 15,000 square feet for the Bridge Center,and that language is in the Comprehensive Plan language as well as shown on your conditional use. They'll probably have incremental phases. We're preparing a site plan right now to be submitted to Collier County subject to the approval of this conditional use and plan amendment that will probably show somewhere about 6,500 to 7,000 square foot initial expansion of the facility. It's a pretty straightforward request if--other than the Comprehensive Plan amendment,but your Comprehensive Planning staff has taken the time to meet with members of the Bridge Center and understands that,economically, it makes so much more sense for the Bridge Center to expand on the property they own rather than to try and seek out another location somewhere in Collier County to continue what they've been doing for over 30 years. They had, surprising to me because I'm not a bridge player,but apparent growth in the organization. There are a handful of other bridge clubs in the community. They either play out of churches or one strip center location. But the Bridge Center's made an investment of property and infrastructure here,and it makes sense for them to expand. It's an easy,accessible site for the community and others who travel. It's a worldwide competition. You collect points, so they have visitors who are here seasonally from all over the world that always attend and play bridge at the Bridge Center. I'm happy to answer any questions. It's a fairly straightforward request,but I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions from the Planning Commission? Wayne, I've just got a couple. The staff recommendations were actually conditions from the prior PUD,and now they would apply to the entire project. Do you have any objection to those? MR.ARNOLD: No,we don't. Those are carried forward from the last conditional use,and we would have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't see them in the new resolution or ordinance,so they need to be incorporated as a set of conditions in the new resolution. MR.ARNOLD: I agree with you,Mr. Strain.And you mentioned one other thing in our brief conversation,and you questioned the buffer that we were providing for the neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.ARNOLD: And I'm not sure I quite caught it in our short conversation,but I think your suggestion was that even though it's on our conditional use site plan as a 30-foot-wide buffer with Type B vegetation that we should make that commitment as part of the resolution as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,my concern is not so much the Type B buffer as it is,whether it's--first of all,you're going to be 30 feet. MR.ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of vegetation goes in there based on the type of buffers we require isn't as important to me as making sure the opacity is attained,because the neighbor to the east--and he was at the NIM,and his objections were mollified by your statements about the--they're going to take out Brazilian pepper,but there should be enough vegetation left,and no one knew how much Brazilian pepper was there, so we weren't sure how open it would be. Page 5 of 70 March 17, 2016 Prime example is the new EMS station going up on Logan and Vanderbilt Beach Road. That neighbor had a dense forest of Brazilian pepper next to him to the south, and now he's got an EMS station, but we did at the time look at making sure there was opacity in that buffer,so they'll be supplemented. I just want to make sure from staff that is either absolutely guaranteed to happen with the language that's currently in the code, or we need to just strengthen that by stipulating that the opacity in that buffer will reach 80 percent within one year's time or whatever time frame we normally look at that to happen. MS.GUNDLACH: Good morning,Commissioner. If your concern is having a very strong buffer, our best buffer is a Type C buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. My concern is having 80 percent opacity as a minimum. MS.GUNDLACH: That is required by code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter how much they take out of this 30-foot buffer,they'll still have to meet that opacity requirement? MS.GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What is that percentage? MS.GUNDLACH: It's 80 percent. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that would leave it--we don't need to add it,then,because it's already in code,and that will be verified. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. MR.ARNOLD: If I might,just to address Mr.Assaad. That requires the opacity at a minimum six-foot height. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean,of course. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How do you measure 80 percent? By eye? Is there a machine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan's the engineer,see.That's what happens when you get an engineer involved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a very accurate number. How do you do it? MS.GUNDLACH: Without a machine;you do it with the eye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How did you do it in the past? How have you been doing it? MS.GUNDLACH: For me personally,by eye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: By eye. Okay. Does your eye agree with everybody else's eye?Just curious. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Sharper eyesight than the rest of us. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Today's green day. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why at 6-foot height when you have a parking lot adjacent to that residence and the car lights are usually at about three-foot high or something? So it seems to me like I would want to measure that percentage at the level of the highlights of the car, not at 6-foot height. MR.ARNOLD: Well,just to further explain,the code requires that the--either the plantings--the Type B buffer requires 80 percent opacity,and you can achieve that through either a combination of berm and vegetation,vegetation only,wall,berm,combination thereof. But it requires it to be maintained at six feet in height. So the opacity is 80 percent for the full six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Charlene. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I think I'd like to see maybe,Wayne,you consider putting Type C plantings in there,because a Type B buffer is only 15 feet wide. You've got 30 feet to work with.And the Type C buffer gives you overlapping trees in a 20-foot width. And as Nancy mentioned,you know,we have the room for those plantings. I don't know if you'll consider that. Page 6 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR.ARNOLD: I'm just not familiar with exactly what the Type C buffer entails. We've been proceeding under the basis of a Type B. Maybe Nancy can help us with that. MS. GUNDLACH: The Type C buffer, it has a double row of trees. The Type B buffer only has a single row of trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the trees would be spaced closer together or alternating back and forth from one another? MS.GUNDLACH: They'd be alternating,but it would result in a planting that would achieve opacity quicker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would those trees be,then,approximately double in number? MS.GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a cost factor for the applicant? Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWWKI: It seems if you wanted opacity at a lower level,you'd have more shrubs and fewer trees,because a trunk is only what,a foot,foot-and-a-half wide every 30 feet.That's nothing. It seems like you'd want hedges,very thick hedges to achieve opacity. MS. GUNDLACH: They will have hedges to achieve. Hedges or a fence-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: I wouldn't think-- MS. GUNDLACH: --or a berm to achieve-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: --the trees would matter at all. MS. GUNDLACH: --achieve the opacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they would have hedges with a Type B and/or a Type C? MS.GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the hedge would probably be the opacity issue that would work from the ground up as fast,and the trees would mature over time with their canopies and probably work higher up,maybe not 80 percent. But above six feet they wouldn't need to,right? MS.GUNDLACH: That's possible,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Depends on the type of tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean--Charlette, I mean,from--I understand your argument,and it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I simply was suggesting we make sure we get the opacity. So as long as we do that, I think, from that perspective the neighbor's concern when the Brazilian pepper's removed is assured. I guess Charlette's suggestion would make it happen faster from the shrub or from the canopy? MS. GUNDLACH: From the canopy perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the shrubs would still be the same. So the lower elevations, which the parking lot would be reflective of,meaning headlights and stuff like that,wouldn't be modified by going to a C buffer. It's only the higher heights that would be modified by a C buffer? MS.GUNDLACH: Correct. Up to the height of six feet,everything's the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the building is a whole--quite a width away,the width of the existing lot away. So I'm not sure,Charlette,the expenditure of the canopy would get us the buffer any better than the B would with the concern that it's mostly a parking lot that the buffer's being put there for. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,my point was is that you've got 30 feet for a vegetated buffer, and basically a buffer can fit in 15 feet. So what are we doing with the rest of it? And so that's why I thought that there was room for additional plantings in there. We could specify,Wayne,whatever you're comfortable with,Nancy;you're the expert on this. But I'm just saying,why not give them a solid buffer there in the 30 feet rather than just fill half the space. That's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's some natural vegetation there,and they're only supplementing the--they're actually--now,Nancy,maybe you can help us with this. If they're only supplementing a natural vegetated area with the B or C buffer plantings,does that mean they have to put the B and C buffer planting in to its fullest extent,or can they use the natural vegetation that's already there within the 30 feet? MS. GUNDLACH: They can use existing trees to supplement the buffer. Page 7 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: And there are a number of existing trees,but there are,at the lower level,Brazilian peppers that will come out. So I think--not to be in disagreement,Ms.Roman,but I think the supplemental plantings that we'll be achieving will largely be the hedge or something to achieve that opacity rather than more trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think when we get to the point of making a motion, if there's--we can discuss a stipulation if one is warranted at that time. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. Because I don't know if staff can be given that authority to make that judgment call or,you know,we either have a B or a C. We don't have take a look at it and see what 80 percent opacity is and then determine. And it could be different from the property owner that's to the east as well. I'm just trying to give a definition so that staff knows which way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think from a staff perspective,they're going to simply count trees. If there's a bunch of native vegetation there that qualifies as a tree,then that's less big material you'll have to put in. There won't be any--there might not be much hedge material unless there's something like saw palmetto or something that grows close to the ground. So I'm not sure how much of a true buffer planting you're going to see,rows of trees,rows of hedges. You're just going to see it,I imagine, interspersed to meet the opacity requirement. Is that a fair statement, Nancy? MS.GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So then the question becomes,who determines whether or not it has met that 80 percent opacity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we do have an inspection department for the landscaping,and they've been doing--I mean,that would be typically what they would look at, I would assume; is that fair? MS.GUNDLACH: It's typically our landscape inspector and/or Code Enforcement officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might,just to mention,that as part of our Site Development Plan that's necessary to implement this plan,we're required to put together a detailed landscape planting and irrigation plan that staff reviews and approves,and then the inspection is per that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know walls are expensive,and you don't want to go with a wall,but you might consider a short wall to stop headlights from the neighbor's property, if you can't achieve the 80 percent. And I don't--you know, if they send code out to look at the 80 percent and they determine you're not exactly 80 percent,say you're 79 percent,what do you do,plant more hedges? Find the spots that are bare and put something in? MS. GUNDLACH: That sounds like a solution they might propose. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the wall goes,the gentleman next door, did he--I believe he wanted a--to look at vegetation,not a wall? MR.ARNOLD: That's my recollection,too,Mr. Strain,that he preferred vegetation over a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That argument's come up with another project that's going to be coming before us as well;they don't want to put a wall in because the neighbor--the residential neighborhood behind them doesn't want to look at the side of a wall that has to be constantly maintained or it looks even worse. So that's not unusual to have someone say that. It's just a matter of,then,how do we give them the vegetation that they're supposed to be promised,which I think is the focus of the discussion,so... Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? Thank you,Wayne. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning,Commissioners. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed on Page 9 of your staff report. If you'd like for me to read them into the record, it Page 8 of 70 March 17, 2016 would be my pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think they're on the record. Unless somebody would like it,I think we're good. Sue,did you have--I don't know if--there hasn't been any questions from comp planning,but do you have anything you want to add? MS.FAULKNER: No,just that--Sue Faulkner,Comprehensive Planning,and good morning. And I just wanted to say that staff recommends approval as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Stan. COMMISSIONER CIRZANOWSKI: I've got some questions for Steve Lenberger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is he? There he is.He must have known you were going to do that to him today. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He's wearing his green shirt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,he is. Now, it's not county green,though. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hi, Steve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cautiously. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I walked that site.There's a lot of pepper and a lot of earleaf acacia on that site. What are the rules? It's a Golden Gate site,Golden Gate Estates. What are the rules as far as exotic removal on--if this doesn't get approved,do those exotics have to be removed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,we could have a debate on that, Stan. Steve's going to tell you something I believe he is wrong. But go ahead, Steve. I'll caution it that way. This debate's been raging-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,I know the debate's been raging,but I saw some comments,and this is where I'm heading with this. I've heard that Golden Gate Estates maybe doesn't have to remove their exotics because it's an agricultural underlying zoning,but I've heard that they don't want--that it's residential,which is why they make them remove the exotics. When you're putting in a swimming pool in your backyard, I've seen people that have to pay$12,000 to remove exotics to put in a$12,000 pool. But then when I saw this thing about this kid that fired a gun in his backyard and hit his neighbor's daughter,they said,well,you can fire a gun in your backyard because it is agricultural. And I don't know how this is structured. I'm curious about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's--you just hit on, like,three hot topics. The firing of guns, that was just changed by the legislature recently,and Heidi--and I had looked into it,but Heidi had also really looked into it. She can probably easily answer that question for you. It isn't quite as black and white as you've stated it. It's a little different. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. There was a law that was passed,and it's based on the size. So,you know,most of the Golden Gate Estates lots are over--you know,2.25 acres and over. But the threshold is of one dwelling unit an acre,and the size of the lot has to be over an acre. So-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,there's a bunch of large-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --the Golden Gate Estates would qualify as one where you could shoot. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a bunch of large agricultural lots along Goodlette in the Pine Ridge subdivision surrounded by residential areas.Those people could fire guns in their backyard? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're over an acre. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It depends on the density for the project. I don't recall if there's any PUD there or if it's rezoning. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But we remove exotics vegetation because it's residential. We tell people to remove it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Now you're asking me about a different question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Now you're asking about a different question. Page 9 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,no,no. That was the base question. The guns was just what confused me because they said you can fire guns because it's agricultural. That confused me because I heard that Golden Gate was residential,which is why we make people remove exotics in Golden Gate. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,regarding the gun law,it's not based on whether you're zoned agricultural. It's based on whether the use,you know, is considered a residential use and the size of the lot, whether somebody should reasonably know it's a residential area. So,you know, it's another bill that's very clear. But the sheriff is working diligently on the interpretation and application of that section. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the exotic rule-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That I can't answer.That's--defer to staff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it--Steve,is it in the code somewhere that a certain type of lot has to remove their exotic vegetation before they can be allowed any type of-- like the ag lots along Goodlette that are really zoned ag,they don't--they don't have to remove exotics but the Estates lots do? Is--I am confused. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,engineering and natural resources department. Removal of exotics does apply to the single-family. It also applies to development plans, site development plans, subdivisions,but it doesn't apply to ag, agriculture,straight ag. So if it's zoned ag, it will not apply. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the lots along Goodlette in the Pine Ridge subdivision can do anything they want and don't have to remove all the exotics,but people living out in the Estates do have to remove their exotics because they're zoned Estates. MR. LENBERGER: Well,yes. That would be correct,because they are zoned estates. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'm just curious about that. I was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,and for the record,I want to let you know that I don't believe Steve's interpretation is correct. And I think when you read that in conjunction with the Code of Laws,the Estates is exempt from exotic removal,but that's a debate that when I approached it,I was told we've been doing it the way we're doing for so long,that's the way it's going to stay, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And one reason I'm asking is now that the water's up,I've been spending a lot of time canoeing out in the Everglades,and there are exotics,more exotics out there than there are in the Estates. And my impression was that we remove exotics from residential areas to stop them from getting into the natural areas,but I think it's the other way around. I think they're getting from the natural areas into the estates areas,and we're spending a lot of money on exotic removal. There's--I was to a seminar on invasive grasses a couple weeks ago up at the WAS center. And torpedo grass;we found a lake that's maintained by the county on 7th and 951 that's surround by torpedo grass. They say it's$15,000 to remove the torpedo grass from the lake. It just seems like we're wasting a lot of money, people's money,residents'money,everybody's money controlling exotics,and we don't have a direction we're going in. So I'm--you know,when you take all the exotics out of this site--this site is loaded with earleaf acacia. I went out there,and they're 50 feet tall. When you take them all out of the site, it's going to look very bare for a long time. I don't know how you're going to replace that. But if that's what the rule is,I think maybe we need another workshop about these rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if we do, it needs to be brought--the Code of Laws needs to be brought in on top of the Land Development Code,because the Code of Laws is in conflict in the way it reviews the removal of exotics in the Estates versus some of the references that staff uses in the Land Development Code, so... MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If the issue is an LDC issue,you sitting as the Planning Commission,you could schedule an item for discussion as to whether you want to make a recommendation that that be changed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I like the Bridge Center because they're going to pull out all the exotics. It's a good idea. But I'm not sure that the money we're spending is worth it. It's a big expense on a lot of people that can't afford it,and it's one reason it drives the cost of home building up in the Estates. So, Page 10 of 70 March 17, 2016 you know,that's where I headed with this. I just got you up there, Steve,because I like you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he probably enjoyed every minute of it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He did. I did most of the talking. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. Are there any registered public speakers,Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, I'm sure you may or may not have a closing statement. If you do,you're more than welcome to make one. MR. ARNOLD: Other than I hope you can recommend approval of both the small-scale amendment and the conditional use subject to staffs conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing,and we'll entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. And whoever makes the motion,try to either include or not mention, if you feel otherwise,the issue involving the type of buffer that's involved,because that was an issue,and it's either going to be a stipulation or it's not, so... Anybody willing to make a motion? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Be happy to recommend--are we taking the two items or one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We'll take them one at a time,but they're reviewed as companion items. We'll start with the Growth Management Plan amendment,which is A,9A. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I recommend--I move we recommend approval for the Item 9A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And we recommend approval of Item 9B with the staff recommendations and also to add special provisions for the Type C buffer to guarantee the opacity of the buffer area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take 9A first,and there's a motion made. Is there a second for 9A? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's have discussion just on 9A first. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The second item is 9B,and there was a motion to recommend approval for that, CU-PL20150000873,with the stipulation to require a C buffer instead of just a--instead of a B buffer for plantings. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff recommendations. And staff recommendations. Is there a second to that motion? Made by Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Page 11 of 70 March 17, 2016 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I have to say is I don't see the need for the C buffer because it's an opacity not density that--of plant material,but by voting against the motion it would cause this item to be put off of summary onto a discussion item for the Board,and there's no need to put the applicant through that. So I'll move--I'll go along with the motion for that reason. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***The next item up is PUDA-PL20150001084. It's Item 9C,the Buckley mixed-use planned unit development. It's located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live right across from this site. I've driven by it many days for 30 years now,and I've talked to Rich Yovanovich about it and visited a couple of the meetings that they had in the Collier library about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with staff on this because I had some concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke with staff, I reviewed the files,met with the applicant, the applicant's representatives,a whole roomful of people. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich's secretary over the phone and to Mr. Yovanovich briefly today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,Rich, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning.For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I have several people here with me today to answer any questions I can't answer. Mike Hunnican from Pulte is the contract purchaser for the property. Alexis Crespo is the professional planner; she's with Waldrop. Brendan Sloan is the engineer for the project;he's also with Waldrop. David Cosslett is the landscape architect for the project;he's also with Waldrop. And Ted Triesch is here to answer any transportation questions you may have. Page 12 of 70 March 17, 2016 I've put up on the visualizer an aerial outlining the property in yellow. It's the Buckley PUD. It's an already approved PUD that allows for both commercial and multifamily to occur on the site. The property is adjacent to the library,which is to the south,and Emerald Lakes,which is the residential community to the west. It's across from Lakeside on the east,and there's an assisted living facility which is escaping me as to the name to the north of the property. This is a fairly straightforward and,I think,simple change to the PUD. We're simply trying to add single-family and two-family residential options to the existing PUD because those options are not permitted under the PUD as it's written today. We're proposing--because there is an existing master plan that addresses either the multifamily or the commercial development on the property--this is the existing master plan. We're proposing that there be a second master plan that identifies the single-family or two-family residential option,should that go forward. And that would be the second master plan that we're proposing as an option. And I'll go through some minor revisions we're going to make to that master plan after talking to a few members of the Planning Commission in a minute. As you can see from this exhibit as well as the aerial,the property is a relatively narrow parcel,so we've asked for some deviations related to developing the property due to the limitations we have as a result of the narrowness of the property and the desire to go to a single-family product versus a multifamily product. One of the deviations is to the roadway width.And if you've looked at the staff report,you will see that even though we're going down to 45 feet in road right-of-way,we still have the standard pavement width. We still have sidewalks on both sides of the street. So,simply,we're putting the public utility easements on the property instead of within the road right-of-way. That's become a rather routine, if you will,deviation for private roads. And I was watching the audience a couple weeks ago,and Mr.Assaad brought up,you know, why do we keep asking for these things and why is the LDC not changed? And I don't know why the LDC is not changed. I,again,mentioned it to staff. I said,can't we just please put this deviation into the code? It seems like we're always asking for it.And hopefully at some point we'll get that deviation in for private roads. Likewise,another one of the deviations that we've asked for is to the overall square footage of the project signs. And I have some examples to show you. hi the previous-- in the Abaco PUD that went through, I think it was two weeks ago or at the last meeting,there was a request to go to an overall 80 square feet for the signage versus 64 square feet,and staff at that--on that petition recommended approval of that deviation. We learned for the first time during the staff report that staff had some concerns about the deviation for this project and wanted us to provide them some examples. Since it was a little late to provide examples after receiving the staff report,we do have some examples that we would like to share with the Planning Commission and also with staff as recent examples of 80-square-foot sign deviations that were approved for other projects. And I'll take you through those quickly to show you that they're quality signs,they allow for some little architectural embellishments to the sign to make it more attractive and a little bit more easy to read for traveling public on a six-lane road such as Airport Road. This is--and I don't know if you need to focus in for the audience, but this is Windward Isle,which is a project that's coming out of the ground right now up on Airport Road,not too far from the project. That project was approved with an 80-square-foot sign deviation. As you can see,that's an attractive sign similar to what we're asking to do on this property. Camden Lakes is a Pulte project on Livingston Road north of Immokalee Road. It's on the west side of Livingston Road. That PUD also was recently amended to allow for an 80-square-foot sign versus a 64-square-foot sign. We put this in here to give you--to see an example of what the actual developer does regarding signage. And then another example of an 80-square-foot sign that was approved fairly recently is the Esplanade. So those are just three--three recent examples of 80-square-foot signs that have--not including Abaco because it,obviously,hasn't been built yet, so I can't show you that one--of examples of 80-square-foot signs that have been recommended approval by staff in the past and approved and recommended approval by the Planning Commission and ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners. Page 13 of 70 March 17, 2016 That's the only deviation, I believe,that staff is recommending denial of,and I hope now that they've seen examples,they can change that recommendation to a recommendation of approval for this project, since it does front Airport Road,which is a relatively fast moving six-lane road,and this signage will be offset from the pavement by at least 40 feet because I think there's 40 feet of grass area before you get to the property line. So that's the only staff recommendation of denial. There is--there are two deviations in our list of deviations,and those, I believe,are exhibits--I mean,Deviations 7 and 8 which deal with landscaping. Due to the narrowness of the site and the desire to do a single-family product--and by the way, we're going through the platting process as we speak,and it's referenced in your staff report.But,you know, things could change to where you ultimately do two-family product,but right now the platting process we're going through,which hopefully the plat will get approved the meeting after the BCC hearing which is scheduled to be April 12th,you can--so this project will hit the ground running should we get through the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners successfully. Due to the narrowness of the site,we had originally planned to do the 20-foot canopy trees.Now, that would--with the 20-foot canopy trees,there would be an overhang of the tree onto the neighbor's lot when it grew. We planned on addressing that through a requirement that there be common landscape maintenance for the project. So everybody's lot--and everybody's--all the landscaping would be taken care of by one landscaping company. They would be doing the tree trimming. They wouldn't be individual property owners responsible for their own lots. We would clearly put in the HOA documents that trees are allowed to overhang onto your neighbor's yard. We do that now on single-family lot lines; when you build up on the lot, you put in the documents that there can be an overhang as well as a maintenance easement on the neighborhood's property. These are all things that are common to HOA documents and would allow us to meet the code-required trees. Staff is concerned about neighbors cutting other people's trees because they overhang on the lot, so they recommended a deviation that we go to smaller trees, 15-foot canopy trees at maturity because they didn't want to address the situation where someone might trim someone else's tree,or they also told me they were concerned someone may actually remove their own tree which,you know,that could happen anyway. Whether it's a 20-foot tree or a 15-foot tree, someone could come in and remove their own tree. But we provided for--so we have the deviation in there at the request of staff to go to the smaller trees so that they won't go onto a neighbor's lot. Now,I've not seen anywhere in the code where it says a tree cannot overhang in--either to a landscape maintenance easement,a public utility easement,or even onto the neighbor's lots. Now, I'm not finding fault with staff but,you know,staff has decided they don't like getting the calls from neighbors about people's trees growing,so they've implemented a new policy of, okay,you've got to be self-sufficient on your own lot for the 20-foot canopy tree which we can't do in this particular configuration, so they're recommending the deviation so that our tree doesn't encroach onto the neighbor's tree--onto the neighbor's property even with the HOA provisions we're talking about to accommodate that, I'll call it,a tree easement, if you will,and a unified maintenance of the trees. So we can go either way. If the Planning Commission wants to go with the deviation to do smaller trees,we'll do that,but we had originally intended to have an HOA maintaining the larger trees and accommodating trees to encroach onto a neighbor's yard to address that situation should it occur. In going through and meeting with--or discussing the project with several of you,there were some suggested clarifications to the PUD document to make sure it says what we really intended for it to say. And before I get into that, I wanted to point out that we have had a neighborhood information meeting,obviously,with Emerald Lakes. I think the people from Emerald Lakes--and I know Sid Showalter's here, who I've known forever--are supportive of going to something less dense like single-family or two-family housing on this site,and I think they were happy when we had our NIM and wanted to add these residential options on the property. And so--but I'll let Sid speak for himself. But I think that what we're proposing is really in keeping with what Emerald Lakes is,which is a single-family home,or single-family housing project primarily next to a single-family housing project. Page 14 of 70 March 17, 2016 So what we did is we clarified Exhibit A,Page 1. I know we've provided this to staff,but I don't know if staff forwarded it on to you-all,so I'll try to go slow. What we did on Page 1 is we clarified that if the project is developed as single-family or two-family, the commercial uses are extinguished from the property and are not allowed to be developed. So that's the change on Page 1. On Page 2,we made a couple of clarifications. We added a separate accessory use for the community facilities that are allowed to occur on the property,the rec facilities that we can have that are not related to individual lots,and that continues onto Page 3,which I'll show you. So we've added typical development standards that you'll see in the--later on in the document,but we've allowed for,as permitted uses,typical community common area facilities. The way we originally structured it, it appeared as if you can do those on individual lots, so we just simply clarified that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, is that for principal and accessory uses for the rec area,or is it just accessory uses? MR.YOVANOVICH: We will get to the development standards related to-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No, no. I'm asking about Item E,recreation. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that for principal and accessory uses? MR.YOVANOVICH: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the clarification is on the next page,because Item E was only supposed to apply to that one designated site that you guys show on the master plan as r-e-c, so I'm assuming this is going to be-- MR.YOVANOVICH: When we get--you'll see on the Development Standards Table where it's isolated to just that one parcel,and it applies to all of the uses that are allowed on that parcel. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I'd just like to clarify that on this page. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's a continuation onto what I was previously describing. And we also,on Page 4-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, since we don't have that language that you just showed,can you put that back up? Because we previously have addressed the idea of putting a rec center adjacent to residential within communities and on the outskirts of communities. Since yours is going to be interior, if I remember correctly, it's directly off the front road right by the lake,right there. If you do it,that's where it's going to be. Then I think one thing that's missing is your note. It talks about a B buffer,but there would need to be a wall on each side of that to protect that recreational facility from the residential units or give the residential units some privacy on both sides. We ran into this kind of thing up at Long Shore Lakes and other places. Is there a reason you didn't include that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,the Type B buffer,as I understand it, includes the wall as an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can make it clear that we'll exercise that option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be helpful. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: The next page, Page 4,we clarified that the commercial uses on the property are the uses that were allowed under the Land Development Code when the last PUD amendment went through. I think there have been some changes to some of the allowed uses in Cl,C2,and C3 under the current Land Development Code that occurred subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance. So we're just trying to freeze in time, if you will,what was approved originally in the PUD. On Page 6 of 19 and 7 of 19 are the Development Standards Table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we go back to the page you're on now first. See the note? It says, see Page 1 for reduction of commercial floor space when residential is built. Now,the residential you're referring to here is only that mixed residential that was part of the original application; is that correct? Page 15 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's not clarified there. Did it get clarified in one of the other locations? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,we clarified,remember,that if we go with the single-family or two-family option,the multifamily and commercial uses go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: What we've done here in the Development Standards Table is to make it clearer which standards apply to the original master plan,which is the commercial and mixed use or multifamily master plan versus the second master plan,which is the single-family and two-family option,and we added a separate column for recreational facilities,or recreation facility with the development standards in that table which are set forth here and, I think,comparable to other projects that have been reviewed and recommended approval by the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. I'll slide that up so you can--keep going.Oh,here. It all in there. That's the first page of the Development Standards Table. I won't take that down too quickly. You-all let me know when you're ready to see the second page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing that I might suggest,some developments like to take advantage of their water amenity. And the way this is written,you may not be able to put something out over the LME. That is allowed by South Florida standards if you compensate by the--like a--you put in a rigid seawall or something like that. Are you thinking anything like that? We had that occur in a couple of the other projects where they've asked for that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't think we're contemplating putting something over the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it works. MR.YOVANOVICH: This is the second page. Put it all on there for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How wide is a Type B buffer? MR.YOVANOVICH: I think it's 10 feet. Is Nancy still here? I think it's 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you'll be separately platting that buffer? MR.COSLET: Fifteen. MR.YOVANOVICH: Sony, 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to separately--for the rec tract. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'll look at that one. We're separately platting that one,correct? MS.CRESPO: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: So are we ready to move on to some modifications on the footnotes, clarifications,okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'll work through this one first,and then--this is the modification to the-- I'm sorry. This allows for the overhang of plantings into the LME,and it limits it to a--the shaded area on the PUD master plan,and then it also addressed what I originally said was the proposal for the overhang of the trees with Footnote No. 8 to allow for,you know,central maintenance of the landscaping for the community and putting the overhang in the deed restriction.That would come out if staff's version of the PUD is approved with the two deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, before you leave that one... MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm going to show you where on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No,I think I--I've got a question on No. 8. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 8 can be a footnote to the plan because it's not inconsistent with any requirement in the LDC. Because if it was inconsistent with an LDC requirement, it would have to be a deviation. The fact you've got the deviations is because staff asked for them to accomplish something that I'm not sure was inconsistent with the plan. I don't know where in our Land Development Code it says a canopy tree can't protrude over a lot Page 16 of 70 March 17, 2016 line. And if it doesn't,Footnote 8 takes care of it,and the two deviations can go away. The precedent of setting new deviations is something we should not get into. We always try for consistency. And where one was treated,we should treat them all. And in the past,we have consistency issues,and you already pointed some out with the sign criteria. But I'd hate to see us starting down the path of deviations for landscape on a canopy tree. It just sends us down another rabbit hole that's not going to be worthwhile overall for this community. So I don't know why 8 wouldn't prevail. Staff approved that language as part of their staff report, so that means it isn't needed to be a deviation,yet we had the deviations added. So I think you could drop those two deviations and rely on 8. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,actually,staff did not approve Footnote 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,they did not,okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: They did not. That was a result of our discussion about how we originally wanted to have the 20-foot trees. We went with the deviations because staff said you can't have an overhang. So we said,well, let's just make it clear;we'll put a footnote in here to say how we'll address that overhang issue. And what I--the reason we put this in here is we can't take the risk that when we go through and have a staff reviewer who's not part of the PUD amendment process sees this and says,they're going to interpret it to be each lot has to be self-sufficient, so it has to--the 20-foot tree must be able to fully expand on that individual lot. If I don't have it in the PUD and I get a staff interpretation that says,nope,we're interpreting--which is what's happening now. And,again, it's okay. You know,we'll roll with the punches when things change. We'll address them, and we're addressing them upfront here to allow for the overhang. Because I'm with you. I don't see where it says in the code I can't overhang. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,back up to something you said. You said staff did not approve the Footnote No. 8. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because they wanted us to do deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. It doesn't matter. Footnote No. 8 was in the staff report that came to us. Is that a fair statement, Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Footnote No. 8,not this document but in the PUD document that you have before you,yes, staff is in favor of that No. 8.Number 8 is different than this No. 8 that Mr.Yovanovich is showing on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I've got No. 8 on my document. I didn't know that language was changed. I assumed it was the same No. 8. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So No. 8 that's in our packet was approved by staff. The No. 8 as you're proposing it is not approved by staff; is that what you're saying? MR.JOHNSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the difference between the two,why don't you point that out then so we're absolutely clear on where the-- MR.YOVANOVICH: And I'm sorry. The original said that the 20-foot canopy has to be wholly within the lots except for an overhang into an LME or a--I'm sorry--adjacent to--except if it's adjacent to a lake maintenance easement or a landscape buffer easement, in which case a portion of the required 20-foot canopy tree may protrude into such area, such area being the LME or the landscape buffer easement. That's the only time we could intrude. We could not go--the old Footnote 8 said it had to be wholly within the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what you did is you added the last couple of lines-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in the yellow,which is in--but the whole yellow was highlight. It's not all new language? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff did approve the first portion of it but not the second portion of it. Page 17 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: They would not let the tree go over onto a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes it clear. Now I understand. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: And instead they wanted the deviation to say we can have smaller canopy trees so they wouldn't go over onto a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,does staff see where No. 8 is in conflict with the LDC? MR.JOHNSON: Eric Johnson,principal planner.Yes, it is in conflict with the LDC. If there are specific questions regarding that, I'd have to defer to Mr.Dan Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard,do you want to tackle this now,or do you want to do it on staff report? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm flex--I'd just as soon get issues done as they come up so I remember them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'd like to see someone put the language on the overhead in the LDC that this conflicts with. Since Mr. Smith's coming up, I'm sure he's prepared to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,he isn't. Look at the look on his face. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't know that you're going to find anything in the LDC. I haven't conferred with staff on it,but I'll throw in my two cents. I think that you're getting into property rights issues between neighbors even though your proposed language says that the HOA is the one that can deal with the maintenance. You know, I have a tree,and my tree's overhanging on my neighbor's lot. I've got to cut it. You're just running into potential problems that owners will have to deal with when the developer's gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how do we allow zero lot line homes on a zero lot line by requiring a maintenance easement on the adjoining neighbor's line? How is that any different than what we're saying here? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Can you repeat your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have plenty of zero lot line homes in Collier County. When a zero lot line home goes in, it's on the lot line. You cannot maintain that side of your house without standing on your neighbor's property. We have a requirement for a maintenance easement overlap into the property next door so that the zero lot line side of the house can be repainted, stuccoed,whatever you've got to do to it. How is this any different than that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not any different,but we currently have a problem with one of the properties where the maintenance for the wall was not provided. It's an old project. So,you know, it's up to you if you want to go this route;this is a policy decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You weighed in on this. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just said there might be problems in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You weighed in on this. I want to understand it,because your opinions are valuable. I want to know why you--because you just said we have problems,but you said where it wasn't done. We're proposing this can't go--this canopy issue has to be addressed at the time of PPL,that they have the common maintenance. So if it is done,do you see a problem? If they have that easement,that common maintenance language,versus the one you're talking about that became the problem,do you see a problem then if it is done, if it is done correctly? I understand your argument about the one we've got that's wrong. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If this is done correctly,the likelihood of a problem is less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But we've all dealt with HOAs,and we know HOA operate when they're dealing with their owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and that's outside--I mean,I know how the world operates and how the presidential races are operating. I can't do anything about that,so I--go ahead,Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I just would like to add we were thinking as staff that we would utilize some best-management practices. If we know that trees in five to 10 years are creating nuisances with their neighbors on the adjacent lots with the trees growing into their screen enclosures or roof overhangs,especially with these clustered lots Page 18 of 70 March 17, 2016 where their lot widths are a lot smaller,there's less room to situate trees on the property without encouraging these encroachments into the other property. So if we use best-management practice and go to a smaller tree that even at fully grown, it's less likely to impact the adjoining property,that's where we were coming from with this deviation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So we're discouraging the planting of big trees? MR.BELLOWS: On small lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you know,we might have approached this better by just having the applicant stipulate the type of trees they're willing to limit themselves to in planting rather than do a deviation that's going to be used time and time again for a variety of reasons not related to the subject matter right here today,and I think that's a door we don't want to open. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I'm learning very fast about this, so I have no prior experience to rely upon. Those required 20-foot canopy trees are going to be located where? Along the street side? MR.YOVANOVICH: It could be along the street side,but it also could be in the rear because you may have the electrical transformer. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: In the rear yard? MR.YOVANOVICH: It could be in the rear yard. It could be in the rear yard. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How often do they occur? MR.YOVANOVICH: There has to be a tree on every lot. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Huh? MR. YOVANOVICH: There has to be a tree on every lot. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: One tree? MR. YOVANOVICH: One 20-foot--minimum 20-foot tree on every lot. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why couldn't that 1 foot(sic)20--one 20-foot canopy tree be located at least 10 feet from the property line? You can put it--you don't have to put it right at the property line. You can put it 10 feet in? So why wouldn't that solve the problem? MR.YOVANOVICH: We have actually laid out--this project has gone through such scrutiny about meeting the 60 percent open space requirements or whatever your open space requirements-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: We're not talking about--we're not talking-- MR.YOVANOVICH: No,we are,because it's all related. So we've actually laid out every tree, okay,and where they're going to go,where we think they're going to go based upon where we think FP&L's going to put their stuff. So we pretty much have a really good idea of which front yards there's going to be the 20-foot canopy and which ones in the rear yard where the 20-foot canopy tree's going to be. And at the end of the day, it will overlap based upon the way the--it all lays out. With driveways that have to be and all that stuff,there is going to be an overhang. We wouldn't ask for this if we didn't need it. And staff said they believe there's going to be encroachment on the neighbor's yard based upon the code requirements. And staff said--and I understand it. I understand that staff doesn't want to deal with the neighbor calling. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I'm not getting the point. You answer my question. Why couldn't those 20-foot canopy tree be placed at least 10 feet from the property lines,whether it's a side yard or a backyard? MR.YOVANOVICH: The lot-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have an overhead view we could see of that planting that you've basically already done? That might help graphically show the situation you're trying to describe. MR.YOVANOVICH: If we plant it where you're suggesting, it's going to block the front door of the home, it's going to overhang into the driveway. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No,no,no,no,no. How wide are those lots? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So with a 45-foot lot,you can put the driveway on one side. You can put the tree next to the driveway in the middle of the lot. You can put it where you don't--where you don't Page 19 of 70 March 17, 2016 conflict with anybody. I don't see the problem. MR.YOVANOVICH: Look,we have designed a product type that we know the community wants, buyers want. And with that--with where it situates itself on the lot and with the front door and the driveway, we have come up with a reasonable development that will,with--knock on wood,will be very successful, and we'll end up with a single-family community that the neighbors want. What we've simply asked is where we put this tree,which we think is in the best interest of an attractive community, it will overhang. Could we do something different? Probably. But that's not the type of product that we think will be successful in the market. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You started with the premise that you want to put the driveway in the middle of the lot. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't think I started with that premise. I said between driveways,front doors,FP&L transformers,all these things that may come up,we have situated-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I don't want to be argumentative,but what is the problem with planting the tree in front of the door of the house,you know,a little bit away from the door. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'll tell you, I've never had to get into marketing the project and designing the project, and it's never been questioned that the builder and the developer has the best pulse on what their buyers want. They have laid this out in a way that it will be a successful project,and they believe planting the tree in front of the front door with this huge 20-foot canopy is not in the best interest of the ultimate homebuyer and for the project type that were being sold. Staffs not arguing with that. Staff just doesn't want the tree to encroach on the neighbor's lot. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: This site plan has a lot of resemblance to the Buckley PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is the Buckley PUD. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. The one that we approved last week. MR.YOVANOVICH: Abaco. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Abaco, I'm sorry. MR.YOVANOVICH: They're both infill parcels.They're small parcels. They're different developers. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you agree with my statement that they resemble each other? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't. To be honest with you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Buckley was a multi-story townhouse collectively gathered aggregated building, not a single-family, I think. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Tell you what the resemblance in my mind. You have one entrance point in the middle of the site,and then you have a straight shot street next to a lake or a preserve area. It's like a T intersection. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's a commercial. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Huh? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a commercial. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah,but was it-- I mean, if this 20-foot tree is a problem for you now,then my question is,was it a problem for the one that we approved a couple week ago? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that we approved wasn't the same kind of residential product. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They didn't request a variance from-- MR.YOVANOVICH: It was a multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It was a multifamily. You do an SDP so the trees can go anywhere in the common area between the buildings. That's the difference. There's no--there's no platted lot lines. Here they're going to have platted lot lines,which brings in the issue of overhanging onto someone else's property. But,you know,you hit a good point,Wafaa,because on a multifamily, it's all done as one SDP with all common area in between the buildings. A single-family is not the same way because of all the lot lines but yet you're going to make it the same way by having a common area maintenance for all the common areas between the buildings. Is that a fair statement? MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the end,you're doing the same thing that Abaco's doing,but you've Page 20 of 70 March 17, 2016 got a product that's not two stories and multiple layers.You've got it all spread out in the same level to be more compatible with the neighborhood behind you. So that's,I think,what is the difference. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'd also like to provide a little bit more input,too, in talking with staff. In some of the newer PUDs, some of the developers did separately platted landscape maintenance areas, landscape maintenance easements abutting the lake,and they used to be allowed to put their tree in that tract. And talking with staff,that's no longer allowed. So what they're proposing really would be a solution to,you know,what is currently the county practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the idea of having the overhangs going over and have continuous shade possibility,especially along--this example shows it along the street,I mean, I don't see where that's inconsistent with the code,and I would much rather see that than deviations. I mean,we've--deviations start down a path,and we keep--everybody asks for them from there going forward. Dan,you keep wanting to interrupt. Go right ahead. MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith,principal planner. I love trees. I'm sorry I didn't wear my green,by the way,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,you're not supposed to be up there talking without green on today,so... MR. SMITH: I'll wear my green tomorrow.Michigan State's playing, so I was kind of offguard,yes. I'm saving it for tomorrow. Now, how we got here is a similar project we recently approved,Bent Creek, if you're familiar with that. There was deviations from the right-of-ways and from the setback--or there was limited setbacks. And from looking at some of the typicals there, I was--because we had a 20-foot require--at least a 20-foot requirement, some of these trees will get 30,40, 50 feet. My concern was,where are we going to put the required one tree? We had that with Bent Creek. Because there was a lot of different product from the developer,this gave me some assurances they had room to put this tree,because I didn't want--because right now we're having trouble with some of our previous projects; roots going into utilities,going into the eaves of other buildings. And I see this because I was on the tree removal permits previous to being here the last five months. I was handling that for the last two years. So nothing happens the first two or three years. Five years down the road is when all the complaints come in, and that's how I have to resolve it. And a lot of times these homeowners,associations,when they transfer from the development over to the homeowners,they don't know how to handle these issues. So this is kind--was more of a preventative maintenance on myself to think about,okay where are we going to put these trees. And then with Bent Creek,we established some language that they had to provide 20-foot area for the minimum size maturity tree,which was 20 feet. So that's the bare minimum. These trees can get--those oaks can get a hundred feet wide. So when I saw this product,similar to Bent Creek--there's going to be some right-of-way deviations--I asked the same questions,and that's when we came into the problem. They couldn't meet that 20-foot requirement. So now the homeowners association,as far as this new language that Rick(sic)--he suggested that Monday. I'm not familiar with homeowners association,how that works with maintenance. So unless it's common area, I don't really know how that works,but from the staffs perspective,I didn't know if I wanted to go that route. That's kind of up to the Planning Commission to kind of make that determination,because we can go either way on that. It was more or less the deviations seemed justified at this particular time to try to keep at least the smaller trees on the lots so the other--the neighbors wouldn't be affected by the overhang; not now,but five years from now. So that's how we got here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Dan,could that be accomplished by a species of tree that is allowed that doesn't need 20 feet,or are you saying that every tree that we could possibly put there to meet code has to have the 20-foot canopy? MR. SMITH: Well,the way the code is,it has to have a minimum of a 20-foot canopy, so... Page 21 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,don't you allow multiple plantings of palms,though,to suffice for some canopies? MR. SMITH: Well,only 30 percent can meet code on any lot,and based on the square footage of these lots, it would have to be one canopy tree. Palms wouldn't even be allowed because they wouldn't meet that requirement at this particular time. That's why that second deviation allowed for 50 percent of those trees that are going to be in these residential areas to be palms, so that way at least you could get,you know,a sabal palm--because they have to be native,too. You have to understand there's a part of the code that the trees have to be native. So either a sabal palm or a royal palm. So that's why the two deviations were there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the idea of the landscaping that Collier County has is one of the reasons why we are unique,and I-- MR. SMITH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --fully support us retaining that ability. I think we retain the ability better by considering the use of common area maintenance for overlapping trees than we do by allowing deviations to eliminate that requirement. The appearance from anybody seeing it,they wouldn't know that the overlapping was an issue.All they know is the tree's there that Collier County typically requires. There's plenty of shade. There's birds in it. Everybody's happy. You know,that healthy,happy statement that came out from the Gallop poll,that makes people healthier and happier. So I would myself tend to lend towards supporting your rewrite of 8 as has been suggested here today and deleting 7 and 8 as deviations. And I'm--we'll have to--I'm sure the Board will want to further discuss that as we get closer to a motion. Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I just had one thing to add,Mr.Chairman. You know,there's something with the right plant at the right place.And these developers spend a lot of money with their projects,and I would think that they would commit to getting the right plant in the right place and making it fit with their homeowners association requirements as well. While there are a lot of native trees that we have in Florida,you know,not all of them are a 100-foot canopy. And if a developer has small lots and puts live oaks on every lot,well, shame on them. So I think that I would like to see those deviations go away as well and have the project planned as the developer wants to plan it per our code and make some good choices with plant selection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I come at it a little bit differently,Charlette,because a lot of the developers don't really care. They want to give you the complete greenery right now. When we moved in,we had to put green all the way around. They wanted everything done right then and there. They put in royal palms five feet apart. I had to have royal palms removed. It was--the roots were under my sidewalk. I mean--and the trees that they put in at the time was the Cassia,was the mahogany,which were shallow root. Everybody lost them during the storm. So there really is not a lot of-- I think we might have to go over and do something with some of these plantings that they are putting in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious. Does anybody know what the tallest 20-foot canopy tree would be? Do they get 20 feet tall? Do they get 50 feet tall? Have we limited,you know,tall trees? MR. SMITH: No. As far as I'm concerned,we haven't limited tall trees at all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what's the tallest 20-foot canopy tree you know? MR. SMITH: The only thing I can think of is probably the royal palm. Those are the ones--that are canopy,you mean? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Canopy tree,yeah.Not a palm. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That's not a canopy tree. MR. SMITH: That's not a canopy tree. I wouldn't be able--I couldn't guess what would be the tallest one at this point. Page 22 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We've got a landscape architect,don't we? MR. COSLET: I mean,your oak tree is probably going to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,you're going to need the microphone. Identify yourself,please,for the record. Thank you. MR.COSLET: David Coslet, landscape architect,Waldrop Engineering. Your live oak would probably be your largest tree both from-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,no,no;20-foot-wide canopy maximum. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Maximum 20 feet. MR.COSLET: We're never going to have a tree that stays at 20 feet wide. When we--when the code says that it has to have a mature(sic)of a minimum of 20 feet,there is no tree that's really just going to stay 20 feet wide-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Native tree. MR.COSLET: --without major pruning maintenance,which is also not healthy for the tree. It's going to create more issues from weak wood where the tree is chopped,where you could be losing branches and that kind of stuff on houses or people or cars. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if they're not going to stay 20 feet wide,what are we talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Closer to the mike,could you,sir. MR.COSLET: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a good voice and everybody's hearing it,but I'm not sure it's being picked up on the mike. MR.COSLET: Okay. But like he was saying,royal palms--we're not talking about canopy trees at this point,but a royal palm would stay in that 20-foot range. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm talking about canopy trees. MR.COSLET: You're not--you're not really going to have a tree with a minimum mature spread of 20 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Maximum mature spread. MR.COSLET: Minimum. It's a minimum. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'm curious-- MR. COSLET: The requirement is minimum 20-foot. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But that could be maximum,too,and still meet code. MR. COSLET: It could be,but they don't-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,what's the mature size of a dahoon holly? MR.COSLET: Fifteen, 15 feet,and that would not count for code. MR. SMITH: That's why-- MR. BELLOWS: That's the purpose of a deviation,to get that smaller tree that would look nice on the smaller lot but not create these difficulties. MR. COSLET: But to add on to that,that's not the look that Naples is going for. That's a very small tree on a small lot with a house. That's not what--that's not what we're used to. That's not the look that I think our developer is looking for,a small tree on the front. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. But my question had to do with what tree--I'm trying to get clarification for Stan's question,because he doesn't seem to be able to get an answer from you for his question,and that is,what trees have a maximum, say,20-,25-foot canopy? MR. COSLET: Sure. Green buttonwood is a 20-to 30-foot max spread. I mean, still you're over that 20-foot,but you're into a smaller,not live oak, 100-foot, 70-foot. You could do pigeonplum.You could do-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And how tall do they get? What's the tallest? MR.COSLET: Those would get 20,30 40 feet tall, I mean--and that's way,way,way down the road,obviously,but that's--that would be probably. You know,hitting your 20-foot requirement for a minimum canopy but having your smallest maximum canopy would be sea grape,pigeonplum,green buttonwood. Page 23 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: A lot of our natives? MR.COSLET: Yeah. And those are all natives,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Maybe paradise tree,or does paradise tree get a lot larger? MR.COSLET: It will get a little larger than that,yep. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But still compact? MR. COSLET: More compact. Magnolias. That's another tree you could get up to 30 feet wide but would stay more compact. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You okay, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead,Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Does the proposal--allow easements on neighboring properties for overhang of tree growth, is that the proposal? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. EASTMAN: Is there any limitation to that?Because as the landscape architect just mentioned, some of these trees could grow bigger and extend farther than expected. What happens if a tree,for example, hypothetically grows into someone's pool cage or right up next to their house,and then the neighbor says,the neighbor whose tree the lot is on says,you can't cut that even though it's encroaching into your pool cage because we have an easement to allow for overhang,or is it limited at some point? What's the limitation of the easement on the burdened property? MR.YOVANOVICH: You bring up a good point,and we'll make sure that there's proper trimming of the trees to make sure it doesn't interfere with someone's pool cage. You know,that could happen today. The trees that you make us choose from all get rather large and eventually,at maturity,when we're all long gone,are going to be on someone else's yard as far as--as big as they get.They're going to spread. They're trimmed. We will trim them as well as part of this--as part of this process. And we're proposing that--if this were a multifamily project or a land condo,okay--if it were a land condo,we wouldn't even be having this discussion because there's no lot lines. There would be common maintenance,and you'd make sure the tree doesn't interfere with someone else's land condo unit. Now,that's not marketable, but I'm just trying to say that for example. All of these issues are addressed through common area maintenance for condominiums. They're addressed through common area maintenance for multifamily. Likewise,there are a lot of communities in Collier County and Lee County where the individual property owner doesn't want maintenance responsibilities, so the HOA takes care of that. I'd like to believe,even after turnover and the natives of the community take over and run the HOA, they're going to hire a competent landscape company to advise them on the proper trimming of trees,how to cut the grass,proper fertilization. Eventually that's going to happen. So I think those issues will be addressed through the HOA addressing the concerns about the spreading over our individual lot,and it will be all addressed in the HOA documents so everybody knows upfront the type of community they're living in. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What prevents a 15-foot canopy tree from growing to be a 20-foot canopy tree? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,first of all, I can't plant a 15-foot canopy tree. And I asked Dan the same thing. I said,Dan,tell me the tree that I can plant that stops at 20 feet,and it doesn't exist in your code. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you're going to have problems with the 15-foot tree later on-- MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I think 15-foot trees--I think we can pick from a 15-foot tree max maturity growth that's going to probably stop around 20 feet. Fair? Now,he's nodding. I can bring him up here if we have to but,you know--but you can't do that with the trees that we get to choose from that will achieve a minimum 20-foot canopy. We can't make it stop close Page 24 of 70 March 17, 2016 to 20 feet. You have a code that's probably been around,roughly,not changed a whole lot since 1982,okay. 1982 I bet you development in Collier County was slightly different than it is today,and the market's evolved as to the product types that people are buying,and the code really doesn't address the situation we're in today for the types of homes people are buying as far as landscape trees go with it. So we're just trying to work within a code that probably should be re-reviewed to see if you can come up with a lush 15-foot tree that makes sense in today's market,but I don't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,to correct your statement. The code has been around a long time,but it used to require two canopy trees,and then it got watered down to one,and now the suggestion is water it down to a skinny canopy tree. MR.YOVANOVICH: Not by us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then who knows where it's going to go next? I'm still in favor of holding a line but accepting the option that you've suggested for common area maintenance. But I wanted to get a clarification on something you responded to to Tom. You said you're going to do basically an easement for the canopy. That's different than common area maintenance areas when you do an HOA or a condominium. And I'm not sure how you're-- MR.YOVANOVICH: We're not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Pulte did it before. You make great communities. I've been--I drive through plenty of them,and what happens is people move into one of these smaller units, sometimes it's a second home or a seasonal home, and they leave the maintenance up to the HOA. The HOA has a broad maintenance responsibility for all areas outside the house,basically. I've pictured that as the mechanism you were-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --going to use,not a straight line easement saying,okay,the easement's going to go to here and you're going to work around drawing it out and legally describing it. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's--if I said that, I didn't mean to. What I meant was, effectively, I will have an easement for my tree to go over onto the neighbor's lot. I wasn't talking about a line that says it's got to stop at five feet. It was globally going to describe that the tree could encroach and there will be common area maintenance. MR. EASTMAN: But where does it stop, Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: It doesn't stop,Tom. MR. EASTMAN: So it can go right through my bedroom window,and I'd say I'd like to--you know,I'm having--I'd like my pillow to be there,and you'd say,no, I have a right to have-- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR.YOVANOVICH: And you'll read the documents and you won't buy in the community. At this point we're talking about--you know,I can't describe it that way because trees don't grow that way,okay? MR. EASTMAN: But can you at least--I'm not opposed to the reasonability of having an easement for tree overhang to a certain extent,but an unlimited easement that just--the tree can keep growing and growing and growing,and there's--and common sense and the trust for maintenance is what stops it. What if maintenance is delayed? What if you do come down to what are the legal rights here,Rich? So--and it seems to me that you have an unfettered easement for overgrowth onto a neighbor's property. MR.YOVANOVICH: How about I put in there that I say that the tree cannot interfere with the house-- MR. EASTMAN: That would-- MR.YOVANOVICH: --or the pool? I mean, I think we'll take care of all of that,but if that's what I need to make Planning Commission-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't that intuitive in the purpose of a maintenance easement? Common area maintenance means you're going to maintain the common area in a safe and practical manner for both the people living there and the buildings that are--and I'm not sure you're ever going to get to a liability situation that Tom's alluding to because of the lawsuits the HOA would have to endure. I don't know how Page 25 of 70 March 17, 2016 any-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't see this as an issue, I really don't. I think the documents will be very clear. And,trust me,there's--you know what, if you wanted to do an ironclad set of declaration of covenants and restrictions or even a real estate contract, it would probably be 200 pages long,okay. But the reality is, common sense takes over.Nobody's going to live in a community that allows trees to go through people's roofs,screen enclosure. They're just--it's not going to happen. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So if you're relying upon common sense,why have the deviation? Why--just-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't want the deviation. I want to be able to encroach. I'm being told I have to have a deviation so I don't build(sic)a tree that's going to go over on the lot line. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I proposed a simple solution. You didn't accept it. But if you plant that tree 10 feet from the property lines you won't have this discussion at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've laid the project out-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The site plan that you posted on the visualizer, if you look at the interior lot,the lot layout of the interior lot,you're putting the tree five feet from the property line. You're placing the tree five feet from the common property line,right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're showing a worst-case scenario when we're planting these trees. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes or no? Am I correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That's what that exhibit shows. And I'm trying to explain to you-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If you move--if you move that tree another five feet to the left,you won't have that problem. You won't have that discussion. You won't have to ask for the deviation. MR.YOVANOVICH: First of all-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You created--you created the problem for yourself by saying this is my plan and I'm going to stick to it when the simple solution to all of that problem is instead of placing a 20-foot canopy tree five feet from the property line,put it 10 feet away from the property line. MR.YOVANOVICH: We've looked at-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Period. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,you know--okay. And I want to respond to that because here's where we are. We have an odd shape piece of property. It's long and it's skinny. You have a single-family high-end builder who's looked at the product type they want,and they're concerned when they lay it out that they are going to have trees that overhang, and they've said they--this is the product they want to put on this property. They think it's marketable,and it makes them think they've got a chance to make the money they need to make to buy the property. If they don't buy the property--and that's okay. We're trying to give the neighbors really what they want,which is a nice single-family community versus the multifamily option and the commercial option that exists today. We're asking for a simple deviation to give us the flexibility to build a nice-quality Pulte community--sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for a footnote? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm asking for a recognition that it's okay for a tree to encroach where there is absolutely no prohibition of that today in the Land Development Code. It's an interpretation that has come up recently over time,and we're rolling with the punches and we're trying to address that situation. We don't usually get down to designing the product type and the exact placement of trees in front of the Planning Commission. So we've asked for this to give us the ability to put the tree where it makes the most sense for that individual lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Rich,I think it's time we took a break. Let's do that and come back at 10:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's try to resume where we left off but hopefully we can move to a new subject. I think we've discussed quite a bit the canopy tree issue and the easements. And, Richard, Page 26 of 70 March 17, 2016 you've explained your applicant's position. I know we've heard various positions on this board. I think it will need to be a discussion as we approach a motion. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to add one other thing,though,hopefully on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a bigger issue than I think you're even aware of because there are a lot of PUDs out there with 40-foot,45-foot-wide,and 50-foot lots. Historically,you've come,you've shown the tree on the lot. It was always understood that when the tree got to maturity it was probably going off your lot. So this is going to be a big issue for existing PUDs on the new interpretation that lots are going to be self-contained. So,you know, I think the Planning Commission needs to kind of be aware of that because there's a lot of PUDs out there that this new interpretation's going to have a large impact on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your comments,Rich. I had one question. You were talking about this tree in relationship to the common area maintenance. Wouldn't your project have been set up to provide common area maintenance for this--for the vegetation regardless of the issue we discussed here today? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean,what we're asking you to do is nothing different than what you're doing for all the other projects,right? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. Where we have common area maintenance,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know of any specific complaints from those other projects. Do you guys keep track--how many times has a tree caused this overlapping of a tree with the common area maintenance HOA in position like you have acknowledged,which I thought to be the case? It's been existing for quite some time in all your communities. Do you have generally problems with that,complaints with that, HOAs wish they hadn't dealt with you before or-- MR.YOVANOVICH: The answer to that is no,no,and I think one more no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: We've not had problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean, it seems like it's just cropped up. You've just raised and highlighted the fact that it may even be cropping up more. I'm not sure why we're even going in that direction. That's why the deviation is something that I don't--I'm certainly not willing to consider from my perspective. But,anyway, let's move on. We left off with your discussion--your corrections on Page 7 which ended up getting us into this discussion. So we're on Table 2,commercial development standards. I think that's where we'd go next. And I don't think you're changing that table. MR. YOVANOVICH: No,we're not. I don't think--I don't think we have another change for--until we get to Page 16,and this deals with where we measure the height of the wall. And we were asked to clarify by staff that we're measuring it from the top of the berm so when we come through on our review, staff knows where to measure from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to that page,you do have your general notes on the master plan page. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. But didn't we just kind of go through those already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think you were going to drop some of those notes,weren't you? MR.YOVANOVICH: Did I blow by something?Page what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no number on the page,so--it's before--just before Exhibit D. On second thought, I'm looking at--I'm looking at why--I had it all--I had it marked up on-- MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: You know what,there is a note. We added--No. 7 is a note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,that's the issue. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,tying it to the hatched area that allows-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you show us how you've hatched that. We didn't have that in this packet either. Page 27 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR. YOVANOVICH: It's right here. You'll see this portion. That portion of the lake--there's a lake maintenance easement,and that's the portion of the lake maintenance easement where the overhang would be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the overhang of the lot into the maintenance easement because you're going to plat the rest of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: The overhang of the tree.No? The-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lawn. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,you're right. You're right. I got my issues backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the reason you're doing that is because this infill parcel is so narrow, in order to fit the lots--the housing in the market,you've got to get the density--to reduce the intensity of the project to single family versus commercial. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only way this works. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Also Note No. 6 is different than--on the proposed right now is different than what you have in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't think he was finished discussing the notes yet. We just--but I was backing up trying to catch the issues that we seem to blow past when we went straight on to Page 18 or whatever that was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Because I'd like--there's things-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the general notes,the last one-- MR.YOVANOVICH: What changed,Alexis, in the general notes other than-- MS. CRESPO: Six and seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric,what one of the general notes were you working on? MR.JOHNSON: Sure. I'll just read it. The one in your packet says the following: Number 6,a 10-foot-wide Type A buffer will be provided where single-family detached and two-family duplex units are constructed within the same tract. MR.YOVANOVICH: That went out because it's in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: So you're right; I forgot that we deleted that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: And also in the legend that Mr.Yovanovich is going to put on the screen,or was about to,he added the darkened area. That represents the LME residential lot overlap. So that's new as well. MR.YOVANOVICH: And we also added rec to show you this area. This is the area where the recreation would go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,that's optional. If you decide to build a rec area,that's where you're going to put it,but you could still put lots there. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well, it could be--it was going to be open space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Or open space,right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Or open space,right. Okay. I lost my cheat sheet. There it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now what page do you want to go to? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I was at 16,wasn't I? And where it went, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: The last thing that we talked about was the measuring from the top of the berm. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is here. So that's--the measurement of the wall will be from the top of the berm. Page 17. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Is that a deviation? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,the deviation was to go to a taller wall,from six to eight feet. Page 28 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How is the wall normally measured? MR.YOVANOVICH: I believe it's--you know, I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Crown of road or nearest adjoining existing surface,something like that. I think the deviation occurred because the neighborhood behind years ago established the fact they'd have a higher separation and asked for a berm and a wall combination. I think that put them above the minimum requirements,so... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This project,this is the third time I think we've heard this project,and each time it's been radically-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --changed, so... MR.YOVANOVICH: This is Page 17. It's another point where we clarify that the commercial master plan goes away if we do the single-family and two-family homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: There's a clarification on the outdoor lighting for the--as it applies to the commercial portion of the project. We'll meet code for the residential project should that go forward. And then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Your No.3 is changed from what we have in our packet. That's the one you just talked about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Number 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Number 3 above your finger. MR. YOVANOVICH: This has? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one is different in our packet than what's on that page in front of you. On the packet you add another sentence after the words"Land Development Code,"and it says,the buffer shall maintain the 6-foot finished masonry wall at the northwest corner at a distance of 80 feet along the northern boundary line. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was my next thing. That was deleted because it's no longer--we have--the assisted living facility was here. Sorry to keep going backwards. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all right. MR.YOVANOVICH: It used to extend around the corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,use the mike. MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. It used to--the wall used to extend around the corner when we were doing the multifamily and the commercial. And since it's either going to be single-family or two-family,the need for the wall to wrap around was deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you did is you dropped the last sentence-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --on No. 3. The only thing is,you should either highlighted it or shown it as a cross-out so we would have known that. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're back on Page 17,outdoor lighting, 1. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that's where we we're clarifying the outdoor--the lighting for the commercial versus defaulting to lighting for the residential. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: I circled the word"trips." I don't think it belongs in there. This word. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yep,you're right. I don't know where that came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's not in the old one or the new one. Good catch. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: And there was a modification to No. 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,you went back to the existing language instead of the changed language. It's clearer that way. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. We--I guess the other language was external. We went to"outside" Page 29 of 70 March 17, 2016 was the change. And I believe on No. 1 is where we went and clarified the maximum number of trips if we developed as single-family or two-family development at 230. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: And then we had--actually, I could show you where, if you want,we deleted the two deviations regarding landscaping. I could show you that,but the way we did it is it just shows that they're not there anymore, instead of striking them,or we can leave them in at the discretion of the Planning Commission regarding--regarding that issue. I think that's everything that we changed or clarified,and I think the only disagreement we have with staff is on the size of the sign and hopefully,based upon the examples we provided to you,an 80-foot sign in this location--80-square-foot sign versus 64-square-foot sign is--have been supported. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You bet. Rich, I am not going to agree with your 45 feet for the road. Can you put the master plan back on there,please? You have one road for 80-- 82 homes. Tell me about the turnarounds at the end. Are they fire code? It's these hammerheads? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We have--we're going through the plat review right now,and the plat is consistent with the master plan we're showing you,and it meets all of the county code requirements regarding fire safety, providing utilities,providing sidewalks,the width of the pavement. It's-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I understand. And I know part of your thing is, is if we keep the roads narrow,people won't speed; it will get them down. Tell me,where are your service vehicles going to park? Where--you're going to have common maintenance. I can bring in a thousand people right now from gated communities. In fact,we can start on the eighth floor of this building of people complaining about the streets are too narrow. They should be--I wouldn't mind if you would do 20--24-foot of bituminous and then your valley gutters,but it just keeps--you just keep getting narrower and narrower,and that is really kind of starting to bother people in the communities. In other words,previous deviations--you're correct, it's starting to create problems now. A lot of complaints,as you know, sidewalks,the streets. The narrow width. If you could do--rather than 10-foot,do the--I think you even have--it's 50-foot for commercial. If this would be in commercial, there's a 50-foot. On East Gateway you did 54-foot for the commercial,and you did 45-foot for the residential. At that time you didn't want to put sidewalks on both sides,but BCC made you put sidewalks on both sides. I would rather see the 54-foot because there's only one road in here,and I just feel with people getting company--and they all cannot park in the driveways. When you have service vehicles there, it is just getting way,way too compact for what's going on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far,then,it sounds like she's saying that your deviation is requesting a lane width that is inconsistent with our code. I've got the code in front of me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I know it's 20 feet. But,Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says 10 feet for local and cul-de-sacs, 11 to 12 feet for minor collectors. This cannot be a minor collector. It's a private road inside of a gated community or developed community. So how would we require them to be wider than the requirement in the code? COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mark,we're going to have to do something,then,with this. Because I can tell you right now,the private roads deal is becoming a problem. MR.YOVANOVICH: The pavement doesn't change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is. MR.YOVANOVICH: If I were a public road with a 60-foot right-of-way,road right-of-way-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't have--it would be the same. MR.YOVANOVICH: --I would have 10-foot-wide pavement-- Page 30 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,nothing-- MR.YOVANOVICH: --with 2-foot valley gutters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing--yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not the deviation I'm asking for. I'm not asking for a deviation from the code requirement for the street,for the construction of the street. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This is, in effect,the 65-foot road right-of-way. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But you've taken 10 foot on both sides and converted it to public utility easement because you want to start your setback at your right-of-way line. That has no effect on-- Diane,no effect on what you're talking about. This--if he were to take out that line and just call it a 65-foot right-of-way,apparently that would make you happy,but it would be the same thing. It's--and the travel lanes,the fact that they're 10-foot as opposed to 12-foot travel lanes,your car is--if you go in your car,you go like this(indicating),that car is about 6-foot wide.You have plenty of room to put a vehicle and drive past it. And if a service-- I live in Lakeside,right across the street. We have the same thing, and we have service vehicles. They park out in the road because there's no room in the driveways. But all you do is you drive around the service vehicle. And,you know,we have a low speed limit. It's not like we're passing each other at 30 miles an hour. It's not--I don't know why people are complaining. In our area, it's not a problem. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I get complaints about the fact the sidewalks aren't in residential places because we hadn't been enforcing that too much in the past. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's changed by a policy recently set by the Board. So I don't understand the concern over--I've never had anybody approach me on lanes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it is now becoming a problem. Mark, it really is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But where? These are not collector roads. Who would notice it as a problem but the people that live on them, and the people that live on them, if they're living there,would have bought in there knowing what they're buying into. I don't get it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not really. But,anyway. And the other one I have is the signs where the staff said no on the signs and because of what is in the area it is not larger. Now, either we're going to change our sign code or--the examples that you happen to give us which were Esplanade,which is Mirasol,Royal Palm, gee-whiz,both of those happen to be Yovanovich plans. So this is,here we go,a deviation again for the ones that you represent. MR.YOVANOVICH: And Abaco was a Bruce Anderson plan,and I-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But Abaco is not in this area. It has to be compatible,and that's what staff is saying to you. Compatible in the area. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Tell me--you know what? It's okay. Windward Isles,the very first one I showed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike,Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: I know. I don't know where I put it,but Windward Isles,which was the very first one I showed you, is on Airport Road in the vicinity of this project,and I'm 87 percent sure that that's not a Yovanovich project. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Eighty-seven percent? MR.YOVANOVICH: Eighty-seven percent. Because I'm pretty sure,but with my luck somehow I had some involvement with that one, so I wanted a hedge. Maybe I should have said 99.4 percent, like Ivory Snow sure,that's not a Yovanovich project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see,our sign code is one of the most arbitrary codes you could pick on. The fact that a lot of people are willing to sit with it is fine,but the case-by-case exceptions we make for when someone can show a quality product,which is what we're seeing here,I don't understand why that isn't something to be considered. I'm also concerned if staff is going to take a complete review of all of the deviations we've done in Page 31 of 70 March 17, 2016 the past and start changing their minds against one project versus another, I'm a little concerned about it. We have just been shown various projects that have been approved at 80 square feet; 16 square feet more for an attractive sign out front like we've seen. And all of a sudden staff says,well,no,we're not going to allow that anymore. This board needs to understand where you-all are coming from,because that's a change in what we've approached in the past for consistency. And we have the three Cs in Collier County. Consistency is one of them. If we're changing that attitude or staffs going to start changing its policies, someone better tell us upfront what to expect in the future. MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I'm glad you asked that question,because I don't believe staff has set a policy or changing a policy. The Land Development Code has the standards that all developments should comply with. When somebody asks for a deviation,it's site specific to that PUD,and it doesn't set a precedence for every PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But why would you turn down this PUD and approve three others, or multiple--well,there's been more. I've been here 15 years. There's been quite a few. MR. BELLOWS: And I think the reasoning of this one was it's a very narrow project,not a very large project either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The narrowness of a project dictates the width of a sign on a street outside the wall? MR. BELLOWS: No. It just seemed like it was excessive for the type of project versus something like Heritage Bay or much larger projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Wafaa. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I? You just--you just said that--in your staff report in many of the analyses of the deviations particularly,you cited where similar deviations were granted in other developments. You cited this was granted in this development and this was granted in another development, correct? MR.JOHNSON: Actually--this is Eric Johnson,principal planner. In your staff report--and I'm going to answer that question. I'm going to--also would like to defend the position that we're taking. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Before you defend the position,answer my question,please. MR.JOHNSON: Those-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You cited other developments that were granted similar deviation approval. MR.JOHNSON: Negative. Those developments that I cited are signs that do not have any deviations or variances approved for them.That's--so that's why I put it in there. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The point I was trying to make is that there's a little bit of confusion, at least in my mind,because if we're saying that if the-- if the county approved certain deviations in other developments,that does not create a precedent,right? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: This is what Ray said? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. Yes,correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So we shouldn't rely upon prior approvals considering any PUD, because each PUD is unique,each PUD stands on its own,and I shouldn't be looking back to see whether the Planning Commission recommended approval of this particular sign or that particular tree in the past. The past is the past. They're all unique.They all claim creativity,although few of them have creativity in the design. And,you know,we can't have it both ways. If we're saying we cannot rely upon the past because that creates a precedent,then we should agree that there are no precedents. And I don't want to hear about prior approvals. If we're saying that there is a precedent because we approved it before,then that's a game changer in my view. So you have to decide which way we're going to go with that. MR.YOVANOVICH: If I--briefly. I put on the visualizer an aerial. Windward Isles, I think it's called, is-- if you-- it is at the southeast quadrant of our-- Page 32 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It doesn't matter where it is. MR.YOVANOVICH: Hang on a second. Staff-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's not a precedent-- MR.YOVANOVICH: No. Staffs argument-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Mr.Assaad,you're saying it's not a precedent. I don't know if everybody agrees with you,so let him have his side of it. MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me respond to the staff comment. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse me. Staff said it's not a precedent. We can ask our attorney. She's right here. She can tell us whether those are precedents or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a consistency issue. And if staffs telling us what they approve for one project can be unfavorably denied on another,I'm real concerned about that. But go ahead,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I have two points.One is that,you know,each PUD is reviewed on its own merit,okay, but at the same time the county does need to make decisions that are not deemed to be, you know,arbitrary. So we need to have some justification if you took a different path as to how you treated other similar PUDs. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Well,the county,to avoid that issue or that question about being arbitrary, it is recommended by the legal businesspeople,attorneys,that you include standards. So you can't say,as an example,the front yard should be adequate,okay,because "adequate" is very ambiguous. So you have to say a front yard is 35 feet,as an example. Putting standards in the code makes it more enforceable,right,and is recommended,and it gives a guide to the development community so when they look at the code and they see that the county has required signs not to exceed so many square feet or setbacks have to be so and such,that gives them a guide to follow in their design unless there is a unique and very compelling reason to deviate from that. Now,that will make the county very consistent. That will make no precedent. If we apply the simple rule,and it gets us out of that discussion every time we see--and I'm guilty for doing that. I take the blame for bringing this up,but it's just very inconsistent in my view,because you adopt a standard,and when you adopt a standard you just don't pull it out of the air. Staff researches it,and they recommend a standard, and you get the people in the community--like signs,as an example. I'm sure you get the big sign makers, and you say,we want to have a meeting because we are going to adopt a sign ordinance. So what is the consensus of the sign people?When you're looking at the architectural review,we got a bunch of architects,very capable,and they recommended certain standards. So adopting a standard in the ordinance, I don't think it was pulled out of the air. It's a matter of very deliberate process. Those recommendations come to the Planning Commission. We spend hours reviewing them and negotiating them,and look at how much time Mark spends analyzing and looking and referring back and forth to the different related items. And then we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners,who spend umpteen hours reviewing the same standards again,and finally they adopt something after all of this lengthy,deliberate, considerate process. And then you've got a request for deviation because they don't like the sign size. I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviations have existed in PUDs since PUDs started,and those deviations, in the old days,were called something different than they are today, so we didn't stand them out and recognize them for what they are. I went back and looked at some old PUDs. The Villages of Monterey had seven deviations. Berkshire Lakes had three;Parklands had nine;Vineyards had seven. Seville at Pelican Marsh had six. Those deviations were called exceptions. Sometimes they were hidden in paragraphs. And if, Ray,you recall a few years back the Planning Commission said,enough of this hiding and trying to make us find where the deviation is. From now on let's spell it out on a deviation sheet. That's how we got here. And now that we got here and because it's exposed for what it is,all of a sudden we're saying,all that creativity that made this county's 436 special PUDs what they are today was done wrong. And I have to Page 33 of 70 March 17, 2016 disagree with that. I think the consistency of allowing one developer to be treated equally as another is something that's precedent setting for this board and that we have to continue with that unless the Board of County Commissioners,through their action,says no,here's the policy we want to go forward with from now on. We should never have gotten into this discussion,to be honest with you,and I'm disappointed staff has changed its approach,but that's what we'll have to deal with. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's fine that we have a disagreement of opinions. I mean,that doesn't bother me that your opinion is different than mine. But you tell me,what has the size of the banner sign got to do with the land use issue that you're considering for a rezoning application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a code requirement that they're trying to clear up because they want a different size. And,honestly,what does the code requirement have to do with any reality of every single particular PUD in Collier County? Does it require a size because the project is 100 acres or one acre or 10 acres or 2,000 acres? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Maybe when we consider rezoning or land use issues,the only deviations that we should be entertaining are the ones directly related to the land use. Here is a vacant piece of property. They want to have an option of doing it as commercial or residential,and that's fine. I understand. But you tell me, in considering the land use and the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning application, to spend two hours negotiating or fussing about the size of a banner is not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we didn't have those kind of discussions at that length on those issues before. They just started recently. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the zoning matters,this board is in charge of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan.Anything in the code has to be reviewed--any change to the code has to be reviewed by the Board. It goes beyond just the use of zoning. It goes to all the facets of the way the property's put together. The creativity component of the PUDs that started in our codes decades ago bring us to the conclusion that we have to look at them on a case-by-case basis and separately. That's why we've got the deviations. If without-- if you want to take out the PUD process and go straight zoning,that would be great, because then all we would have are LDC amendments generated by staff and GMP amendments,and we'd have no other zoning issues to discuss,and that's fine with me. MR. BELLOWS: No. And for the record,Ray Bellows. I do agree 100 percent with what you said. Consistency is also a vital part of what we do. And the consistency comes from requiring the applicants to provide the justification on a case-by-case basis. Now, I had a discussion with the applicant before the meeting,and I think we could have done a better job of communicating our concerns with them so they could have come up with the greater justification. But these other projects you talk about didn't set precedent,didn't amend the code to change the standard. It just was determined by the Planning Commission and the Board that the justifications provided were sufficient to approve that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: On the visualizer,what staff said in their recommendation of denial is they looked at the signs around us. Well, Windward Isle,on that visualizer, it's at the southeast quadrant of Orange Blossom and Airport Road,okay. We are at the northwest quadrant of Orange Blossom and Airport Road. We were roughly 30 acres. Close? Twenty-one. Wrong project. Windward Isles is 10 acres. Right next door. The most recent project smaller than us got a bigger sign. Every project cited by Eric in his staff report probably got--was here before I got here in 1990 or got built shortly after 1990 since I've been here. Page 34 of 70 March 17, 2016 Most of these are older projects that have been around for quite a while. Things evolve,and you can get better looking signs with a minimal increase in square footage. So close to this project you just recently said that makes sense. So if he's talking about in vicinity, in proximity, your most recent example of staff recommendation of approval is Windward Isles in proximity of this project. They showed that as the basis for denial,proximity. And I don't think a prior approval of signs under a different sign code standards is more precedential than a deviation, if you want to look at it that way. We're trying to do a better looking project,which is important. Changing Collier County Land Development Code isn't a simple thing to do. It takes a four-out-of-five vote requirement. It takes a long time. That's why we do these deviations on a case-by-case basis,because that's what the Board is more comfortable doing,that's what the Planning Commission is more comfortable doing, and that's the process we've been following for many, many,many years. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: When it comes to signs,is it your opinion that bigger is better? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm saying-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Or bigger is more beautiful? MR.YOVANOVICH: I've said-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Or more creative? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think this 16-foot extra-- 16 square feet,yes, is better and more creative than what can be done in the 64 square feet,and it's not just me. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's your staff on other examples and the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Neither one of us is a sign maker or a sign expert,but I do respectfully disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich,you want to move on with your presentation,or are you wrapping it up? MR.YOVANOVICH: I thought I was answering questions at this point. Somebody brought up the issue about signs. I think we were on roads,then we went to signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant beyond what we've already gotten into? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a comment. I live across from here in Lakeside. When you popped up the zoom-in aerial,I'm right across the street. I showed on that aerial. I have seen this parcel go from nurseries,annual nurseries where one year--one season I'm looking at impatiens,then petunias,and then pansies,I mean,you know,and then they sell that,and all of a sudden I'm a freakin'parking lot for every golf course in Collier County,as far as I know,every festival that's in the neighborhood. I've got buses out front. I've got people crossing the street. I've got cop cars with their lights flashing. They want to build a residen--is it too early to move for approval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We've got a couple of steps to go through before we can get there, Stan. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. And,Richard,on Page 9 of the staff report,under petitioner's rationale for Deviation Number 1 --I don't have a problem with Deviation Number 1; I just was trying to understand the last sentence--it says--of the first paragraph,the applicant has also secured approval from the engineering division via the attached email correspondence from John Houldsworth. That really--you're referring to the rationale to reduce the 60-foot down to 45-foot. And that,according to the code, 6.01.01.N, I think it is, it's the county engineer's responsibility if you were going to use that,and John Houldsworth is not the county engineer. Jack McKenna is. So in the future, if you decide to use that as a justification,make sure you go to the right party within the county. And then on Page 17 of the transportation section of the PUD, it says,the owner has agreed to pay $10,000 to support enhancements to the area transit system,and they're going to--for construction of a bus Page 35 of 70 March 17, 2016 shelter located along the frontage of the library. And the county agrees that no stop will be located along Buckley PUD frontage. Payment will be due at the time of certificate. My concern here is exactions. We tried to stop what were considered exactions without a rational nexus. Quite a few years back when--we were doing well exactions,park exactions, affordable housing exactions,everything else,and really,they needed to be tied to something. I understand in talking to you about this this isn't an exaction arbitrarily. This is to avoid a bus stop directly in front of your community and enhance the ability to put it in front of the library. Is that how this evolved? MR.YOVANOVICH: It started with a--it started out as what I would claim to be not, as you described,an exaction. We said,no,there's no rational basis for you to make us pay for a bus stop, but we would be willing to help contribute to a bus stop in the area if we could assure ourselves that the bus stop is not going to be on-- in the frontage of our project. So staff agreed with a revision to what you have in front of you in order for the bus stop to be located in front of the library and not in front of our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have a library which is a regional library up there right now,and there's no bus stop at it? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't think there's a covered bus stop,and I'm not even sure the bus stops there,but I don't know for a fact one way--I know there's no covered bus stop,but I don't know if the bus stops there or not because there's a sign or not(sic). Stan might know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for every property owner that comes in for a zoning change and asks--and they--staff can say,well, if you don't give us$10,000,we're going to put a bus stop in front of your development and you've got to put up$10,000. I don't believe that's a fair way to approach such things. We have impact fees. We have taxes. We have rational nexuses to create those. That's what I believe the statutes require. I don't know why we would arbitrarily just hand out, I guess, intimidation tactics to make someone pay up if we feel that we want to them--we have the ability to do so. I don't see how this fits into anything,and I don't like it as another item that we could see started as a consistency issue down the road,and I don't know why this project has any different ability to say yes or no to a bus stop than any other in the county. So I'm-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It says for a shelter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It's for a shelter.And they--where is the--where would--does the county currently own land on your property where they could put a shelter? MR.YOVANOVICH: It would be putting it in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the right-of-way wide enough in front of your property to have a turnoff for a shelter on Airport Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. I think it's--just like there is room in front of the library. There's right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you were approached by saying,unless you give us$10,000,we're going to stick it in front of your property? MR.YOVANOVICH: That's not how it--how it came about. It started out as a-- it started out as, you know,give me money for a bus stop,and we said wait a minute. I'm not--no,I'm not going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under what basis was that question even asked? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,you know what, I don't want to--you know,the county at times throughout its history has been aggressive on different things,not just bus stops. You mentioned several others,okay. So,you know,the ask was made. I said,there's no justification for the ask. I talked to my client and said, listen,would you consider assisting the county as a good-faith gesture to make it easier for people to come to the library by bus? And they said,yeah,but we need to make sure that that bus stop isn't--we don't want to help them to build the bus stop and then find out it's right at the frontage of our project. So they said, if we can--we're happy to help;however,what we need in return for that is assurance that the bus stop is going to be located along the library. Page 36 of 70 March 17, 2016 I also asked, sort of jokingly,you know,we'd like advertising rights. We'd like"this bus stop brought to you by Pulte Homes,"you know. Sort of--you know,there needs to be kind of recognition in that sometimes developers--a lot of times,most of the time developers go above and beyond the minimum,and this is one of those examples. We're going above and beyond what's required of us. It started out, I think--unfortunately, I thought it started out as an improper ask,but something,I think, good came of it. I also said very clearly,don't ask me again. I'm not going to--I'm not guaranteeing you any other project I bring you is going to get you the same result of a contribution for a bus stop because I, likewise,was concerned about empowering improper requests and going down the slope we went down not too long ago with affordable housing requests,wellfields that nobody would ever commit to me they would actually put a wellfield there and wouldn't give the land back. You remember it like I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember it,and it was not the right way to do things,so... MR. YOVANOVICH: But it was--and I don't want to go back to the way it used to be either,but in this case we were willing to do it because it made some sense to us to protect our frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And still-- MR.YOVANOVICH: But it wasn't--let me rephrase. It clearly wasn't--nobody said to me, if you don't give me this money,we're putting the bus stop in front of you. It was me who went back and said, I'm willing to give you this money if you promise me--if we can commit that the bus stop will not be in front of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the downside is that--the fact that you're doing it for that reason will be something that someone might easily point out,well,you know, look what this project did to make sure they're protected from a bus stop in front of the development. Would you want to do the same thing? And all of a sudden it becomes something accepted because of the way you have accepted it. I think it's wrong. I'm certainly not going to use that as a basis for denying your request because your project, overall, is a better opportunity. I just wish things like that wouldn't happen,and I wish the county administration would look at that and realize a better way to go might be through impact fees or a true assessment that's vetted properly with stakeholders and the public,not arbitrarily with developers, but... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: But if we approve it with that provision in it,and the next developer can come and say, I want to pay$10,000,and I don't want to have a bus stop in my development,would this approval be a precedent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a deviation to the code. It's a separate issue. So we can approach it on any way we want. I'm more concerned about staying with the Land Development Code and setting policies based on deviations. So this isn't a deviation. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think your analysis is correct regarding they pay impact fee,they donate right-of-way,they contribute to turning lanes. Some big developers also contribute to the traffic lights. And this kind of exaction or-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Extortion. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --putting extortion or asking for something they are not entitled to is not a good practice. And the bus stop has nothing to do with the creativity of the land use or the development that you're considering. It's very immaterial whether you have a bus stop in front of you or not,so that's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was the last question I had on the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are they going to pay$10,000 and move it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up for this--that's up to the Board of County Commissioners,but it's up for this board to-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I don't think we should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --recommend as a stipulation or not when we get to that point in our motion making, so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think the county's always trying to find money for bus stops because it's very difficult to--we need hundreds of them right now,and it's difficult to get the money for them. It's not in an impact fee or--it's through grants and state funding and federal funding that they get the Page 37 of 70 March 17, 2016 money for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't disagree with you it's hard to find the money. I just suggest that we do it through proper channels. That's the only thing I'm asking. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, if they're agreeing to it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We haven't finished. We've got to go through a couple of steps yet. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Can I ask Karen a question since she's on the MPO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Are you still on the MPO, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. Is there--do you know whether there is currently a bus stop in front of the library? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan might. COMMISSIONER CI-IRZANOWSKI: There's a bus stop there somewhere,and I can't remember if it's in front of the library or a little more in the middle of the street where I am or on the opposite side of Orange Blossom from the library,but there is a bus stop there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all the comments to the presenter at this time or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to staff report. Thank you, Rich. MR.JOHNSON: Thank you,Mr.Chair. Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning section. Just for full disclosure, I live in a development that was developed by Pulte Homes. I did not purchase my house from Pulte. I purchased it from individuals. The project that you have before you today is--was notified in the Naples Daily News on February 26th. It was also mailed out to property owners on February 26th. The list that we used for the property owner mailings was created on August 20th or before that. So just--I wanted to point out that as a practice we try to send out--our list is based on no--older than six months. This one--this list that was used is a little bit older than six months, so I just wanted to state that for the record. You have the deviations. They're amending one deviation,Deviation No. 1. They're not touching anything to No. 2,and they're proposing Deviations 3,4,5, 6 and 8--6, 7,and 8. No.3 and No. 4 are dealing with signs,No. 5 deals with streets,No. 6 deals with the wall,and 7 and 8 deal with landscaping. We already went through those. If you have any questions regarding any of those deviations,I'll be happy to discuss them with you. Staff is recommending approval of the project as indicated in your staff report. I just wanted to get some clarification from possibly the applicant. It's been--it's my understanding that basically what they're doing here is proposing a Plan B for single-family,two-family duplex,and it's my understanding that if they proceed with that Plan B then--as evidenced through a preliminary plat,then Plan A would become null and void. And I'm not sure if I want to use those words. I'd have to defer to the County Attorney. But we did try to use words that suggest--or work with the applicant to use words that suggest that if A is the one that they're--if B is the one that they're going with,then they're--A will no longer be eligible. After they answer that question,my other question is,just for clarification, if they decide to go with Plan A as evidenced through a Site Development Plan,because site development plans are required for multifamily and mixed-use and commercial,does that mean that B would become null and void? And so those are the questions that I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before you ask the applicant,we had talked about under the Exhibit A,the permitted uses where they clarify--I don't know where your recent language is--that if they went with Plan B,they would not use Plan A, and if they went with Plan A,they wouldn't use Plan B. Where do you think additional clarification is needed that brought this to this question? MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Page 38 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put your new language up there,Rich,the corrections you made on Page 1. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we did it on, like,three different places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the one was the one that was probably the-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Eric is correct. In the current version that you have, it only goes with the single-family and then the first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But it doesn't go the reverse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's put-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The current language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put No. 1 on so we correct the right one. That's not--yeah. Go to Page 1. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's Exhibit F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's Exhibit A. MR.JOHNSON: Yes, it is Exhibit F on No. 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page of the PUD is Exhibit F? MR.JOHNSON: Number 17 of 19. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's--I'm sorry. Let's start with at the very beginning. On Page 1 of 19 of the PUD the first clarification I pointed out was if we do the single-family or two-family option there's no commercial that can be developed. That was the first time we referenced it. There were two other times--you said Exhibit F is what I need to go to? MR.JOHNSON: That's correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: In Revision No. 5 it tells you that if I go with the single-family or multifamily option I can't do the commercial or mixed-use or multifamily option. I don't know how clearer to make it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,what it doesn't do is if you start with the commercial first, single-family's still an option,which I assumed that was the intent when I read the language with the modification, so--so if you start with commercial, it doesn't eliminate the other master plan. That's what Eric is saying. MR.JOHNSON: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Fine. Tell me what language you want that says if I start the commercial you don't want me to have single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put your language for A back up there. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: You just repeat the--just repeat the sentence and switch the language around.That's all you need to do if that's what you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: A? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So it would read,once commercial mixed use or multifamily commences in accordance with the master concept plan for commercial mixed use or multifamily as evidenced by the issue of the first Site Development Plan or subdivision approval,the master concept plan for single-family and two-family duplex residential only shall be void. That wasn't captured in the current modification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we look at what's on the overhead,the last--the second sentence that's highlighted, should the site be developed as a single-family or two-family attached duplex residential project,no commercial facilities will be constructed. So if you don't develop it as that,then you can do commercial. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct, but what it never did is what Eric is pointing out is terminate the other master plan. That's what the issue is. It only does it--what's that? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What if they start with the commercial phase and they want to convert to residential? MR.YOVANOVICH: You can't do single-family. Page 39 of 70 March 17, 2016 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,they can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't do single-family. Residential is allowed with the commercial phase,but only multifamily. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They can do multifamily and other stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's allowed. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there's a master plan specific to that scenario. The master plan that's attached for the single-family development is only the single-family and two-family master plan. I'm okay--if we really need to add another sentence that assures we won't be crazy enough to put single-family that close to commercial, I'm happy to do it. It's not a big deal. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think the issue Eric is raising,which I think is a valid one--and I saw it, too,but I thought maybe single-family and duplex was an option as well,but he's just saying that there are two master plans out there and you're only terminating the one. And it could create confusion with the people who are implementing it at the staff level. That's the point that he's making. If you don't think it's warranted,we can leave it as-is. But I did see the same issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter to me. I'm trying to understand it, so... Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever language they want to add, I'm easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: Again,that's just for clarification. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'll just add for clarification the sentence that I read off. Are you comfortable with that, Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. Well, I didn't hear exactly what Heidi said,but that's really the genesis of my question is I really just want to get some clarification. If we decide to go--if they decide to go with A, does that mean B becomes null and void? And if they decide to go with B,does that mean that A becomes null and void? And then I think the applicant suggested yes to both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But this question is a result of their changes here today-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that were attempted to be made? Is that what-- MR.JOHNSON: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. The prior language-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they didn't make the changes,you wouldn't have had the question. MR.JOHNSON: That's correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: I can go back to the PUD document that you have before you right now if you want and tell you what we had before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they've agreed their intent is exactly what we're trying to say. It's just if it needs to be clarified,they're willing to clarify it. MR.JOHNSON: Very well. Thank you,Mr.Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your staff presentation? MR.JOHNSON: Just,again,the property owner list was a little bit later than six months,but we felt that that wasn't an issue,and we can still proceed with this hearing today and April 12th for the BCC should the petition go there at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray,are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is any member of the public here to speak on this item? (No response.) Page 40 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. So, Rich,do you have any final closing comments before we close the hearing? MR.YOVANOVICH: Other than we ask you to transmit to the BCC with a recommendation of approval as modified today and do not--and with our request for the 80-square-foot sign versus the 64-square-foot sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will close the public hearing. We can either discuss some clarifications from today's discussion or we can go straight to motion and then discuss it. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am assuming you'd want to make the motion. You live right across the street,so it might be something that you'd-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. I move to approve the Buckley MPUD, PUDA-PL20150001084 with the stipulations as listed,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read them off before--after you get done,we'll get a second, and then we'll have a discussion. I'll try to articulate the stipulations,then we can add those to the motion if you two--if the both of you agree. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because I don't know how we left the exaction. I'm not going to put it in the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll go ahead and read all that separately. So your motion is for approval-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --subject to the stipulations,which we'll identify. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. I'd like to second it if you would consider denying Deviation No. 3,4,and 7 and deleting the language about the bus stop and the$10,000 donation and the clarification of the language regarding the master plan options. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's a little too complicated for me. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Deviation No.3 and 4,they have to do with the requested signage. Deviation No. 7 has to do with the 20-foot canopy tree. So those are three objections that I have. I also object to the language that has to do with the bus stop and the$10,000 donation--I don't like either one of those--and the clarification of the language that has to do with the master plan should they do residential or commercial or continue with this or that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I would not accept those. So what do we do now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get a second. Does anybody else want to second it as Stan stated it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen seconded it. Now we'll go into discussion. Obviously,Mr. Assaad has a list of stipulations. He just read those. I kept a list,as I usually do. I'll read those off as well. We can decide which way we want to go in our discussion,and then we'll call the motion subject to whatever stipulations we decide on. The following notes I made as we were discussing things. Deviations No. 7 and 8 would be not needed, so there would be a vote "no" on those two. The sign deviation would--might be found consistent with what we've done in the past, so that would be yes. That would be"yes"to Deviation No.4. We would allow the note for the tree overhang into the easement setbacks and adjoining lots where they're commonly maintained. We'd limit the cap on the TIS for the single-family at 230 peak hours--230 trips per peak hour. We would add a wall type to the B buffer around both sides of the rec facility. We add a wall,that is, to the Type B buffer around the rec facility. The buffer tracts would be separately platted except for the LME along the east side of the lake. That's the area of the crosshatching shown on the master plan. The--we'll accept 8 note--Note No. 8 as presented by the applicant today,which included that language for commonly--common maintenance. Page 41 of 70 March 17, 2016 We will remove General Note 6 on the exhibits,we will delete the Transportation Item No. 2 on the bus stop donation,and we will add the language suggested by the county attorney and staff for clarification to use of master plans. Now,those are the notes that I made as we went through. And I know Mr.Assaad just articulated some concerns he had. I'll leave it up to the motion maker and a discussion of this panel what they want to do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I see no harm with the sign deviation. I'm ambivalent on the tree issue. I don't care one way or another. And the--you know, if they're willing to pay some money to the county and call it an exaction instead of an extortion, I don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,you-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I feel the same way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I could support this petition if Deviations 7 and 8 are removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And do you have any concerns one way or the other over the transportation issue? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I have a concern for the bus stop,but what I'm missing is the background and why the county would even ask for that bus stop. I mean, I'm concerned about it in the sense of how it went about more so than whether there's a need for a bus stop. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a shelter,not a stop. Bus stops,they're somewhere I guarantee you. But they want to build a shelter where you could sit out of the rain,out of the sun. And they've put a few in the county,haven't they? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're all over the place. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We still need hundreds of them,actually,and they have to be ADA compliant. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'd defer to Karen on that particular point since you do sit on the MPO,so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think if they're willing to contribute--because it costs more than $10,000 for each bus shelter,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then I'll have--I have--I mean, I'll drop my objection to it. I think the record's clear,and maybe staff will get the hint that if it comes up again it's going to be twice as controversial. But this is a much better project than what was proposed there. And for it to go in and not have objections that are minor in nature attached to it, I would rather see it pass than object to it. And so for that reason I would go along with that elimination of that one. The other ones--there were nine of them that I've read off. There were 10. There were nine left. As long as nobody else has any concern on those-- I know Mr.Assaad had wanted some others. I guess it's up to the motion maker and the second to first state what stipulations they want,and then we will--to amend the motion to include those,and then we can take a vote on it. Eric? MR.JOHNSON: I'm sorry. I really hate to interrupt;really do. Just for clarification that we're going to strike out the word "trips"on Page 18 of 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We didn't go through--all the changes that we talked about,the presentation by the applicant of the yellow highlighting,all that was accepted except the stipulations--subject to the stipulations we're adding now. We're not saying go back to the original submittal and use that language. We're saying use the applicant's highlighted language,that was the intent;correction on the trips,because that wasn't highlighted;and then with the stipulations we've added here. So I don't think we--I think we weighed in on our concerns over their presentation as it went along today. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you,Mr.Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know Ms. Roman talked about eliminating Deviation 7 and 8. I just want Page 42 of 70 March 17, 2016 to make sure she was advocating leaving in the footnote that says we can have the tree overhang. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was read as one of the stipulations. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I know it was. I just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That was my intent,Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the two motion makers,the first and the second. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Like I said,I'm ambivalent on the tree issue. I don't care one way or the other. The bus stop,the shelter, if they're willing to give money,that's not a problem. But the sign issue,I've got no problem with that thing being 16 feet bigger. So I'll leave that in there. Does Wafaa have a counter--does-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. I feel very strongly about the sign issues because I don't see them related to the land use. I don't see them related to the zoning process. I don't see that they enhance the environment. I see them as bigger signs are evidence of sign pollution. And I have to assume that the county has some logic when they adopted the sign ordinances. So we should not be,at will,granting variances for something that's been studied,debated,approved. And if you take those signs away and the banners away and the length of the time they can have a banner up, it's not going to affect the viability of the project. The project will go ahead,they will comply like everybody else in those respects,and the meaningful variances for the right-of-way for this and that, it seems like we have an agreement on that. So that's my position. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll leave my motion up. If--you know, if they want to--I don't know how Wafaa's going to vote,but if somebody wants to accept his logic... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's up to Stan,the maker of the motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm going to leave the motion the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the motion,the way it was,was to recommend approval subject to stipulations. I'm trying to get the stipulations articulated so that nobody misses what we actually are doing. I read off 10 stipulations, one of which was deleted because--it was the one to do with the$10,000. Do you want those nine stipulations and/or Wafaa's stipulations that he read off? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The nine stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not Wafaa's changes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Stan,would you consider removing Deviation 7 and 8 from your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was part of it. That was the first stipulation. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Removing is part of it,okay. I wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And 4 is approved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Footnote 8 stays in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right,as amended and shown here today. So that's Stan's--Stan says yes for in favor with 1 through 9 stipulations. Karen,as the second,do you accept that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just to make it clear,are they going to donate$10,000? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, I think it's wrong, but I'm not--it's not worth saying no to this project. It's a good project. This is all minor stuff. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Mr. Chair,you said 1 through 9 stipulations,but 7 and 8 I thought were going to be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking deviations. Deviation 7 and 8 is included as Stipulation No. 1 of 1 through 9. Page 43 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So it will be removed, 7 and 8? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Got it. I'm clear now. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair,again. Sorry to interrupt. I really do apologize. I was trying to jot down all what you had mentioned,and I didn't get what you said before deleting the $10,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remove General Note 6 on that exhibit--that graphic page. MR.JOHNSON: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,we'll call for a motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-1. Thank you-all. It will --unfortunately you will not be on summary. ***Okay. That takes us to the next item on the agenda. Now, it's 10 minutes to 12. I don't necessarily care if I eat lunches or not, so it's not an issue with me. We've had three of our architects and staff here waiting patiently to get to the architectural element of our agenda today,which is 9D. We've heard it once. It's gone back to the Architectural Review Board. They've suggested some of them, some changes, some discussion,but it's on the last item on our active agenda. I don't know if you-all wanted to take an hour lunch before we heard this or just take a 15-minute break and then go right into this and finish it up. What's the feeling of the board? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd prefer a break,yeah,and finish it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Break,break? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's take another break, and we'll resume at 12:15 and jump into the architectural standards. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from the break. We're going to discuss the architectural standards that were left over from the last time we met,and I do appreciate the Architectural Review Board looking at this again and offering some of the compromises and solutions to the things that we had concerns over. And,Jeremy, I also appreciate the style in which you write up your tables and show things that demonstrate to us what's going on. It is a tremendous help,and so thank you for that. And all of the architects, I sure do thank you and your board. I had the opportunity to talk to them for a few moments at one of their meetings,and I do appreciate all the help they provided to us. So with that, let's move through the items. And I don't know how--how you want to approach it,Jeremy,but I'll let you take it one step at a time. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Well,we can go through these in any way that you'd like. We've--in this table all that we have shown is the items that were sent back to the committee,and they're kind of identified as--by each section whether the committee has suggested any additional changes or if they've proposed to keep the original proposal. So I don't know if you want me to walk through each section and explain what was going on or just talk about where it has been changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think where the committee agrees with us and our suggestions going Page 44 of 70 March 17, 2016 back to them,we probably don't need to beat those up. We've already established a position on those. So the ones where the committee either didn't agree with us or tried to find another angle or a solution, I think those are the ones we ought to talk about,which brings us to B.1, I would assume. And I did read the committee's comments,and they're the comments in the side on the right in the green, if I'm not mistaken. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. We've provided--for those sections that the committee did not make any additional changes,we did provide some additional justifications, some additional explanation for those sections, so we can go through that if you want. We have several committee members here that can answer questions as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll start the discussion just so we move things along and see where the others want to weigh in. But the committee's position,basically, instead of the language being added that nonresidential PUD districts and nonresidential components of any PUD be added as a blanket to suggest that only those that are along the perimeter of a PUD to comply, and what's internal doesn't have to comply and--because those are dictated generally by the developer in whatever standards they would want to utilize in their own project. That,to me, is a decent compromise if we can figure out how to define what"internal" is. And we did run into this initially years ago talking to Ave Maria about when they wanted to do their own architectural review which still,to me,would be a good idea. But at that point I thought we discussed a 300-foot distance from the property boundaries. And I think if we were to consider that in conjunction with what the committee suggested,we'd have--at least from my part, I think,that's a fair compromise. Three hundred feet is a little bit wider than the widest roadway. Roadways are generally 200 to 220. So 300 feet's a little bit more,which provides a setback even further. So if a project is within 300 feet of a PUD boundary and has no other separating features between itself and the PUD boundary that are non--that are--that block it from the--from that distance,maybe that's how we ought to approach this,and then the PUDs interior stay to themselves. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So I believe that the committee's intention was that the perimeter of the PUD would be captured in another section,and so I don't believe that they had intended an additional change to B.1,but that through the--through B.2,the perimeter buildings would be captured by the distance requirement there,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us-- MR. FRANTZ: Sure. It's on this same page. On Page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FRANTZ: In B.2--in B.2.A it identifies that the project sites that are located on an arterial or collector road are--would--I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong section,yeah. I'm sorry. It was not B.2.A. It's B.2.C. I apologize. And that's where it identifies that a building within 150 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's not-- MR. FRANTZ: Am I still looking at the wrong section? MS.CILEK: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: Sony. MS.CILEK: Actually,Jeremy, I think you were on target. Looking at B.2.A,this is a provision that deals with arterial and collector roadways,and so many projects would come into compliance with 5.05.08 based on their location,the perimeters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you're getting into more conditions of when it would apply when you bring in the arterial and collector roadway element. MS.CILEK: Correct. It's a different way of looking at it. In and of itself,B.1 is looking at zoning. And so your concept would just apply to,you know,the zoning of it. And then,you know, other sections following it would deal with the roadways and then in proximity to residential. So we can take a stab at looking at language to incorporate your proposal if that's the direction of the Planning Commission. Page 45 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what I'm trying to get down to is see what the Planning Commission would like to see. My concern is that if you can see a PUD by traveling a roadway and it's got a commercial component, it needs to have something other than a blank wall staring at us,and that's what the architectural standards do. What a developer does interior to his PUD to make it sellable and marketable, I'd more or less like to leave that up to them. It's not a matter of the county residence as much. Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. Also on this item,Caroline, it just--in my former notes on the original document-- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --I had circled the word"abutting," and I thought we had some discussion about clarifying that term. MS.CILEK: We worked with the committee and are proposing to use the existing language,which is highlighted in--and that's for B.2. That's what you're looking at? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,B.2.A. MS.CILEK: Okay, great. To use the existing language "located on"because as of now there are really no issues with how that is going through the review process. We thought we'd just stick with it. So they were fine with that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: The term is clear enough to be used. Okay. I had a note. MS.CILEK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: Mark,just to point it out,you know,we reviewed this. We really felt that the wording that you wanted to add was really covered in this B section. You know,there's, like,three or four different categories that would pick up anything that's on an arterial or a road,collector road. It would pick up anything adjacent on residential. So within a PUD, if somebody put a commercial project within 300 feet of a residential,they'd be caught by this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I--and I understand what you're saying,but can I see that connection? Maybe not here today, but could you matrix that connection of language so we know that it is caught? I mean--and I'd be fine. I just want to make sure if,you know,driving down looking out over a PUD that might have a commercial component,they at least do it where we can see it decently. MS.CILEK: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: And nor would anybody living in an adjacent project want to see a commercial building that isn't regulated. Also, look at the other thing. The green we added we did kind of break it down into two districts. There's--remember we had it 150 feet was our deadline. We put 150 to 300 feet,which got into using some buffering and treating just that facade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was going to ask you,when you put that range of 150 to 300,who decides which of that rank applies? I mean, how do you get there? Why would you put--how do you feel the range works? So why don't we just say 300 up to--within 300 feet? Wouldn't that cover the 150? MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I think we had examples of projects by some of the members of the committee who had left where they were doing requirements on gym buildings and stuff like that that were, you know,within 300 feet of the residential when--had they been able to just treat it with a buffer or something like that. It was so far away. One hundred fifty feet's pretty far. Three hundred feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What if it was 100 feet? A proposed project site located within 150 to 300. So what if you had a proposed project site at 100 feet? MR. SCHIFFER: Well,that hopefully gets caught in C below. MS. CILEK: If I may,that would fall under 2.A,which says the project site is located on an arterial or collector roadway. So basically that first--2.A includes those that are directly on or up to 150,and then Page 46 of 70 March 17, 2016 past that, 150 to 300-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you determine directly on is up to 150? Where did you get that? MS. CILEK: Well,the second--2.A little i modifies 2.A,right, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. I mean,that's what I'm trying to understand. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to understand. MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if 2.A means up to 150 feet and 2.1 takes it from 150 to 300, is that what you're saying? MS.CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just say that takes it up to 300 feet and then eliminate all that language? MS. CILEK: Because the committee wanted kind of a two-tier approach,and those buildings that are located within 150 to 300 were going to have--and I'll read it directly,have the compliance limited to the building facades facing the arterial and collector roadway, so there is going to be limited application of the 5.05.08 on these,okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it goes past 150 feet, instead of doing all three or four sides,you'd just need to do the front side? That's where you're getting at? MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why wouldn't we say on A, if project site is located within 150 feet of an arterial or collector road and is located in an industrial zoning district,then put"i"after that,then you know within 300 feet it's covered either by up to 100 feet by everything or if you're 150 to 300,then you get a break. MS. CILEK: Fine. MR. SCHIFFER: I agree. You're right. I mean,the Boolean logic,there was a gap there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: You can do 0 to 150. Or your property line--you could have a property that's not exactly located--let's say it's 25 feet off the arterial road. You could argue it doesn't apply to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why I'm-- MR. SCHIFFER: That's--I think that's perfect. MS. CILEK: That's just fine. We can make that change. MR. SCHIFFER: And that's how we handled it below with the residential distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then my comments here just needs explanation. What do you mean by what you just said? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Mr. Chair, can you please--on that last item that you discussed--I think I'm in the right spot,but could you please tell me where that would be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. On the left side it's in the white--it says B.2,A-B. And then way over on the right side under No.2.A,2.A would then have a value put on it up to 300 feet,and then 300 feet is further split by the base,which is 0 to 150 because little "i"addresses 150 to 300. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I'm with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that gets us to where the committee wanted to go,but it just makes it clear that missing piece in the--of a less than 150,right? MR. SCHIFFER: Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if I didn't catch it,you guys would when you submitted something. Then we'd say,how could you do this? MR. SCHIFFER: It wasn't done on purpose,I guarantee you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wouldn't--okay.Now,you said something about residential is caught below, and that is by B.2.C. And so is that saying that B.2.0 in the middle column,the Planning Commission's suggestion,which is the proposed building's footprint would be located within 300 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district,that stays,or are you saying,no, it doesn't stay? It turns to what? MR. SCHIFFER: Are you asking does-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bottom line. Page 47 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR. SCHIFFER: --C stay? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you look at the bottom B.2.C,and then we've got to little"b" in the middle. Our proposal was the footprint would be located--it applies if the footprint's located within 300 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district. You guys had previously proposed dropping it to 150. We come back, said,no,we want 300,then over on the right side on the table,highlighted in green,you have two new letters,a C and a D. So I'm trying to figure out how all that fits together. MS. CILEK: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: This is actually the same concept that we were just talking about above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: So looking at C-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,above was--the numbers were more consistent. MS.CILEK: Which was 2.A.i. We're looking at C.2--B.2.C,the one that's not highlighted in green,where the proposed building footprint would be located within 150 feet of the residentially zoned district,okay. And then the second tier would be after that. One hundred fifty to 300 there would be limited applicability of that building. And I will relay that it's limited in what section would apply,and then also it would be limited to the building facade facing that residential zoning district. So the same concept being applied at the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there you caught what Brad described-- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as the boolean whatever. MR. SCHIFFER: Logic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boolean logic,yes. Okay. Fine. I think that--I think that whole page works. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I just have a quick--and,Mark,I might just be off. In B.2 it says,the project site abutting an arterial or collector road and located in a nonindustrial district. This shall include project sites separated from the arterial or collector road of up to 150 feet of right-of-way and easements. What was the man cave? That was none? Was that set back over 150 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a--that was a PUD,first of all,and it was across the street from-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --industrial,and Livingston Road is probably 200 feet wide. Generally,our main corridors of that size are about 200 feet,but without looking at a map, I wouldn't know for sure. MS.CILEK: But,Chairman, I would like to make note that we are looking under the far right column, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, I know-- MS.CILEK: Okay, cool. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --where we're looking under. Where the word "shall"here in--and you're right,the county has to come back and clarify some of the things on the other thing,too. But I was just trying to cover it. MS. CILEK: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under B.2,A-B,you're referring to in the "however" section a proposed site,but then in this one we're looking at now, B.2.C,you're looking at a footprint,so do you want to make that distinction where one is a site which would be a property line versus a building footprint, or do you want to stick with the same term for both? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They both should be the building, I would assume. That's what we're--that's what you guys are doing the architecture on. MS. CILEK: For that one, if I may,we were using the existing application. So the existing language in the middle column will relay that,that B.2.A was dealing--B.2, more or less,was dealing with the project Page 48 of 70 March 17, 2016 site,and B.2.0 was dealing with the proposed building footprint. So it wasn't our intent to change the original concept of 5.05.08. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But you have because you changed it with a distance. So before just the site had to be on the roadway. Now you're saying the site is 150 feet. MS.CILEK: I recognize the distance has changed,absolutely. But the impact could be changed if we make them both the same. Just wanted to put that out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind leaving them the way they're written. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Leave them the way they are? Okay. And then the second one being the B.2.0 is 300 feet for the first one and then it will read "however,"just like the top one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would--I mean,yeah,that would work. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know why you'd do it-- MS.CILEK: That would be just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that would work-- MS.CILEK: We will make that change,absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the same way as the first one reads,yeah. Now,Caroline, I'm assuming you're taking clear enough notes that you'll be able to make these corrections after the panel votes-- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --at the end? MS. CILEK: We are both taking notes,and we also have staff back in the office taking notes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Are we done with Page 1? Everybody satisfied on Page 1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If so,then we can move to Page 2. And I think--and,Jeremy, I'll just let-- I don't mean to keep leading your discussion,but go right ahead. MR.FRANTZ: Well,sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get through it quickly because I know we've got a lot to go through. MR. FRANTZ: So for B.3 we're looking at alterations to existing buildings. You had recommended that they retain the existing language but to allow for interior renovations to not count towards the applicability. And so the section that's in the far right-hand column shows all new language,but it's just been kind of rewritten and it's essentially the same as what's in that center--center column. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't see a problem. If anybody sees an issue,just make a note and speak out,please. Otherwise,we'll just keep moving on. B.3.A? MR. FRANTZ: So in B.3.A,again,they've made a change,and actually it might help to start thinking about B.3 in general,because they've made a couple of changes that might affect a couple of different provisions. So in B.3.A,previously that is where the exemption for alterations greater than 4,000 square feet came into play,and that has been removed.And so B.3.A now really just sets up the rest of this section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And now facade improvements would apply when more than 75 percent of the facade area has changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see a problem with that. Still,we're going on an opportunity if they do 100 percent renovation,then they're still going to come in and do it right. MR. FRANTZ: And then the next section which currently applies when the redevelopment exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value or 25 percent of the square footage of the gross area,that's primarily the same;however,the 50 percent of the assessed value has been removed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That middle column wording doesn't sound right from redevelop-- MR. FRANTZ: Right. It's been--sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Redevelopment exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of Page 49 of 70 March 17, 2016 the existing structures or would exceed increased percent of the square footage. MR. FRANTZ: Oh,okay. So... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Am I reading that wrong? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We had just made a note that when the Planning Commission met last time,a specific number wasn't suggested,but it was suggested that maybe the committee could look at increasing that number. So we were just pointing that out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because the one on the right column sounds okay. MR.FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The one in the middle doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. I agree with Stan. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is that what we're looking to adopt is the ad hoc committee consensus? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After we discuss it,yeah. Right at this point we're saying-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,but that's why we're focusing on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The right-hand side is what we're considering as adoption language in preference to what we sent back to them, so--so I don't think Page 2 has an issue,then,there, so we'll move on to Page 3. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me--before we move on,I'd like to make a pitch on double "i"at the bottom. And what it is is if we're doing a project where we're adding more than 50 percent of the square footage, I still would like us not to have that,mainly because I'm concerned about the value of existing building and vested rights of existing buildings. The way we have it now is you can't make an existing building nonconforming,but the problem is--and especially in redevelopment. Mark,you even cited the Legal Aid. To make people fix up the facade on an existing building, I mean,first of all you're assuming the facade doesn't look good even though it may even be noncompliant. And so I think that the requirement to have to do that with double "i"really hurts the value of existing buildings. MS.CILEK: If I may? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That building looks really nice now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I was just going to say. But they wouldn't have fallen into the ability to make those improvements had this language not been in there. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's why the language is important to have there, contrary to your statement,though,Brad. I think you disagree with us is what I'm thinking. MR. SCHIFFER: Well,yeah. I mean,we could have a perfectly fine building that doesn't meet some of the requirements of this,and then because they're putting in a big addition, I have to go back and remodel that existing building. Now, it's easy to understand in a blighted building that that's a good idea,but not all buildings are blighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,see,this is only when it affects 50 percent of the square footage. In the case of the Rex building, it didn't change the square footage at all. It's still the same. MS.CILEK: If I may,I believe the Rex building would have been considered nonconforming, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,because of the standards we have for size of square footage that we're changing in the LDC. It was a 12,000-square-foot building,and it was a single use. We can't do that in a C3 anymore. We currently--this was before that time,and now we're reconsidering that as a maximum in looking to undo those,but-- MS. CILEK: If I may,the way that we've set this up is that nonconforming buildings would fall under little three,okay. Conforming buildings that are seeking to modify their exteriors would fall under little two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim,you're not giving up already, are you? Page 50 of 70 March 17, 2016 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I've got a meeting I've got to get to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sorry. I saw him leaving. He was one of the three architects that remained for this part of the day, so... MS.CILEK: Conforming buildings would fall under little 2.1,and furthermore,this is the only provision that would help and bring site design standards up to conformity as well for conforming. Nonconforming buildings would simply fall under three,iii. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And these are all "or,"right? You might want to put an"or" in there,or meets one of the following? MS.CILEK: Yeah. We can look into that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. And you've got one,two,and three. MR. SCHIFFER: The concern,though, is that--and,you know,when the economy went out,there was a little task force put together how to deal with vacant buildings. One of the big problems is if you touch it, it becomes a problem of doing the site plan. So what this is saying is if I go into a vacant building and renovate 50 percent of it,I've got to bring up the site,everything,to code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do unless you can justify that the site was created under a--under a previous code,and a change in time to the codes have caused you the problem. Then with a site plan deviations application,which would require some mitigation for the changes you want to make--and they may not be too strenuous--that's how you'd be able to still retain the site changes at the site as you had it. MR. SCHIFFER: And that would depend on--you know,that's not something that could be guaranteed while you're designing. You would have to go through a process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. You've got to go through a county review process to get there. MR. SCHIFFER: And the impression I get that that's typically successful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. But wouldn't it be better for us to clean--you know,make--outline it here so that people can--if the building was built before the code,which we know it had to be to be here,what's wrong with just leaving it the way it is so long as you don't make it a worse situation? Just-- MS. CILEK: And that would apply to the nonconforming buildings. It would be the conforming buildings that are doing something to their exteriors or to the site and then are not also doing a facade change, because they would fall under"i." MR. SCHIFFER: I get--you know,the triple"i" is a good one. The double"i" is,the building could being--I mean,how--would it be conforming? I mean, if it's conforming--well,I guess maybe there wouldn't be a problem. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If it's a conforming building,that means it meets all of our current standards;therefore, it's not nonconforming. It's not nonconforming,so therefore it is conforming. MS. CILEK: They're just changing the exterior for a new use,you know. They're just making modifications to it. MR. SCHIFFER: Maybe it's not a big deal. We'll see. We can-- if we bump into that problem,we'll put it on the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to number--page 3. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So on Page 3 the first row is just indicating that the committee--you had briefly spoken about the need for an infill and redevelopment code,and the committee also supported making that recommendation to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: The next row for B.4,A through C,this was a staff proposed change to clarify for B. Committee has just accepted that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.FRANTZ: And the next section is the exemptions section,and the change here is that they've removed the exemption for 4,000-square-foot buildings,and they have replaced it with some changes to the facade standards in other sections of the code. And so in that tan or peach box is where those change have been made. First, in D.2.B,the primary Page 51 of 70 March 17, 2016 facade features. For buildings that are 5,000--less than 5,000 square feet,only one of the design features is required. CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,we're talking, I mean,how buildings about the size of houses are rather small buildings at that point,yeah. MR. FRANTZ: And we have the list of those design features so that,you know,you can see what they'll be able to choose from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would take us to the highlighting on the bottom of Page 4. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Regarding these 4,000-square-foot buildings,what's required now? How many design features? MR. FRANTZ: Currently,any building would be required to meet--it's two of the following design features. MS. CILEK: Yeah. It's right there on the page for you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Well, I'm looking at my photos,because I remember this discussion from our last review of the architectural design standards,and you showed the buildings before 2004 and then those afterwards,and there was a significant difference. And I thought that we didn't want to see those watered down. So with that in mind,with one architectural feature,you think that we'll still maintain the standards? MS. CILEK: That is what the committee's proposing,and it's--Jeremy,you want to speak to the two areas where the changes are occurring just as a recap? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So we had only gone through one section. There's also a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Charlene was asking a--you didn't get your question answered, did you? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think he's about to answer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought he was going on to a new section. I'm sorry,Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Well, I'm going on to a new section,but it's all related to this change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: So they also made changes to D.3,which isn't actually reproduced here but is in a later section of this table,and that's related to variation in massing. We can come to that later if you'd like. The next section that they made changes are to the design treatments for all facades,not just primary facades. And,there again,they've reduced the number of options that they are required to choose from, from four to two. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Jeremy,what I'm referring to where we had a discussion--and I'm looking at my notes from the previous meeting--and we were talking about fast-food restaurants and those that have corporate logos and those types of things,and I remember the discussion of the Board that buildings with less than 4,000 square feet are important,too,and that they should meet our architectural design standards. Maybe there's certain ones that have--I'm looking at my notes from last time. There's certain design standards that maybe don't apply but,as a whole,to throw them out, I didn't get the impression that this board was in favor of that. MR. FRANTZ: Right. And so that's where the committee has--rather than just removing the standards for small buildings,they've just reduced the number of standards they're required to meet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From two to one? MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means any sized building previously had to have at least two. That could go from a small building to a big building. And now they're saying,okay,the building's smaller than, what is it, 5,000 square feet,only need one,and then two apply to everything else. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And were there some that were removed for small buildings? And what was removed, if I might ask? MR. FRANTZ: From these list of options,nothing was removed. Page 52 of 70 March 17, 2016 MS.CILEK: But from the application of 5.05.08,yes. So we're going to walk through the changes to D.3 as another area that they removed requirements,and there are a couple other sections where they removed the requirements for buildings under 5,000,yes,and we'll get through all those. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We'll highlight those when we get to those. MS. CILEK: Yes. And I believe we also have a table that will show you that at the end,and you can see where--what does and does not apply to those buildings. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets us down to Page 6,and Page 6--and correct me if I'm wrong,Jeremy,but I think we've--those other--all those other pages apply to the standards of the one or two facade elements. MR. FRANTZ: I'm sorry. I didn't follow you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 4 and 5 are a follow-up to Page 3 we just discussed. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're down to Page 6. And,basically,this is the transition in the massing element which the committee didn't agree to. MR. FRANTZ: Correct,and they've provided some additional explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so you wouldn't have to blend in with the surrounding buildings based on the massing issue is what you're trying to say? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, it would be required-- I mean--I'll let Rocco speak. MR.COSTA: For the record,Rocco Costa.Correct,we still believe that transitional elements between--a new building proposed to an existing building,we don't believe that those transition elements should be brought into the new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me figure out how this would apply. If you had a PUD in an area that had--say,a commercial PUD,and you were in an area where there's commercial surrounding you, whether they be PUDs or straight zoning,does the new PUD have to coincide with the transitioning elements and that around it,or is it just when you apply a building in straight zoning districts? Because there's a big difference. And the reason that I'm asking this is because there are proposals for some new PUDs to change the massing elements dramatically from the areas surrounding them. And I didn't know if that was--if the PUDs were applicable to this,or was it strictly if you bought a lot in a straight zoning district, say,a C3 or C4 along a major highway like U.S.41 and you wanted to build a--because C4, I think,can go up to 50 feet or 75 feet,and C3 might be less. You would be required to retain a massing element compared to those around you because they're straight zoned? Or how do you apply it to a PUD? MR. COSTA: It would be terminated completely from the requirement is based on--my understanding is it's--as long as you have the applicability, if you're meeting those requirements,this section would just disappear. So those transitional elements between two projects or two buildings would not necessarily need to comply. You wouldn't have those transitional banding elements or reference another building for your building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the PUD would basically stand on its own. We couldn't regulate the commercial within a PUD if it's allowed to go to a higher height,but we'd have to have some of the massing elements for transitioning to the properties around it? Mike,did you-- MR. BOSI: In terms of clarification,unless the PUD specifically exempted structures from meeting the architectural code requirements of the LDC, if the building proposed was on the edge of the PUD and the building that was next to it on the other parcel was a much smaller building than what was being proposed, the architectural code would still recognize that and impose the architectural standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, see,transitioning-- let's say you can't be 100 percent taller than the average height of the adjacent buildings,but if you've got a PUD that has a height limit of,say,200 feet, and then the nearest building around you--but the PUD approved. The nearest building around you on other projects outside your PUD is at 40 feet. The highest you could go,theoretically,then is 80 feet,but your PUD was approved for 200. So would the PUD still prevail? Page 53 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR. BOSI: There would be--there would be a conflict between what the architectural code would require and what the PUD--and then I'm--I would have to--probably have to do some research with the county's attorney's office to see what would be the controlling document. But if the architectural code provision limits the height of the individual building but the PUD expresses a height of something greater than that, it most certainly would be an area where--there's not a clear understanding,at least from my perspective,as what would be the controlling. I think that would be something that we would hopefully have anticipated as part of the PUD rezone when we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For compatibility. MR. BOSI: --were looking at that compatibility context. One of the--that PUD--that PUD process of rezoning,we would just recognize that this is a 200-foot limitation of height being proposed by this PUD,and it's sitting next to a building that's--an environment that only has buildings of such height. That most certainly would be part of the discussion in the PUD approval process as to how that would work out. But strictly from your hypothetical standpoint, if that PUD was approved at 200 feet but the architectural code had a requirement, I would think the architectural code requirement of the adopted LDC would be the prevailing document,but maybe the County Attorney's Office would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't want to get into it that far. I was just trying to understand how this fit. We don't need to--we don't need to jump into all that. MR. FRANTZ: I just want to make sure that it's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And what I'm--pardon me? MR. FRANTZ: I just want to make sure it's clear. This section is not limiting the height of the building itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I understand. I was just trying to figure out how the elements would apply based on the height variables because there are limitations to 100 percent taller than the average height of the adjacent buildings,and you have certain design standards kicking in and things like that. So would they apply within a PUD if it was allowed to go a higher height? It was a theoretical question that we don't need to waste any time on. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I wasn't sure that was clear. I just wanted to make sure it was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So the committee says you don't want any transmission--transitioning elements,and the Planning Commission previously said we do. Okay. And we're at a disagreement on that one,or at least we were. I don't know where the current mindset of the Board is. So on old C3,that's suggested by the committee to be removed,and we previously had suggested to take a second look at it. They came back and said,no,remove it. What does this committee want to do with it? It's on Page 8. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,as I said in the previous review of these standards, I think massing's an important component. I've seen too many communities that didn't address this that are well out of proportion,especially when you're transitioning like our community is with old traditional buildings here and the new structures that are coming in. So unless I can understand,maybe with some photos or better from the committee on why you wouldn't address massing, I tend to say that we need to have it stay there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would tend to agree. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyone else? MR.COSTA: Just to clarify,the massing of a building is always being looked at when you're designing it. This,more or less, is about transitional elements and how you transition from an existing building to a new building. A lot of the buildings in town don't really relate to each other. Each building is designed as a stand-alone and should be designed in its context. And those elements that transition from one building to the other may not necessarily or should transition to those buildings that are being designed. Page 54 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But our buildings in town,pretty much,follow this code that's currently written,and--I would think. Maybe there's exceptions and maybe we're not following the code. I don't know. But if I take the code at face value and we are following the code,maybe that's why the transitions look so good,when you have new structures against--adjacent to older structures. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me just try,because this is a trick in the architects'bag of tricks. Not necessarily a cheap trick,but a trick. And,essentially,what it's trying to do is--a way to make two things look good side by side is to pick up some component of the one next to it. Case in point, Fifth Third Bank. The Walgreens came first. The Walgreens had a height of about 30 feet or so, so when that building was designed, it cantilevered out and has that glass area at 30 feet, and that was the carryover,the transition. You would never know it if I haven't told you,I mean,because it's not something that jumps out at you. But in balancing, maybe that made sense,maybe it didn't. I think all of us feel,again,it's a trick. Is it necessary? And to interpret it, it must be difficult for staff because I can do anything I want,like the Fifth Third Bank,and claim that's a transitional component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you didn't have to do that trick,what could you have done? MR. SCHIFFER: It was going to happen anyway.To be honest with you,the explanation of why it's there came second to,oh,we need something that shows transitioning. So,oh,that's why the gap is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know-- MR. SCHIFFER: It's not a big thing in the design. And also cities,you know,they kind of leapfrog. You know,you work with the building next to you. I mean, look at what this is saying is I can be--take that 100-foot building. I can be 100 percent higher,60 feet;that fits the 30 feet, so I could put something,you know,almost to the top of the Fifth Third Bank and say that's my transition to the little building. It's not a clever trick,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it does break up the massing of the newer building. MR. SCHIFFER: We'd break it up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be a little bit--it might be a trick,but it does seem--what little bit it is may not be that harmful and is better than nothing. MR. SCHIFFER: Well,you know, I think they could give examples of what they're reviewing now of what that treatment is. The massing of the building's being covered in other areas,wall planes and things like that. But Matt--Matt may have some good examples of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,wait a minute. You're going to ask an engineer for an architectural detail? This ought to be interesting. MR. SCHIFFER: You don't have an architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You ever see an engineer design a lake? MR. SCHIFFER: Rectangle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Hi,Matt. MR. SCHIFFER: Square corners. MR. McLEAN: Thanks for the introduction,Mark. Matt McLean,for the record. I just want to indicate that this section of the code rarely does come up; however,it will continue to come up as we're doing infill developments. When you're looking at buildings that are existing,they're typically smaller than ones that are coming in adjacent to it. There hasn't been a major issue with those respective developments on meeting that section of code, but it does not happen very often. The other areas of the massing elements in this section of code do cover a lot of that massing area. This is just specific to the ones that are adjacent on infill. We've only had a couple of projects in the last three years where this has come up,and they've been able to meet that section of code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe it's not hurting it as much,and I--as a safety edge--see,and you-all agreed that we should be looking at a redevelopment and infill code that applies to the special instances and where this will be the most pliable. I would think that if we're leaving this in place, it really doesn't hurt anything. And when we get into this infill and redevelopment code and we address this issue,then it all comes out,and it only applies to those Page 55 of 70 March 17, 2016 infill and redevelopment parcels that would fall under a code that would hopefully be better written than what we've got here today. That might be an alternative to consider. MR. SCHIFFER: I don't think we'd have any trouble steering around it, so--we're making a bigger deal than we have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I think the consensus of the Board is leave the massing element in. It's not--does that--anybody object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go on to Page 7. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. This first section is that--one of those sections that Caroline mentioned that is reduce--eliminating a standard for the smaller buildings. Currently there's a breakdown of projection and recesses standards for different size buildings. And so where previously they had--the committee had recommended removing several of these sections all the way up to 20,000 square feet, it is now just removing the standard for buildings that are 5,000 square feet--less than 5,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means they'd still have to have a primary facade if it was facing the street,right? MR. FRANTZ: Right. This is just for the--if you see the individual sections, it identifies the depth of individual projections and recesses and the linear feet that those projections and recesses have to occur within. So it's not changing any of the facade applicability, if that's what you're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the concern that we probably have,or at least I have,maybe the rest of us, is the blank wall buildings where nothing now is required,recesses,facades,nothing. So how plain can a building be if this is taken out for the 5,000 and less buildings? If you have a 5,000-square-foot building,which is 10 feet by 500 feet long, 10 feet deep--so for that 500 feet you wouldn't need anything. It would be just one straight solid wall except for a trellis in one location. I mean, is that what we're saying? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I was just thinking at one time I was in Arizona looking at a piece of property whose entrance was across from a storage facility, but it was the old type. And,sure enough, it was a 10-foot-deep building, 500 feet long,and that was going to be the project's main entrance. It wasn't really a good place to sell high-end homes from. And I'm just wondering,could we get into a scenario where we've eliminated everything for the small buildings down to a point where we have outrageous circumstances like a man-cave project that didn't have articulation,the man-cave project that came before us. Some of those buildings were over 200 feet long and, basically,they were shallow. They were what,20 feet, 15 feet deep,maybe a little deeper. So how much articulation would there be in all different ways? Whether it's facades,transition massing elements,or elements for projections and recesses? If it's 5,000 square feet, it doesn't address the lineal footage to go with it? Brad? And I know you were big on lineal distances when you were sitting on this board. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I'm a big--this section of the code is a very important section. If it was 500 feet long--first of all, I can point out some fire code issues that you would never get that building. But if it was 500 feet long,you would have a 4-foot break somewhere such that it's not any greater than 50 percent. So you wouldn't--what are you getting anyway if you're designing that building? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How plain could the building be,though,Brad? I mean,that's, I think,the concern. We've got a real nice style in Collier County,and it would be nice not to lose that completely for the benefit of these changes. MR. SCHIFFER: And the intent of this code--you know, it's a menu code,so we start out with the big building. There's a block that's the building. And this section of the code is making sure that that building isn't a blank wall,that there is projections,and the bigger the building,the deeper they get,and the percentage is set up--I think it's 60 percent that can't be--there's illustrations. And then the rest of the menu is us sticking stuff,essentially,to articulate the building. So to keep what's going on with Collier--first of all,you and I have talked. I think the landscape ordinance is a huge part of why Collier looks good. And then the building--you know,and there is a Page 56 of 70 March 17, 2016 difference between since we've had it and since we haven't. You just drive to Lee County and you can see when the code's left behind. So,you know,this part of it is just breaking up. You know,a 5,000-square-foot building is not going to be 10 by 500. It's going to be 100 by,what, 50. So,you know,putting a 2-foot notch in it,a 3-foot notch isn't going to help a small building. And there will be entranceways and canopies and all this stuff attached to it that would be much more important. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But I understood that one of the recommendations from the previous section was for this size building,they could select one design feature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a facade feature. MR. SCHIFFER: No,but you're right. I mean,to--and that was the approach we took is to,you know,not eliminate the smaller buildings,just make it easier,let's say,for elements on the small building. You're right. Would two look better on the building than one? You know,how could I say no. But maybe one good one would be better than somebody just guessing for two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the fear I have is,you know, I think--I've known you for a while now, and I have great respect for the way you approach things,and especially in Collier County, and your diligence in the manner in which you do it. Unfortunately--and I know from some I've seen in front of this Planning Commission over the years,not all architects are nearly as conscientious as you or the people that sat on your committee are. And I think those are the ones we worry about,not the--not what you would do,but what some outrageous people might do. And I'm trying to make sure we don't give them an avenue to do what they might want to do if they had no restrictions. MR. SCHIFFER: And there's no question that this is establishing a minimum standard that is used by people designing buildings,maybe not even architects at the time, so this is an important document for what is going to be in a building. And even as architects,when we're putting things on buildings and owners want to value engineer it off,we can take advantage of this code to prove that we need something like that. So we take advantage of it also. It's not something that works against us. It gives us the ability to get things we want. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: More challenging? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I agree with you,Mr. Chair. I agree with you in your last comments about it's not for the professionals that are making these recommendation to us. It's for everybody. And we've got to look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So if you had a cluster of small office buildings,they'd be even more boxy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you had a cluster of small office buildings and you kept them below 5,000 square feet,you could put a bunch of small boxes with a front door,no awning,no decorative features,maybe a window as--if one was needed or required,but a facade treatment of some kind,and that's--and it could be as simple as a trellis with a plant on it,and that would be your building. You could do that, I would think,under-- MR. SCHIFFER: You know, but maybe a recessed entrance with a canopy would have been a better choice on the menu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But they're not forced to do that,though,right? They could pick the least expensive choice,which is the unfortunate part about it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So more boxy. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. MR. SCHIFFER: We--you know. Even in--yeah. You could still make a box if you really wanted a box. And,you know,one of the things that makes Collier good,too, is the people appreciate the buildings. They spend money on the buildings. The clients that we work with don't say give us an,you Page 57 of 70 March 17, 2016 know,architectural minimum. We design a building,and it has a lot of components,and these components help us,you know,pass this--the requirements here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,consensus on the Board? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad,do-- in Collier County,do--all architects are supposed to be licensed? Is there-- MR. SCHIFFER: You cannot in any state,but you cannot in Florida,hold yourself out to be an architect which is use the word "architect"unless you are a licensed registered architect. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But does our county have a special license that you have to have, I guess, is what I meant. MR. SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it is not. It's statewide? MR. SCHIFFER: It's a state license. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does the code require that any building built in Collier County have an architect? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. MR. SCHIFFER: The building code--this code requires that an architect provide the documents for compliance which essentially gives the impression that he did it. The building code,there are exemptions where you don't need an architect or an engineer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Single-family residential? MR. SCHIFFER: Single-family,yeah,there's some-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But commercial and industrial? MR. SCHIFFER: Commercial is definitely covered by design professionals. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You could have an engineer. You could have a civil engineer or structural engineer stamp your drawings,and you will get your permit,but you don't need an architect. MR. SCHIFFER: The state had a task force which had architects,engineers-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Which is--which is a bad deal. MR. SCHIFFER: --and building officials that produced the guidelines-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Doesn't allow-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can only talk one at a time so that she can record it. So when Brad finishes--or you finish,and Brad can talk. One of you. Take turns. MR. SCHIFFER: And your point's correct,is that--but the state did have a group to get together, the AIA,the architects,the Engineering Society,and BOAF,to come up with a guideline as to where you need architects and where you don't. It's not a crystal clear thing. The practice act for an architect says I can't do engineering unless it's incidental to my design.An engineer has the same wording, and actually he has the word "purely" incidental to his design. So he, theoretically, shouldn't be designing the architectural standards. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: In many instances people hire designers,architectural designers,who are not engineers or architects,or they could be architects where they didn't pass the licensing exam,and they are practicing,but they cannot sign. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's what I was asking. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you need a seal-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --to submit to the county? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look what's on your screen. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So they design--I could hire an architectural designer who is not--he doesn't have an architectural degree,and then after I finish the design I can--he will find somebody to stamp it for him. They seal it, stamp it,and they get the permit. MR. SCHIFFER: That's not based-- Page 58 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it must be signed and sealed by a licensed architect who is responsible to prepare the drawings and is registered in the state of Florida. So that--yes,you've got to have an architect. That gets to your question. MR. SCHIFFER: I think the thing we should take away from this conversation,and it doesn't have much to-- is that these standards are going to be the minimal standards on a lot of buildings.A lot of people are not going to add more. They're going to sit down--many a developer might sit down with his design team and say--you know, go through the standards. They check off what they want,what they don't want, they put together a kit, and they give us the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just made the argument as to why we should insist we leave the language in D.3.A alone and not reduce it for less than 5,000-square-foot buildings. MR. SCHIFFER: And I think that anything you--you know,you make a decision like that is not going to hurt the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,because what you're describing as the typical building that would outcome from a professional is going to be met by leaving the language there. So what's to hurt? MR. SCHIFFER: It's not going to be some designer saying,oh,where's my 2-foot indent. He's going to have multiple indents in his design and easily qualifies for that. But,anyway,that's--again,we can steer around it easily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think the consensus from this group is that we would go with a CCPC recommendation still on that one. Then the D.8.C,the Planning Commission requested to review other sections providing this interconnection. The committee proposed no change but said the committee stated that this provision is a good practice but should be addressed in a different LDC section. So the question is still the same. Where in the LDC is this addressed to the manner in which it's required here? MS. CILEK: Would you like feedback on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a great way to respond to it. MS.CILEK: When we were working with the committee,they relayed that they felt this section should be simply elsewhere in the LDC. It is, in and of itself,not elsewhere because of the pedestrian interconnection. That part is not elsewhere. The vehicle interconnection is. So when we worked with the committee,we proposed providing for the pedestrian interconnection, but the committee provided these three bullet points as their justification for not including it;however,they did leave it open to putting it elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I would think that we'd leave it in this section until you bring a change to the LDC adding it to one and striking it from another;otherwise,we have a hole in our code in regards to that interconnection. So why don't we just approach it that way? I mean,I don't care where it goes in the code-- MS.CILEK: I'll let Brad respond first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but the interconnection ought to stay there. MS.CILEK: I'll let Brad respond first. MR. SCHIFFER: We're talking about sidewalks from,hopefully,a public sidewalk to the building. We obviously have to have it with ADA requirements,but it could be as minimal as one. From every sidewalk,you have to get to your building with a wheelchair-accessible route. What this was requiring--and there were engineers on the board that really were the ones mostly concerned with this, is that by putting a requirement that you have a driveway at the edge of all the road accesses to the site,they couldn't figure out why that made sense. Some of us might feel that's a dangerous place to put the walkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said a driveway. You mean a walkway. MR. SCHIFFER: Walkway. I'm sorry. Sidewalk,yeah. But I did say it's next to the driveway. MS. CILEK: Brad, I believe that's actually a subsequent section that you're speaking to. This one is simply about interconnection within a PUD for vehicles and pedestrians. MR. SCHIFFER: Is this E.8.C? MS.CILEK: Yes. That's the next,you know-- Page 59 of 70 March 17, 2016 MR. SCHIFFER: I'll be back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: I will relay that if it is introduced elsewhere in the LDC,then it will be applicable to all projects,not just those that are under 5.05.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or wherever you introduce it you write it so it's only applicable to the projects that fall under 5.05.08,or however you want to word it. But if they've already said--the committee stated this provision is a good practice. Fine, let's leave it there until we put it somewhere else in the code if that's the way the committee feels. And if it can't go anywhere else in the code,they've already acknowledged it's the right thing to do. MS. CILEK: We will move forward with retaining it from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Page 8. Terri,are you doing okay with your timing? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: So Page 8 begins with--well,the first row is the carryover from the last page. D.9.B is related to roof edges,and here the standard has changed to--or sorry. The standard was not changed from the previous proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the previous proposal was for buildings larger than 5,000 square feet with a floor area that is larger than 10,000 square feet. For buildings larger than 5,000 square feet in gross building area,a minimum of two roof edge parapet changes are made. Okay. And this is at--I think we've seen the--we have a parapet on a canopy, let's say,for a 20-pump gas station. Right--with this change,you wouldn't have to have a change in transition on that entire canopy. It could be a straight edge. Is that what we're seeing? MR.FRANTZ: If the--if the square foot of the-- if the floor area meets that square foot criteria then,yeah,they would not be required to provide the minimum of two roof edge or parapet line changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what they're saying is increase the square footage so it's up to a larger building size before that kicks in. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Previously the wall--the other treatments were--one was less than 4,000 for facades and less than 5,000 for massing and transitioning elements. Now we're going to go to 10,000 for roof edge and roof parapet treatments. Why the change in square footage from 5,000 to 10,000? If 5,000 was good for some of the other architectural features,why wouldn't it be good for this one? MR. FRANTZ: Well,they did provide some additional justification,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,yeah. It adds cost to a project. Well,so does tile. So does trusses. So does electrical. I mean,that's not a justification. Everything adds cost. MR.COSTA: It had more to do with the number of roof changes on that building. You start adding too many roof changes for a small building, it becomes a conflict. You're trying to force something that doesn't need to have a roof change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you consider-- MR.COSTA: Or more than two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --a roof change just a vertical change,or could it be a horizontal change? MR.COSTA: Well, in the past it's been a vertical change. So if you had a parapet that came up and you had a secondary parapet,that would be one roof change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,what if you had a flat roof, like a canopy to a pump station and you made a notch into it and brought it back out again and continued on,would that be considered a roof edge or parapet treatment change? It would be a roof edge change,wouldn't it? MR.COSTA: It would have to--there was the height requirement of two feet,I think it was, for--there was a height requirement to create a roof change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.COSTA: So if a gas station-- in most cases you have a one plane element. Page 60 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.COSTA: And if it exceeds--if it exceeds that 10,000 square feet,then you would have to have two elements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And previously if it exceeded 5,000 square feet it needed two; is that what the-- MR. COSTA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would only be on the primary facade. So if you've got something that falls under the conditions you've previously recommended where we've only got one facade that we're having to treat because of its location, so that one facade would have to have the roof changes whether--and previously at 5,000 square feet,now it's proposed at 10-. And part of this is a vertical requirement for a change. What if the changes could be vertical or horizontal for both of them? Then you'd keep with the classic style of the roof level that you may want,and there are some stations that have that.And the reason I'm focusing on gas stations,a question just came up with some new stations coming into the community,and I was trying to figure out how this would fit or not fit their concerns. But what if we took out the vertical component and let it be either horizontal or vertical transit--elements? MR.COSTA: The vertical element's more of a height requirement for those element--for that roof edge treatment change. So,yeah, it could--you know,right now if you have a non-pitched roof and just a flat roof,you'd still have to have one roof change or one element that would go beyond that minimum distance of two or three feet or whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the element would have to go vertical, but could it go horizontal, like just an indentation? More like a setback of the--you know,just breaking up the canopy's straight edge would always have to go vertical? MR. COSTA: Currently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we took that out and left the two changes to be whether they're vertical or horizontal --and I would still think we'd accomplish the goal that some the national firms are looking at in the way they design some of their buildings. They'd move along for a distance,notch in,come back out,move along and do the same thing. That would give you some articulation on that roof edge, because it says roof edge or parapet treatment. But what it really means, if it's allowing--if it requires vertical, it's more than just roof edge. MR. COSTA: But then it becomes more of a massing element,and it's picked up as that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But only if you've got something next door comparable to it that you're dealing with,right? MR.COSTA: No. It's a lineal footage requirement that if you're moving planes back and forth and you're considering that as a roof change, it's a facade--part of the massing requirement where you have to move that building plane back based on the square footage. A roof plane is more of a horizontal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you know,the issue that I'm asking about,too, it says,for buildings with a floor area. So actually would an accessory roof on the outside of, like,a canopy for a station even fall under this? MS. CILEK: If I may, for canopies for facilities with fuel pumps,there are specific standards for those structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MS.CILEK: Okay. I don't believe that they would fall under this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know we do have it. But, see,where those are lacking in definition,we have to fall back on the other parts of the code,so I wasn't sure if that was happening here. MS. CILEK: Right. I believe that those standards do provide for flexibility. If we are to amend D.9 to include any additional types of articulation,we would need to come back with proposed language for you to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COSTA: And we would--we would approve that. I don't see why--you know, if we can start Page 61 of 70 March 17, 2016 manipulating-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back and forth instead of up and down. Well,I mean,that would be a better change than changing the square footage application. So we leave the square footage at 5,000 square feet but give the ability to go horizontally instead of vertically,both,one or the other. That would give you more. MR. SCHIFFER: I think that's good,because this is roof edges,which a sloped roof has an edge, and a parapet,which the parapet goes up. So I think if you just took the word "vertical"out of this the way it is,that means somebody's not going to get a big plain roof. He's going to be able to have it come out,go back up,sawtooth,whatever they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: So that's a very good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then, it looks like--is anybody dissatisfied with that? If not, that was one that could be accepted by both us and the committee so you wouldn't have a contested. MS. CILEK: Sure. And staff will go back and propose new language,and we can work with the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is the D.12. MR. FRANTZ: This is another staff proposed change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same as what we're saying,basically, isn't it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. They didn't make any changes. They've just confirmed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. E.6.C,that's the same issue we've gotten into with the coverage.And so C might want to be rewritten, since we've accepted basically up to 300 feet,to use that same language and correct the language there? MS.CILEK: Yes. We'll take a look at it for consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll move on to Page 9. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Can we go back to D.12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, D.12? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Does not include signage. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. MS. CILEK: Correct. MR. FRANTZ: This is for neon tubing on the building. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Signs are excluded from that? MR. FRANTZ: Right. They're--neon colors and tubings are covered in the sign section of the code. MS. CILEK: For signage. This is separate. MR. FRANTZ: For signs,yeah. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9 is E.7.C. Same consistency language issue there. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F.1.A--the committee agreed with adding the word "shaded"back in,and then F.2.B.i;oh,this is the parking issue, is it-- MR. FRANTZ: Right. This is when landscaping is required to be increased for large parking lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,you know,I still don't understand why this is a problem,because if you--you have landscaping increases for parking lots in excess of 20 percent of the minimum parking requirements. Say you're required to have 10 spaces and you want to go to 13,you've got to put additional landscaping in, but it's not the quantity of landscaping that you would have if you had 200 spaces. And instead of going to 240,you went to 250. So how is--the ratio is automatically built in by the number of spaces you're dealing with. So why do we--can you explain to me how this becomes a landscaping issue? MR. SCHIFFER: Jeremy has a nice chart. But the problem with this is it increases the normal landscaping. In other words,you could build that-- Page 62 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: -- 13-space parking lot with a certain amount of landscape,but if you get it because you needed 10 and you added three,there's more landscaping then. So why wouldn't we just use the same form we would use for a normal parking lot? Why do we increase the landscape for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because,number one,you've increased the impervious area with no real need to. For whatever reason you may have done it,we've got more asphalt and less plantable area, less open-- less--not open space,but vegetative space. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to encourage that? I think we would want to discourage it, not encourage it. MR. SCHIFFER: But you could also look at it as--that they have enough land that they have extra land that they could put extra parking on. So, I mean,automatically, I don't think they would make that land non-pervious use. They might put another building there, increase their parking load. I mean,this is just people who want to have more than the code-required parking,and why penalize them in the landscaping? It's a small penalizing. I mean,Jeremy may not care about it. I wouldn't consider it--it's pretty minute,the difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then why are we changing it? Again, it makes this place a little bit of the character we've got. And you guys said earlier, if you want to fix something,the landscaping's what makes Collier County. Well,now you're telling us we don't need it. MR. SCHIFFER: What I'm telling you is that,you know,there's a formula,and this is to adjust the formula slightly. Why don't let the guys--let the people designing landscape just use the one criteria. If it's not good enough for the regular parking,why would it help the additional parking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is your legal counsel Richard Yovanovich? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're starting to sound a lot alike. MR. SCHIFFER: Almost everything we know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a necessary change,and I would rather we--I'd rather we take your earlier advice that we have a great landscaping code,and we ought to keep it, so--at least that's one opinion on this board. What do the rest of you--any different? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'll tell you what,some parking lots that I've been in lately,to be honest with you,I don't even know how the county could approve them. You take Trader Joe's, and then they add Comcast,you cannot get in there. I wish the police and fire were there. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a different issue altogether. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,now,wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That has nothing to do with the architecture. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is architect--there is greenery there. I'd rather see bigger parking spots. I mean,you can't move. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me segue from Diane's point is that maybe the reason they're not building the additional parking is they get stuck with the excessive landscaping requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's--it's like Mercado. You try to get into Whole Foods at Mercado, and they've got this discounted number of parking spaces because of the, supposedly,overlap of time frames; it's a nightmare. And you know Mercado. You live right near there. My God. You can't hardly shop in that shopping center. You've got to stay away from there now. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Was that a deviation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No,that actually came in with their PUD with an argument as to why--you're allowed to make an argument as to why you have a discount in parking,and I forgot how that one came about. But that's a good point. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The city has--the city, if you--have a rule that if you do a parking • needs study-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think--we have the same rule. Page 63 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --and you say for my particular intended use I don't need to comply with the code because here is a professional study that shows that I need five spaces instead of eight.And if the City Council approves it,then you have reduced your parking from eight to five. Two years down the road,Comcast come in,and they want to lease that space, and you have a problem like that, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's occurred quite a few places in Collier County,so... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I don't know what the solution is. The solution, in my view,is not to give any discounts or deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we know that,yeah. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Another chance to make my point. MR. SCHIFFER: Let's reward people who do things in excess, like the parking. But,Jeremy,wasn't one of the other reasons is that it's covered in another section of the code anyway,and they wouldn't--they would have to do that anyway in the-- in the landscape section of code; is that right? So,essentially,we're just trying to take it out of here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if that's the case,then when you come back,Jeremy,would you show--we're going to need to see the cleanup language. When you come back,would you show us where that is in the code? And that would help us understand it better. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I can show you that the next time. I can relay now that the current standard in what is 5.0--sorry,4.05.04 is that it doubles the landscaping and trees required for parking lots that are required to provide a minimum of 80 spaces. So the difference with this current--the way that the architectural section is currently worded is that it would apply to any size parking lot. So if this section were removed as the committee recommends,the standard would still be in place for parking lots that have a requirement for at least 80 spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you bring that code in to show it to us? And as an alternative to that--so you're saying that in a 10-space parking lot, if you want to add three more spaces,you have to double the landscaping? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,that helps understand this argument better,because that's one factor we've been trying to understand is what the ratio is. So it's not at a ratio. It's a flat-out double. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Doubling? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doubling what? That was my next question. So maybe when you come back,you can explain to us what it means on a small parking lot versus a 50 parking lot versus an 80 so we know that the standard is at a ratio as it increases and to what extent. MS.CILEK: We'd be happy to do so. There are several layers to it,so we'll walk through those at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Many parking spaces in the old days used to be designed with an eight-- 10-by-20-foot parking stalls. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eight by 18. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Then the code changes to nine and eight feet for compact cars,and instead of 20,you use 18. So a lot of developers re-stripe the parking lots,and that reduces the ratio of open space greenery because you have more cars and less parking--less greenery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they wouldn't be changing the asphalt if they just re-stripe. So it would be the same. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They added so many cars. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They added more cars. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They added more use,and they didn't increase the greenery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: I think the reason we want this out--the architects don't want to deal with that. Other people can have that problem. Page 64 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we can address it elsewhere in the code,then I'm just as fine with that,as long as you don't put it on an engineer. We've got to be careful of those engineers. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, I'm an engineer. I don't have architectural opinions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Page 10.There's two items on Page 10. The committee proposed no change to F.2.B.ii,and this is back--same thing that we're talking about now. Oh,no.This is actually moving it to the back instead of all in the front. MR.FRANTZ: This is the location of where the parking is on site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which contradicts the Dover-Kohl study,which was one of the points that I found the last time we went through with this. So,I mean,basically this would allow every project to have 100 percent of the parking in front of the building instead of around it, in back of it,et cetera,right? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's the consensus from this board? I don't see the need to change it myself,but that's--Charlette? Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. I don't think we want all the parking all in the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Okay. We'll just-- it's not one we're going to agree to,Caroline. Old E.2.C,no change. The minimum pedestrian pathway connections must be provided from the building to adjacent--this is the one where they believe it's another part of the code. You're going to check that out and let us know. And if it is,fine. If it isn't and it needs to be moved,then it will be concurrently with the strikethrough,not-- MS.CILEK: If I may,that was the prior section we spoke about. This was the one that Brad was alluding to earlier. So we'll let him go first. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's when he said, "I'll be back." MR. SCHIFFER: This is the one I was rehearsing before. The problem was we don't really want or think it's necessary. And,again, it's been really driven. There were several engineers on this committee. They obviously don't like to come to these meetings, but--and the putting the sidewalk alongside the entrance drive didn't really make sense. Now,putting proper sidewalks makes sense,but there's other parts of the code, like the ADA and stuff,that regulate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me--I think in a visual example there was a project-- I think it was a small grocery store or something where they had parking on the side of the building,and this would have required them to put a sidewalk along the entire length of the outside of the building so that people parking in that side parking lot could walk up to the sidewalk and use the sidewalk to walk down to the entrance door that was out front. And they added--coupled with that was the foundation planting requirements that pushed it out even further. So when they finally got done,they were losing so much space they couldn't even get a parking space on the side parking lot. Why--so this--someone has decided that parking lots aren't safe to walk in,that it has to be a sidewalk even in a small parking lot? MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I mean,what's the--first of all,again,as architects, it would be nice to move this away from building design. But why would you have to have at every drive entrance a sidewalk at that point? I mean, if you're on the sidewalk, obviously,you could come up that,and you'd be crossing other roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean every drive entrance? MR. SCHIFFER: Well,what--it says here-- MS. CILEK: It is main entrances. MR. SCHIFFER: Drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a driveway down the middle of a parking lot,the drive aisle,with spaces on either--one or both sides. When you get to the end of that parking lot and you want to park,you still--they're looking to say you need a sidewalk to get you back up to the front door if the front door's in the Page 65 of 70 March 17, 2016 front of the building. Is that-- MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Jeremy's shaking his head no. So somebody needs to tell us what this means. MR. FRANTZ: So this will be at the entrance to the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FRANTZ: And wherever there's a--wherever there's a vehicular entrance to the property,this code section requires that there's also a pedestrian--that there's also a pedestrian entrance at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the pedestrian entrance would go along both sides of the asphalt close by the asphalt on the drive aisle and out to connect to the street; is that what the assumption is? MR. FRANTZ: It says at least one side of the drive aisle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the connection is to the street then? It's not for the people in the parking lot. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what this is for. Well,what's the problem with this? MR. SCHIFFER: I mean,there is other areas of the code. The ADA,for example,require a sidewalk entrance to the main entrance. So that exists. So why do we have to put them on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the ADA requires it,but do you know the ADA is not too strongly enforced in this county, so how do we know--and why don't we put it in our code if it's that important? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think it requires a sidewalk either. I think it requires a handicap accessible pathway route,which could be just a piano key type crosswalk striping in your parking aisle, I think. MR. SCHIFFER: From a public sidewalk,you have to have an accessible route,which is--you know, it's a 4-foot concrete. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But it doesn't say sidewalk. It says a handicap accessible route. MR. SCHIFFER: That's made out of concrete and some other thing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Asphalt,whatever. MR. SCHIFFER: Asphalt would work. But the--anyway, I mean,the issue is why require in the architectural standards a sidewalk alongside entrance drives? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Why are you putting it in architectural? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,first of all,does the committee believe this is something--a good practice? MR. SCHIFFER: It's a good--you know, look at the Miami Beach entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He knows where I'm going with this. If you think it's a good thing,then okay. It may not be needed in your part of the code,but if it's not in another part of the code,we need to leave it there until it is. MR. SCHIFFER: And,again, I'm speaking for the civil engineers that had heartburn over this, is that they were given examples of where they're putting in multiple sidewalks that they felt weren't necessary. Obviously,you know,the Miami Beach entrance with the drive and the sidewalks,of course it works good. But why put a requirement in the architectural standards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says,the committee believes that requiring pedestrian access to be located near drive aisles creates a safety hazard that creates an unneeded impervious area. So it's safer to walk on the drive aisle; is that what they're saying? MR. SCHIFFER: No. It's safer to continue to where the sidewalk is and come--which would be away from the drive aisle. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Handicap code says you need a handicap accessible entrance. This is just redundant. He's right about that. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you--can staff research-- MS. CILEK: Yeah. Page 66 of 70 March 17, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and find where another code provides this,and then we can eliminate it if that's the case? MS.CILEK: Sure. We can come back with the ADA requirements for you bulleted out. I will just mention that,you know,as staff we're trying to provide a consensus concept for the committee to look at. And in talking with staff,we recognize that maybe providing a sidewalk on each entrance,each main entrance to a project may be burdensome and does perhaps increase impervious area, so we were looking at, perhaps,a threshold of distances of when they would be required. So we wanted to see if we could come up with a compromise of some sort,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? I thought-- Okay. Page 11. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, let me point out one thing before we go back. The first sentence that Rocco just pointed out is that it does require one at each vehicular entrance. So that means if you have a parking lot with six entrances,you've got the ADA in the main,and you've got six sidewalks all over the place. And obviously people--we want sidewalks,we want them to get from buildings--the sidewalk to the building, but is that necessary? That's all. And,again, in terms of regulation,maybe,you know,find another place for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's fine. If we can make sure it's--make sure it's somewhere. I think that's the issue. We've got to make sure it's addressed in some manner somehow in one of the codes or another. And if you guys say it shouldn't be here,then--and it is somewhere else, let's just find that so we understand it before we vote on it. MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11 or--yeah, it's Page 11. MR. FRANTZ: This is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No change to the committee proposal,right? MR.FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One drive-through facility for each building regardless of size is the issue, I believe. You guys are looking at eliminating the square footage size? MR. COSTA: Eliminating because it is located in 4.02.01,and it's limited by the use and the zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any problem with that. As long as it's there,that's what we're looking for. Thank you. That makes that one simple. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the end of it. They're saying that this reference to square footage is already in the code because you can't build a building smaller than any of these numbers so, therefore,you couldn't have a drive-through smaller than those buildings in the--so... And,Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: So that's--that takes us through to the end of the sections that you had questions for the committee. We have some things to bring back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just cleanup,yeah. MR. FRANTZ: Right,some cleanup items. We do need to make some changes to the actual amendment request. We're looking at a portion of the changes that they've requested,and we had a long narrative prior to the amendment, and we need to make some changes based on the changes that have come out of these couple of meetings. So we may need a little bit of time before we bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. Does that work for the committee and everybody else? MS.CILEK: Yeah. We're looking for a date-certain of April 21st, I believe. It's a Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,do we have to continue this one again, Heidi,to that date,or how do we do that? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'd suggest you just continue it to that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to continue the review of the architectural standards-- Page 67 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to April 21st? Motion made by Charlette. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS.CILEK: Great. One more thing. There is actually a second amendment with this package which introduces cross-references in other places of the LDC so that it's easier for a reviewer who's abiding by 5.05.08 to know about other provisions and vice versa. So at the next meeting,we'd like to walk through that as well. It's a helper item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just put it on the end of the meeting,and as long as we can get to it,we will. MS.CILEK: Okay. Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds good. Okay. That takes us to old business. There isn't any. New business? We talked about discussion on deviations. We had a discussion already on deviations but,Mr.Assaad,it's--if you wanted to further discuss it at this point,just say so. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think we should discuss it at a later meeting because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But when we do discuss it, I would like somebody in staff to tell us what the most common deviation requests are. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah,yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, if every subdivision coming through here is requesting a sign deviation,then why? What's wrong with the code that they all have to request--you know, if--and,you know, I don't necessarily want them to go through every PUD they have and--but these guys deal with it all the time. They know what common ones are,and I'd like to know what ones they see most often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess what we'll have to do is have a discussion with Ray to find out when he could have--he won't be able to do that by the next meeting. Another thing that has to occur,too,then, if we're going to look at it that way,we need to look at why we call these deviations. Because I went back and looked at the old PUDs. They were all there,but they're called exceptions. They're buried in the paragraphs. So it's nothing new. It's something that has changed its reference over time,and we need to understand how that occurred and what that meant previously. So I think all that needs to come together. And I know, Caroline,that's not your bag,but we'll have--Ray, I'm sure, is going to watch this--is watching this back at the office. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think another part of that is not just what's requested but what was approved,you know, in terms of if-- let's say the sidewalk deviation was requested 30 times in the past five years and it was approved 29 times or what--you know,what the track record has been,because I think that coming forward with a PUD,the developer is going to ask for as many options as they feel they need to make the project viable. Page 68 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,Charlette,my--on the sidewalks was one of my deals. It's because it was brought through as deviations since I've been on the Board,and all of a sudden it is expected. You will give us this deviation. And I'm hearing pushback from people who now live in these communities, you know,so--and it's in the Land Development Code. Either we change the Land Development Code-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you guys have missed something. We have the deviations request. At some times it builds up to such an issue and it becomes controversial,like you're just saying,that it is looked at more closely by the Board of County Commissioners. They are the final interpreters of the code. They set the policy. When we finally got to that point with sidewalks,guess what? They reviewed it,and the policy was set. Basically,you don't get a majority vote if you put a deviation in there for sidewalks on one side of the street. So from here on out we know already how to deal with that issue. So I think that some of those do get handled.And over time you'll see that some of the old deviations got changed and modified in the PUD--in the code, so they're not asking for them anymore. And it wouldn't be bad to look at what the new ones are asking,but we're going to get into the roadway one. That one doesn't have to be done as a deviation. It's already allowed by code. So someone could go to the county--get it administratively,and they could reduce the road down to 40,45 feet,whatever they want. They're trying to do it for the surety of asking for it at the time they come through with their PUD because that's way in advance of their plats and their PUDs and their SDPs that they ask for. That's why we're seeing them. But it's still something that could be done by code by staff. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: When they come forward with the PUD, it's their right to ask for different,you know,deviations or exceptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's customary. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think that it's this board's responsibility whether to make recommendations to grant those as the petition goes forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But I think that the code is based upon allowing for some of those variations in their projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what,hopefully,staff will come back and provide-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I'm trying to hold my tongue till we get to discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have one item of new business. I think we ought to find out where we're going with exotic vegetation in this county,because I see it everywhere. And the only people taking it out are private individuals that the county is making remove the exotics,but the county has exotics on all their land. Nobody's doing anything. I see exotics in Rookery Bay. I see exotics on every piece of preserve parcel around.They're just everywhere. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Even beaches has exotic vegetation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. We need to find out what the plans are. Who's on top of it?Who's going to take it out? Why we're spending so much money. And I hate to say this,but I just saw a study in nature come out that said that the sea level is going to rise three to six feet by the year 2100. The Everglades is going to disappear when this happens. Why are we saving it if it's gone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ooh? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I know. It's a waste of money a lot of times. I'm just-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I think, Stan,that we remove it when new projects come before us,but maintaining it is a whole different thing unless you're in a development that has the easements to protect. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it was Marsala that started me down this kick,because when I went and looked that--on the side of Livingston opposite Marsala there's all this--they call it dog hair Melaleuca, a mile of it just all in the FP&L easement. There's just Brazilian pepper everywhere. The county park has four or five kind of exotics through there. It's just--you know,the more I bicycle through that area,the worse it is. And I'm wondering why we're bothering. It's a waste of money. Page 69 of 70 March 17, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Shouldn't FPL take care of their own? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They should,and every other project. The county park should take care of their own. Marsala should take care of the stuff I saw out there. Everybody should take care of their own. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They're supposed to. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But nobody's doing it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And part of it is funding. When I addressed-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what. I'll--when I get back, I'll let staff know at one of our upcoming meetings to explain the exotic removal criteria to us so we understand it and the--how the Estates is treated in the agricultural area and all the essential service areas and things like that. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there any public comments? Seeing nobody out there,I know that can't happen. So is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody--we're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 70 of 70 AGENDA ITEM 9-A CO er COWL*, STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: APRIL 21,2016 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PDI-PL20150001083 Heritage Park PUD(RaceTrac) PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Applicant: Cameron Partners II, LLC. RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc. 11586 Quail Village Way 3225 Cumberland Blvd. Suite 100 Naples,FL 34119 Atlanta, GA 30339 Agent: John T. Wojdak, P.E. DeLisi Fitzgerald,Inc. Fort Myers,FL 33901 REQUESTED ACTION: RaceTrac requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 03-40,as amended,the Heritage Bay PUD, to amend Section I,Legal Description,Property Ownership and General Description,by adding ten(10)new deviations for the parcel described as Lot 4,Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat,relating to a joint project plan, landscape buffers, building setbacks, architectural standards, signage, and parking; and to add Exhibit E,which depicts the fifteen(15)-foot Type D landscape buffer along the south property line of Lot 4,Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD property consists of 2,562± acres, located on the northeast of corner of Immokalee Road(C.R. 846)and Collier Boulevard(C.R. 951),in Sections 13, 14,23,and 24,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The property where RaceTrac is proposed is located approximately 2,150 feet east of Collier Boulevard Extension and is further depicted on Exhibit E-1, which will be made part of the PUD. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 1 of 21 April 11,2016 _,......,.---r t2P NM I 11 .......m -111--' - 111 !i 11 U .- m-�-I I 11 °�` _ 0 = ia111 MIMI , 5 :: ::::: : k„' ,_,... )'''Vitp .:7,1. MINIM til : : i�.� , irr„< t aU. y t� � 4 131111111 t:iii:;::::::iiii-i ',im1FLe1 : -_ \ ::::4:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,•,:::: a . l AIM en . ,��1 �N � IL � 1� n-F. L.) \\ ::: ; ::` a !.'pod�:va .elirvJl a°! �lcX_ttoeLncecL�-.oL 11 in 1r ,Iy ' = N !,i:::::::::::::::,i •Ii. ' if*'i A:!-in,'■ = Imml `-'_71: ,_,Z ...?4�i'i;:; __ice _� .eon_ i =- lir � _I 'I 111111 I �_, `.� \ �� 4y,°nl>I m l a1l.ill�il _ l • -`.l'1 . 1 :::::::::;:::'::::::::: '_____ _ .---)N1‘1%,„.._ l' \ p8 B_ Iiirrill i�/9 j ap \ i�Y?ua,._- �' a L� 1' /� ... I �� ■ �g,-.�i� .,.:-,..7,,,,,,,m)_, ..... 1 ._,-rp:--'ill :11 I imiLum mr;;;;':::;:::9 01, I—lik . .„,...„ 1_. _,.,7, d,4w:Sits21_,.......„=_Eittm li i __. 014' E. J a 311,06 0110N — 1 O O. Z E; \ i F- w a I Q J.1N(10o 331 \ � � If 1 !e Nimi ii v, I - �n e1 i NwJ m ■66'tlu J O I y o P” lib F1 9 "gg U.1 1 1 11 .!_lf 1 1 I m ' g 1 g I Pi I I 2 ig 1 go* — . i . -- _ R3 '''''•11•1"A.74.:0•• 4'. u / 1. �1 1 • .•.,.e,:,,,•H E F I T E fix.... ,., (i 4:'' p'tr 7 c l 7 t1 ?.t e 1 E., ._._ 1 6:- I Y S_ubj ec t. P r art �,� b .. ; ,1....,:- • • ;j Lot s •` N �e. . - lir 1 I a", . i Be " ° I fi ,4 r _ , :,... ' it, -.---.. .. ...,,. .-.......g-_ _wTT � H i� i , II F..1 i.e.a F;.D' ._._ i - .r k _ .. 111111111111NWININizaumpReamipmkai, 'sil Y' F' J l I F=1 M , 6 > y - - item P r rI _I TT only gg s �, ... uxr,1 DR • s �IM1 d k w • ■• • •• s s a e . r • i , _ ..... -. .1 _,.•rd`'•_ S Area Map(Source:Collier County GIS) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF MAP AND TEXT CHANGES: According to Section 6.4.A.5 of the Heritage Bay PUD Document,Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations is a permitted use at the subject site;however,RaceTrac is requesting deviations to the PUD standards in order to develop the site to their preference. The requested deviations require new language to be added to the PUD Document,which necessitates an application for insubstantial change to a PUD [see Attachment 1 — Proposed PUD Document (per CCPC Resolution)]. This type of application (PDI) could be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. However, the Board of County Commission (BCC) district commissioner for that area expressed a desire for the level of review for this item to be elevated to the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 3 of 21 April 11,2016 6 ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Planning: Staff has found the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the Growth Management Plan(GMP)(see Attachment 2-Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review). Conservation and Coastal Management Element.' Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME) of the GMP. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Document and determined them to be compliant with the GMP. As of the date of this staff report, the Landscape Plan shows that a small portion of the east landscape buffer overlaps with the water management area, which is not permitted by code. In addition, Zoning Services staff determined the landscape plan is currently deficient by thirteen(13)code required canopy trees. The applicant is aware of the situation and has agreed to correct these landscaping issues at the time of SDP review (see Attachment 3 — Email from John Wojdak to Eric Johnson regarding Landscaping Issues). DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This PUD was previously approved with three (3) deviations pursuant to Ordinance 10-24. The petitioner is now seeking to add ten (10) new deviations, which are itemized in Section 1.11 of the proposed PUD Document {see Attachment 1 — Proposed PUD Document (per CCPC Resolution)]. These deviations would only apply to the area depicted as "affected area" as shown on Exhibit E-1, which will be attached to the PUD as part of this amendment. The affected area is located within an Activity Center of the PUD. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation for each deviation is as follows: Deviation#1 (Joint Project Plan) Collier County LDC Section 4.06.02.C.7.a., which allows abutting platted parcels to submit a joint project plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line as long as the joint project plan is submitted either as a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels or separate SDPs or SIPs for each parcel submitted concurrently, to instead allow the owner of Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat to eliminate the required landscape buffer on the west side of the property and submit a separate SDP that is not submitted concurrently with the SDP for Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat,the adjacent parcel to the west. Petitioner's Rationale: "The subject project is located on Lot 4 within the Heritage Bay Commons Replat and is being developed as a RaceTrac convenience store with fuel pumps. As per Table 2.4 of Section 4.06.02.0 the required buffer between an Automobile Service Station and a commercially zoned property is a 15-foot wide Type `B' buffer. The RaceTrac project also includes a shared access drive on the west property line which will benefit the adjacent Lot 3. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to follow LDC Section 4.06.02.C.7.a. and reallocate the buffer, but submit independently of adjacent Lot 3. As provided for in the Section,the required 15-foot Type B Buffer plantings and buffer PDt-PL20150001083 Page 4 of 21 April 11,2016 area for the RaceTrac Parcel (Lot 4) will be reallocated internal to the project. Please note that this buffer is internal to the PUD. RacTrac is proposing an access driveway that straddles the western property boundary and will be a shared access with Lot 3. Due to the location of this access driveway the landscape buffer cannot be i' located along the property line. On the RaceTrac property,the internal vehicular use areas are adjacent to the shared drive isle [sic]. Lot 3 is currently under the same ownership as the subject property, which is under a contract to purchase by RaceTrac. The ultimate development plans for Lot 3 are not in place at this time and will need to be developed separately and on a separate schedule. Therefore, the two projects cannot be submitted together or concurrently. However, the property owner has no objection to RaceTrac's reallocation of their required buffer. Accompanying this request please reference the Letter of No Objection from the seller. The Landscape Plans included with this application depict the locations of the reallocated buffer area and plant material. There is no loss of buffer area or planting. A portion of reallocated plantings are being utilized to enhance the north and east buffer which face the residential uses of the overall Heritage Bay PUD." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Most principal uses proposed on the subject property (Lot 4) would require a ten(10)-foot wide Type "A"buffer along the west property line. However, because the proposed use is a gas station,a fifteen(15)-foot wide Type`B"buffer is required. For the abutting parcel to the west(Lot 3), a ten (10)-foot wide Type "A"buffer is required along its shared property line with Lot 4. In lieu of these buffers, the Landscape Plan proposes a vehicular use area(i.e., drive aisle) along the shared west property line [between Lot 3 to the west and the subject property (Lot 4)]. Under the provisions of LDC Section 4.06.02.C.7; however, abutting platted parcels may submit a joint project plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line in order to share parking or other infrastructure facilities, such as a drive aisle, provided certain criteria are met. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the joint project plan provisions because the end user of Lot 3 has not been established and therefore, an SDP would be premature at this time. Zoning Review staff and the applicant collaborated to find a workable and innovative solution to allow the proposed vehicular use area(along the west property line)as designed,while providing the County with enough surety that the ultimate design would meet the intent of the landscape requirements. As such,the following have been incorporated into the Resolution: 1) The owner of Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat shall advise any purchaser of the landscape requirements in LDC Section 1.11.A.3. 2) Prior to the issuance of the Site Development Plan for Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, the owner shall record a Shared Maintenance and Access Easement with Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat for shared parking or other infrastructure facilities, as required under LDC Section 4.06.02 C.7.a. 3) Prior to issuance of the Site Development Plan for Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat,the owner shall install the required 10-foot Type "A"landscape buffer over the eastern PDI-PL20150001083 Page 5 of 21 April 11,2016 10 feet of the abutting portion of Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, in order to ensure that the joint property plan for both properties contains the required 10-foot Type "A" landscape buffer on the west side of the shared buffer in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 C.7. The Landscape Plan shows that 3,525 square feet of pervious area has been reallocated to other areas of Lot 4, and because the above language has been incorporated into the Resolution, Zoning Services staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation#2 (Front Yard Setback) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1, which requires that the minimum front yard setback for a Facility with Fuel Pumps of fifty(50)feet,to instead allow a reduced front yard setback of twenty-five (25)feet for the north front yard. Petitioner's Rationale: "The applicant is seeking a 25-foot reduced front yard setback for the building along the northern property boundary,aka the private platted right-of-way, Sage Avenue.The Heritage Bay PUD development standards for the Activity Center,which is where the subject property is located, allow a 15-foot setback to internal frontage drives for commercial developments without fuel pumps. This request is internal to the PUD boundary. The proposed gas station layout, starting at the southernmost boundary, includes a landscape buffer along the southern boundary, a vehicular drive aisle in front of the fuel canopy, a fuel canopy, another drive aisle between the fuel canopy and the building, parking stalls in front of the building, and lastly the building itself. With the typical gas station layout the remaining area behind the building is significantly reduced. To better illustrate the proposed RaceTrac layout please reference the Concept Plan associated with the PDI. Note there is no parking or other major site components proposed between the building and the property in this location. There is a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building for access, and the remainder of the setback area is completely landscaped as outlined below. Although the applicant is requesting a reduction of the rear yard setback,the required gas station buffer is still being provided. The gas station buffer includes a 25-foot wide buffer with a berm maintained at 3-feet, canopy trees planted 20-feet on center at an install height of 14-feet, a cluster of a minimum of three (3)palms of varying heights with a maximum distance of 25-feet between all clusters. Lastly a row of shrubs planted 4-feet on center and the entire berm covered with ground cover. As mitigation to this request, as well as the requested deviation for the façade(Dev. # 4), the applicant is proposing to install the required trees at a height of 16-feet which is two (2)feet higher than required by code. In addition, plantings from the reallocated west buffer will further enhance the buffer. Please reference the enclosed Landscape Plan. This landscape buffer will shield the back of the building from Sage Avenue and the properties further to the north. Furthermore the layout of the site has the fuel canopy positioned along the southern end 1 of the property furthest away from the residential tracts to the far north. Therefore higher traffic areas of the site will be further blocked from the residential tracts to the north by the convenience store building and the landscape buffer. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request." PDI-PL20150001083 Page 6 of 21 April 11,2016 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The subject property, which is located in an Activity Center on the Heritage Bay PUD Master Concept Plan,is considered to have frontage on three(3)of its property boundaries(i.e.,north, east,and south). Because this PUD does not have exemption language specific to gas stations,the minimum required setbacks for this use is regulated in accordance with LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1. Gas stations require greater setbacks than other principal uses in the PUD. A comparison of the minimum required setbacks between the PUD Document and LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 is as follows: PUD Document LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 Proposed North 15 feet 50 feet 25 feet (front): South 35 feet or BH 50 feet 50 feet (front): whichever is greater East(front): 15 feet 40 feet 50 feet West(side): 30 feet 50 feet 20 feet Notwithstanding the fact that the RaceTrac project is designed with the back of the store facing Sage Avenue,the building is required to be setback fifty(50)feet,because this area is still considered a front yard. The applicant is requesting this deviation, because as designed,the Concept Plan shows the gas station would be located closer to the north property line than what is allowed by the LDC. The subject property is located south of Sage Avenue(as well as south of Lot 8 and Tract W-1,which are other lots located within the Activity Center on the Heritage Bay PUD Master Concept Plan). The Activity Center is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, service and office commercial uses,essential services, and customary accessory uses. Since there is no residential uses within close proximity of Lot 4,Zoning Services staff does not anticipate this deviation having a detrimental effect,and therefore, recommends APPROVAL of this request. Proposed Deviation#3 (Side Yard Setback) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1, which requires that the minimum side yard setback for a Facility with Fuel Pumps of forty(40)feet,to instead allow a reduced side yard setback of twenty(20) feet for the west side yard. Petitioner's Rationale: "The applicant is seeking a reduced side yard setback of 20-feet for the fuel canopy along the western property boundary adjacent to Lot 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons Replat. The Heritage Bay PUD development standards for the Activity Center, which is where the subject property is located, allow a 10-foot building separation between commercial buildings which would apply to the building side yard setback. Therefore the requested 20-foot side yard setback is double what is required for commercial buildings without fuel pumps. RacTrac is proposing an access driveway that straddles the western property boundary and will be a shared access with the adjoining Lot 3. Reciprocating access easements are proposed over this shared access driveway for Lots 3 and 4 thereby promoting interconnectivity between the properties which is an objective within the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 7 of 21 April 11,2016 The shared driveway width is 32.5-feet,of that width 20-feet are located on the RaceTrac property and the remaining 12.5-feet of driveway are located on Lot 3.Therefore the minimum distance between the Canopy and any building on the adjacent Lot 3 will be 32.5-feet, more than 3 times the minimum required in PUD.No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The subject property, which is located in an Activity Center on the Heritage Bay PUD Master Concept Plan,is considered to have frontage on three(3)of its property boundaries(i.e.,north,east,and south). The west property boundary,which abuts Lot 3,is considered to be a side property line. Because this PUD does not have exemption language specific to gas stations, the minimum required setbacks for this use is regulated in accordance with LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1. Gas stations required greater setbacks than other principal uses in the PUD. A comparison of the minimum required setbacks between the PUD Document and LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 is as follows: PUD Document LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 Proposed North 15 feet 50 feet 25 feet (front): South 35 feet or BH 50 feet 50 feet (front): whichever is greater East(front): 15 feet 40 feet 50 feet West(side): 30 feet 50 feet 20 feet The applicant is requesting this deviation,because as designed,the Concept Plan shows the canopy of the gas station would be located closer to the west property line than what is allowed by the LDC. The building itself complies with code. The abutting property,Lot 3,is located within the Activity Center on the Heritage Bay PUD Master Concept Plan, which is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, service and office commercial uses, essential services, and customary accessory uses. Zoning Services staff does not anticipate this deviation having a detrimental effect and is therefore, recommending APPROVAL of this request. Deviation#4 (Secondary Facade Facing Street) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii.,which allows one(1)façade of a freestanding structure located in an outparcel of a PUD to be considered a secondary façade as long as that façade is internal to the site and does not abut or face a private street, to instead allow the secondary façade to be the north façade which faces a private street. Petitioner's Rationale: "The subject property is considered to front on three (3) rights-of-way, Sage Avenue to the north and Bellaire Bay Drive the east and Immokalee Road to the south. The remaining western boundaries front the Immokalee Canal and a vacant commercial outparcel, aka Lot 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons Replat, respectively. The orientation of the building is such that the main entrances are on the south and east facades facing the Immokalee Canal right-of-way and Bellaire Bay Drive respectively. Please reference the enclosed Concept Plan associated with the PDI. The northern facade,which faces Sage Avenue,is the back of the building where the internal building layout has the PDI-PL20150001083 Page 8 of 21 April 11,2016 storage and back-of-house operations located. Please reference the enclosed Building Floor Plans. Furthermore it is where the deliveries are received. The northern building façade, facing Sage Avenue, is being proposed as the secondary facade due to the functionality of the building and service orientated needs. The façade will meet the secondary façade design standards and the required 25'-wide landscape buffer with a 3'-high berm as is required along all rights-of-way. The buffer will be enhanced with larger material and additional material from the reallocated west buffer.This enhanced buffer will substantially obscure the rear building from view from immediately outside the development and properties further north as shown on the included buffer illustration renderings. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This project is required to have three(3)primary facades because outparcels and freestanding buildings in PUDs are allowed one (1) secondary façade. By code, the north building façade, which abuts Sage Avenue,must be a primary facade. However,the applicant's request seeks to allow alternative design deviations,in order to allow the north façade to be considered a secondary façade. The applicant justifies this request by noting that due to the functionality of the building and service orientated needs, the rear of the building (i.e. north façade) contains the back of house operations, which does not meet the stated requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08. The design would meet or provide an acceptable alternative to LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii Secondary Facades by proposing the following: The west façade is currently the allowed secondary façade, and this request if approved, will allow two (2) secondary facades (north and west). In the deviation narrative, the applicant indicates, "the north façade will meet the secondary façade design standards and the required 25' wide landscape buffer with a 3'-high berm as is required along all rights-of-way.The buffer will be enhanced with larger and additional plant material from the reallocated west buffer." Staff concurs that an enhanced buffer will help to obscure the rear building from view from immediately outside the development and properties farther north and is in favor of this deviation; therefore, Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. It should be noted that if approved, the north façade is still required to comply with LDC Section 5.05.08 Building Design Treatments. Each façade must contain at least four (4) of the required elements. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 9 of 21 April 11,2016 Deviation#5 (Canopy Sign Area) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one (1) illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of twelve (12) square feet on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway,to instead allow one(1)fifty(50) square foot corporate logo on the canopy façade facing the Immokalee Canal right-of-way and two (2) thirty (30) square foot L' corporate logos, one (1) on the facade facing Bellaire Bay Drive and one (1) on the façade facing the vacant commercial parcel to the west. Petitioner's Rationale: "RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.does not have a corporate logo similar to some other corporate gas station companies. The corporate logo for RaceTrac is their name and by limiting their logo to the allowed twelve (12) square feet results in an 8.4 foot wide sign with 1.4 foot high letters. With their letter size reduced the sign would be difficult to read on the canopy and possibly unrecognizable. The requested canopy signs are shown in the enclosed Sign Package. In addition,RaceTrac wishes to have a recognizable appearance in Collier County.This recognition is important for motorists traveling on Immokalee Road who wish to enter the RaceTrac. The signage needs to be recognizable from a distance so drivers can safely maneuver as needed to enter the Project. Immokalee Road, located on the south side of the Immokalee canal, is a 6-lane divided arterial with a 50 MPH posted speed. At this speed, vehicles travel over 80 feet per second. Allowing the drivers to recognize the destination in time to safely maneuver to the needed turning movements is a critical element of the canopy signage. The enclosed Canopy Sign Legibility Exhibit illustrates the typical viewer reaction distance and sign legibility distance for motorists. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request." StaffAnalysis and Recommendation: Zoning Services staff evaluated this deviation by noting its three (3) separate components: 1) south corporate logo: fifty(50) square feet; 2) east corporate logo: thirty (30) square feet;and 3)west corporate logo: thirty(30) square feet. It should be noted that the proposed west corporate logo can only be allowed if Deviation #6 is approved. The Concept Plan shows the canal right-of-way (south of the subject property) is one- hundred(100)feet in width. The pavement of the travel lanes within Immokalee Road is located even farther away from the subject property. This distance between the subject property and the travel lanes of Immokalee Road represents a sizable separation, which the sign code does not contemplate. As such, there is justification to warrant the petitioner's desire for requesting a larger sign. With respect to a similar type of petition,in March of 2015,the Hearing Examiner reviewed PDI application(PDI- PL20140000859) for RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. for a property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This PDI application requested, among others, a deviation to allow one (1) illuminated corporate logo on the canopy face, which was not adjacent to a dedicated street or highway. Zoning Review staff recommended approval but could not determine potential/future conflicts with the adjacent parcel because like this petition,the adjacent parcel was undeveloped. If Deviation#6 for the subject petition is approved, which would allow an additional illuminated corporate logo on the west canopy façade facing the vacant Lot 3, Zoning Services staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation based on the above analysis and the applicant's justification. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 10 of 21 April 11,2016 It should be noted that in May of 2015,a sign variance(SV-PL20150000086)for RaceTrac,located at r the southeast corner of Tamiami Trail East and Barefoot-Williams Road intersection was approved for three(3) canopy signs as well. The sizes of these signs were as follows: fifty(50) square feet on the canopy facade facing Tamiami Trail East;thirty-seven(37) square feet on the facade facing Barefoot- 1 Williams Road; and thirty-seven (37) square feet on the facade facing a vacant commercial parcel which was located on the east side of the fuel canopy and not adjacent to a dedicated street. However, sign variances are unlike deviations in that they are reviewed under a separate and distinctly different set of evaluation criteria. Deviation#6 (Number of Canopy Signs) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one (1) illuminated corporate logo on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway, to instead allow one (1) illuminated corporate logo on the west canopy facade facing the vacant commercial outparcel to the west. Petitioner's Rationale: "The subject project is located along three (3) dedicated streets, Bellaire Bay Drive to the east, Sage Avenue to the north and Immokalee Road to the south. The applicant is proposing a canopy sign facing Bellaire Bay Drive to the east. However the site layout is such that the convenience store building is located between the proposed fuel canopy and Sage Avenue to the north. Please reference the enclosed Concept Plan associated with the PDI which provides a better illustration of the site playout. Therefore no illuminated corporate logo is proposed on the north canopy facade facing Sage Avenue. The majority of potential customers will be traveling on Immokalee Road and in order to notify these potential customers the applicant is instead requesting to place their corporate log o on the south and west facades to be visible to the traveling public on Immokalee Road. The west canopy facade is not adjacent to a dedicated street however it will be seen from potential customers traveling eastbound on Immokalee Road. As previously stated there is an existing 100' wide canal right-of-way directly south of the RaceTrac property that limits the property's visibility from Immokalee Road. The proposed location of the canopy sign on the west facade is on the southern end closest to the Immokalee Canal right-of-way. This west facing canopy sign allows those eastbound customers to see the store sooner giving them more time to make necessary lane changes to safely enter the site. Furthermore the property to the west of the proposed project is within the same Heritage Bay PUD and is vacant commercial.No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The Concept Plan shows the proposed canopy over the fueling positions would be visible from Immokalee Road. The traveling public will have a viewshed of the canopy when traveling from the east, south, and west. Zoning Services staff concurs with the petitioner's rationale for the additional sign, and therefore,recommends APPROVAL of this request. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 11 of 21 April 11,2016 Deviation#7(Two Secondary Facades) Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii,which requires outparcels and freestanding buildings within a PUD to have a maximum of one secondary facade, to instead allow two (2) façades to be considered secondary facades. Petitioner's Rationale: "Per LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii. outparcels within a PUD are required to provide three(3)of the four(4)facades as primary facades.The applicant is requesting to provide two (2) of the four (4) facades as primary, being the south and east facades, and two (2) of the four (4) facades as secondary, being the west and north facades. As described in Deviation#4 above,the rear of the building, north facade, contains the back of house operations and is shielded from view by the 25' wide enhanced landscape buffer. The west side of the building contains the coolers and dry goods storage and faces the proposed shared access driveway between the RaceTrac and the vacant commercial property to the west, Lot 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons Replat. Please reference the enclosed Building Floor Plans. The dumpster is located along the western side of the property slightly shielding the building from full view to Lot 3 and there is a large green area with proposed landscaping along the western facade that will help to further shield it from view to Lot 3. Both the north and west building facades will adhere to the secondary facade design treatments and required landscape. In order to help further shield the building from view the northern landscape buffer proposes the tree install height of 16' instead of the code required 14'. The buffer will be further enhanced with reallocated material. The stated purpose and intent of LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9 is `To provide unified architectural design and site planning for all on-site structures, and to provide for safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access and movement within the site.' All onsite structures, including the dumpster, monument sign, building, and fuel canopy, contain similar architectural elements providing a unified design. Please reference the enclosed Elevations of these elements. Furthermore LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.c. states that `all freestanding buildings must provide for vehicular and pedestrian inter- connection between adjacent outparcels or freestanding sites and the primary structure.' Vehicular interconnection is proposed between the RaceTrac and the vacant commercial property to the west,Lot 3, through the shared access driveway and pedestrian connectivity is provided from the RaceTrac to the two(2)adjacent streets. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The request notes that due to the functionality of the building and service orientated, needs the rear of the building, north facade, contains the back of house operations and does not meet the stated requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08 Primary Façade and are proposing two (2) of the four facades as primary, being the south and east facades and two (2) of the four facades as secondary, being the west and north facades. The design proposes to meet or provide an alternative to LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii Secondary Facades as follows: The north facade will meet the secondary facade design standards and the required twenty-five (25)- foot wide landscape buffer with a three(3)-foot high berm as is required along all rights-of-way for a service station. The buffer will be additionally enhanced with sixteen(16)-foot tall trees in lieu of four (14)-foot tall trees and additional plant material from the reallocated west buffer will be planted along PDl-PL20150001083 Page 12 of 21 April 11,2016 the north façade buffer. This enhanced buffer will obscure the rear building north facade from view from immediately outside the development and properties further north. The west façade is currently the allowed Secondary façade and this request if approved will allow two (2) secondary facades (north and west). Based on the clients proposed buffer enhancements staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation#8 (Required Parking Spaces) Collier County LDC Section 4.05.04.G., which requires one (1)parking space per two-hundred(200) square feet of floor area for convenience stores, which has been interpreted to apply to Facilities with Fuel Pumps,to instead allow one(1)parking space per two-hundred eleven(211)square feet. E Petitioner's Rationale: "RaceTrac has permitted four new locations in Collier County in the past few years, two of which are built and open. There are many other locations in the City of Naples and throughout southwest Florida. RaceTrac has years of experience serving their customers with site specific experience in Collier County. Until the recent LDC changes which eliminated the term `Automobile Service Station', the required number of spaces would be at a rate of 1 space per 250 square feet or 22 spaces. RaceTrac has historically exceeds this minimum parking rate based on the experienced demands. To further create a more convenient and enjoyable experience, RaceTrac provides 10' wide parking spaces instead of the 9' minimum. While the proposed parking could be re-striped at the minimum width and meet the 1 space per 200 square feet,RaceTrac prefers to maintain its commitment to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience.The request deviation is less than a 4%reduction in the required parking,exceeds the rate previously required for years prior to the LDC changes,and allows for wider, more convenient spaces." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: According to Section 6.5.0 of the PUD Document, "Shared parking between and among permitted uses shall be permitted throughout the Activity Center District. Each freestanding use shall not be required to provide one-hundred percent (100%) of the LDC minimum parking on the project site; however, the total parking provided for Activity Center shall meet or exceed the minimum parking required for the combined land uses." The subject deviation involves the loss of only one (1)off-street parking space, and staff does not anticipate any detrimental effect if approved. Therefore,Zoning Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation#9 (Monument Sign Area) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.c,which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one ground sign with a maximum area of sixty (60) square feet and maximum height of less than eight(8) feet above grade, to instead allow a one-hundred eighteen (118) square foot ground sign with a height of twelve (12)feet above grade. Petitioner's Rationale: "The Immokalee Road right-of-way has an additional 100 feet canal right-of- way directly adjacent to the road right-of-way.This additional canal right-of-way creates an offset from the sign to the traveling motorist on Immokalee Road of over 150'.The maximum allowed sign per the PDI-PL20150001083 Page 13 of 21 April 11,2016 LDC will not be visible to the traveling public in sufficient time to recognize the destination within a sufficient distance to make a safe maneuver to exit the travel-way. The 12-foot tall, as measured from the base of the sign, 118 SF sign offsets the sight limitations of this additional 75 foot distance. Furthermore the standard sign code for Nonresidential Districts, under LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.a., states that the maximum allowable height for ground signs located along an arterial or collector road is 15'. Therefore the ground signs located along Immokalee Road in nonresidential districts will be allowed the maximum height of 15'. The proposed sign will match the architectural features of the primary structure and be located within an undulating landscape buffer along the frontage.No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The Concept Plan shows the canal right-of-way (south of the subject property)is one-hundred 100 feet in width. The pavement of the travel lanes within Immokalee Road is located even farther away from the subject property. This distance between the subject property and the travel lanes of Immokalee Road represents a sizable separation,which the sign code does not contemplate. As such, there is justification to warrant the petitioner's desire for requesting a larger sign. With respect to a similar type of petition,in March of 2015,the Hearing Examiner reviewed PDI application(PDI-PL20140000859)for RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.for a property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This PDI application requested, among others, a deviation to allow a twelve (12)-foot tall ground sign with a maximum permitted area of one-hundred eighteen(118)square feet. The Hearing Examiner approved a reduced- sized sign [Nine (9) feet in height and eighty (80) square feet]. In light of approval of PDI- PL20140000859 and taking into consideration the physical characteristics of the subject property(i.e., the wide separation between the subject property and the travel lanes of Immokalee Road),staff concurs with the petitioner's rationale of requesting a larger ground sign and therefore, recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation#10(Right-of-Way Buffer Landscaping) Collier County LDC Section 5.05.05.E.1, which requires Facilities with Fuel Pumps to have twenty- five(25)-foot wide landscape buffer with a three(3)-foot high undulating berm where the landscaping is adjacent to the rights-of-way external to the development project, to instead allow an enhanced fifteen(15)-foot Type D landscape buffer on the south property line, as depicted on Exhibit E. Petitioner's Rationale: "The subject property is unique in that it faces three rights-of-way(north,south & east) which require the facilities with fuel pumps 25' buffer. The depth of the property is not sufficient to provide 25' buffers on the north and south frontages. Reducing the onsite paved areas around the canopy would limit maneuverability of onsite vehicles and prevent fuel trucks from maneuvering the site. Therefore, a reduced buffer is needed on either the north or south buffer. Based on discussions with Staff,the reduced buffer is better suited for the south(Immokalee)frontage. The north frontage faces other internal uses, including residential, to the Heritage Bay PUD. Immediately south of the property is the Immokalee Road Canal which provides an additional 75' +/- of separation from the roadway. In lieu of the required 25' buffer, an enhanced 15' Type D buffer is proposed. This proposed buffer is consistent in width to the overall Heritage Bay PUD buffer and will provide a seamless,continuous buffer along the entire Activity Center's frontage. The proposed buffer will meet the planting requirements of LDC 5.05.05.E.1. and exceed the buffer requirements for a PDI-PL20150001083 Page 14 of 21 April 11,2016 typical commercial project adjacent to the Immokalee Road,or similar,right-of-way.The plan includes nearly 1,800 square feet of additional impervious area elsewhere on the site which equates to approximately 65%of the requested 10 foot reduction in buffer width.All landscape and pervious areas are quantified on the Landscape Area Exhibit." StaffAnalysis and Recommendation: The required buffer width along the south property line is twenty- five(25)feet. The Exhibit E Enhanced Landscape Buffer,which will be made part of the PUD, shows the south landscape buffer would be fifteen (15) feet wide. Exhibit E also shows that a five (5)-foot wide landscape strip, which represents the pervious area required for the internal vehicular use area, would be combined with the fifteen(15)-foot wide buffer[for a total width of twenty(20)feet]. Much of the vehicular use area south of the building would consist of a canopy for the gas pumps,which is unsuitable for pervious area and plant material. Furthermore, the width of the canal right-of-way is one-hundred(100)feet,which represents a significant amount of space between the off-street parking area and the travel lanes of Immokalee Road. Zoning Review staff concurs with the petitioner's rationale and supports this deviation. Zoning Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this request. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC Section 10.02.13 E.1. The criteria and response to each criterion are listed below as follows: Section 10.02.13.E.1 a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)? No,there is no proposed change to the boundary of the RUD. b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? There would be no increase to the total number of units, intensity of land uses, or height of buildings within the development. c. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation,conservation,recreation,or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such,or five(5) acres in area? This petition does not propose any decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open • space area in excess of five (5)percent of the total acreage designated as such and is less than five(5)acres. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 15 of 21 April 11,2016 d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open space),or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? There is no proposed increase to the size of area used for non-residential uses. This petition is simply requesting certain deviations associated with a principal use that is already permitted in the PUD. There is no proposed relocation of non-residential land uses. e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? The proposed amendment will not result in a land use that generates a higher number of vehicular trips than those provided for by the current PUD. f. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? The proposed amendment would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which were not anticipated when the principal uses were originally adopted. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention,or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? The proposed change will not create a drainage problem as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the Development Review process(see conditions of approval). h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? The proposed changes would not result in an incompatibility with adjacent land uses. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? Staff from Comprehensive Planning Environmental Planning, and Transportation Planning have determined the petition would be consistent with the GMP. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 16 of 21 April 11,2016 yC j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)9e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRUPUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Sec. 2.7.3.5.4 or Sec. 2.7.3.5.6 of this Code. Due to the limited nature of this request, a determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19)will not be required(see Attachment 4-Email from Daniel Trescott from Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council). k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? tl Based upon the analysis provided above,the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC)RECOMMENDATION: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP or LDC. An EAC review is not required in accordance with Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A duly noticed NIM was conducted on November 18, 2015 at Peace Lutheran Church at 9850 Immokalee Road. Please see copies of the summary of this meeting in Attachment#6-Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary and Legal Notices. The NIM was advertised to commence at 4:30 p.m. and end at 7:30 p.m. Staff arrived at 4:37 p.m., and Mr. Tom Hardy was already present. The meeting did not officially start until shortly after 4:45 p.m. The applicant's agents arrived at 5:03 p.m.,and the session ended at 5:41 p.m. This is considered to be the first session of the night. Since the NIM was advertised to finish at 7:30 p.m., staff advised the applicant to stay longer in case more people showed up. A second group from the public arrived at approximately 6:07 p.m., and this second session ended at approximately 7:09 p.m. Overall, the topics of discussion at both sessions included proposed landscaping/buffers, hours of operation, deliveries, exterior lighting, the concern that home insurance rates would increase, traffic congestion, and traffic signalization. Below is a summary of some of highlights from the first and second sessions: First Session: The NIM summary does not indicate that during the first session staff read aloud the list of allowable uses in the Activity Center on the Heritage Bay PUD Master Concept Plan. Mr. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 17 of 21 April 11,2016 Hardy promised that magnolias, arborvitaes, or denser, thicker trees would be installed within the north landscape buffer. He described the Landscape Plan as having a twelve (12)-foot to fourteen(14)-foot tall "green living wall behind the store,"which would consist of a three(3)- foot tall berm,five(5)-foot tall hedge,and trees. Later in the meeting, a member of the public expressed his preferred opaqueness for the"landscaping in back,that you've got the three(3)- foot berm,and you've got the five(5)-foot hedge on top of the three(3)-foot berm,that whatever kind of trees that you put in addition to that five (5)-foot hedge are thick enough that they are going to really seal off that area so that it can't be viewed from like the Quarry facilities." It is staff's understanding the public was concerned with the landscape material proposed at the rear of the store, along Sage Avenue and possibly along the north portion of Bellaire Bay Drive as well. Mr. Hardy later suggested the landscaping could include mahoganies and that arborvitae may be mixed in,but certainly it would include palm trees. He mentioned the buffer would be twenty-five (25) feet in width and that it can be designed with layered landscaping with the palm tree canopy(e.g.Royal Palm)which can get taller[i.e.,twenty-five(25)to thirty(30)feet tall] than the other trees. Mr. Hardy later described the green living wall as "twelve (12) to fifteen(15)-foot tall green vegetation." Notwithstanding the fact that newly installed trees have to be a minimum of fourteen(14)feet tall at the time of installation,it is the opinion of Zoning Services staff that additional landscape material will have to be added to meet the intent of the desired opaqueness at the rear of the store as discussed at the NIM; however, staff notes the selection of species can be easily and more appropriately evaluated at the time of SDP review (see conditions of approval). A member of the public raised a question about exterior lighting,to which Mr.Hardy responded that RaceTrac offers "Dark Skies Initiatives"and"new technologies in lighting, LED lighting that allows us to do more downlighting, more focused beams." The "hooded lights" would prevent an onlooker from a neighboring property to see an exposed bulb, and that RaceTrac dims the exterior lights during the early hours of the morning. Another comment from the public was made about traffic,a left turn lane, and a traffic light. Mr. Hardy described the proposed building to be 5,488 square feet to 5,500 square feet and twenty-five (25) feet in height with food to be sold inside. The building would be a smaller than the RaceTrac buildings constructed at Airport-Pulling Road, Barefoot Williams, or Manatee Road/Marco. The subject site would have outdoor seating as well. With respect to underground tanks,Mr. Hardy described how RaceTrac utilizes liners,double- walled tanks and pipes,and sensors. Mr.Hardy differentiated between store deliveries and fuel deliveries. He explained how store deliveries are projected to typically occur once a week between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that no fuel would be delivered at 2:00 a.m. At the NIM, Mr. Hardy mentioned that he is requesting a thirty (30)-foot setback, which staff presumes to be along the north property line; however, in actuality the project is requesting to reduce the setback along Sage Avenue to twenty-five (25) feet. To mitigate any negative effect of the reduced building setback,Mr. Hardy emphasized the Landscape Plan would consists of larger vegetation along the backside of the store, presumably along Sage Avenue. Although not conclusive, staff believes he intended to include the northern area of Bellaire Drive as well. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 18 of 21 April 11,2016 Second Session: At around 6:07 p.m., Mr. Hardy described the project has having eight (8) pumps/16 fueling positions. There would be a three (3)-foot tall berm, five (5)-foot tall hedge, and 16-foot tall trees along the north property line. He later described it as a"nineteen(19)-foot green wall." Mr. Hardy talked about his desired need for a deviation along the west property line (which abuts Lot 3). He also mentioned they would be asking for two (2) parking deviations and a deviation for the rear building setback[from forty(40)feet to thirty(30)feet]. With respect to parking,the applicant is requesting only one (1) deviation and the setback along Sage Avenue would be twenty(25)feet. A member of the public asked if the area lighting would have shields, to which Mr. Hardy responded that all area lighting has shields and LED technology, "so it's a direct beam of light straight down, and at our property line, we will meet County standards where there's zero (0) footcandles at the property line, so it'll be dark at the property line" and"you won't be able to see an exposed bulb from the Quarry." Mr.Hardy explained the canopy lights are recessed and the project as whole will meet"Dark Sky requirements." Mr.Hardy explained the exterior light poles would be sixteen (16) feet in height and placed on top of a four (4)-foot tall base for a total of twenty (20) feet. Mr. Hardy described the requested signs associated with the project, including the deviation needed for the canopy sign. Mr. Hardy discussed his desire to have a traffic signal. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on April 6,2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition PDI- PL20150001083 Heritage Bay PUD(RaceTrac),subject to the following conditions to be incorporated into the final CCPC Decision: 1. Approval of Deviation#5 (canopy sign area) is contingent upon the approval of Deviation#6 (number of canopy signs). The following commitments were made by the applicant as the NIM: 2. The north landscape buffer shall contain plant material comparable to magnolias,arborvitae,or denser, thicker trees to meet the intent of what was promised at the NIM. The berm shall be three (3) feet in height. Five (5)-foot tall hedges shall be installed on top of the berm. Trees, which shall also be installed on top of the berm, shall be at least 16 feet in height. This will be further addressed at the time of SDP review. 3. The building height shall not exceed twenty-five(25)feet. 4. The size of the store shall not exceed 5,500 square feet or have more than eight (8) pumps/sixteen(16)fueling positions. PDI-PL20150001083 Page 19 of 21 April 11,2016 5. With respect to exterior lighting, the project shall comply with"Dark Skies Initiatives" and to I include LED lights and hooded lights. Lights shall become dimmer during the early hours of 1 the morning. Attachments: 1) Proposed PUD Document(per CCPC Resolution) 2) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 3) Email from John Wojdak to Eric Johnson regarding Landscape Issues 4) Email from Daniel Trescott from Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council i 5) Letters/Emails from Public 6) Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary and Legal Notices 7) Application and Support Material 1 I i i I I i I 1 1 i 1 1 S { 1 i i 1 S i 3i 3 i 3 I 9 f 3 yt F PDI-PL20150001083 Page 20 of 21 I April 11,2016 1 3 3 PREPARED BY: 3/31//‘ ERIC L JOHNSON, A CP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 4 - I . I RAYMON . BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING ISION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: Ar A ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT C-4 4 / 47/; t A AVID S. WIL •SON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PDI-PL20150001083 Page 21 of 21 ip pF y ATTACHMENT #1 Proposed PUD Document (per CCPC Resolution) } Y 3 { $ 1 i i CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 16— 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING I COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 03-40, AS AMENDED, THE HERITAGE BAY PUD, 1 TO AMEND SECTION I, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY i OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION, BY ADDING TEN NEW DEVIATIONS FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, 1 HERITAGE BAY COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT, RELATING TO A i JOINT PROJECT PLAN, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BUILDING SETBACKS, ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, SIGNAGE AND PARKING; AND TO ADD EXHIBIT E, WHICH DEPICTS THE 15 FOOT TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 4,HERITAGE BAY COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT. THE SUBJECT PUD PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 2,562* ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST OF CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), IN SECTIONS 13, 14, 23, AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PDI- PL20150001083] WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such ] business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and t WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of 1 County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected constituted i Planning Commission for the area hereby affected,has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of PDI-PL20150001083, 1 insubstantial changes to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD, to amend Section I, Legal Description, Property Ownership and General Description, by adding ten new deviations for the parcel described as Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, relating to a joint project plan, landscape buffers, building setbacks, architectural standards, signage and 1 parking; and to add Exhibit E, which depicts the 15 foot Type D landscape buffer along the south property line of Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Collier County ] Land Development Code;and i [15-CPS-01468/1247437/1] Words underlined are added;Words-streak-through-are deleted. 4/6/-PL20150001083 l 4/6/16 19 ] I WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: Petition Number PDI-PL20150001083, filed by John T. Wojdak, P.E. representing RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., be and the same is hereby approved for the following insubstantial changes to Ordinance No. 03-40,as amended,the Heritage Bay PUD. SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION I OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 03-40, AS AMENDED, TO ADD SECTION 1.11, PROVIDING FOR DEVIATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Section I, entitled Legal Description, Property Ownership and General Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD, is hereby amended to add Section 1.11 as follows: SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION,PROPERTY OWNERSHIP,AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * 1.11 THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE APPROVED FOR THE PARCEL IN THE AC DISTRICT DESCRIBED AS LOT 4,HERITAGE BAY COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT ONLY A. From Section 4A6.02.C.7,a. which allows abutting platted parcels to submit a joint project plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line as long as the joint project plan is submitted either as a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels or separate SDPs or SIPs for each parcel submitted concurrentiv,to 'nstead allow the owner of Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat to eliminate the required landscape buffer on the west side of the property and submit a separate SDP that is not submitted concurrently with the SDP for Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, the adjacent parcel to the west. 1. The owner of Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat shall advise any purchaser of the landscape requirements in Section 1.11.A.3 below. 2 Prior to issuance of the Site Development Plan for Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, the owner shall record a Shared Maintenance and Access Easement with Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat for shared parking or other infrastructure facilities, as required under Section 4.06.02 C.7.a of the Land Development Code. 3. Prior to issuance of the Site Development Plan for Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat,the owner shall install the required 10-foot Type"A"landscape buffer [15-CP5.01468/1247437/1] Words underlined are added;Wordsstreel-tlxe sgt-ere deleted. 4/6116 0150001083 4/6/16 over the eastern 10 feet of the abutting portion of Lot 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, in order to ensure that the joint project plan for both properties contains the required 10-foot Type "A" landscape buffer on the west side of the shared buffer in accordance with Section 4.06.02 C.7 of the Land Development Code. B. From Section 5.05.05.8.1, which requires that the minimum front yard setback for a Facility with Fuel Pumps of 50 feet, to instead allow a reduced front yard setback of 25 feet for the north front yard. C. From Section 5.05.05.8.1 which requires that the minimum side yard setback for a Facility with Fuel Pumps of 40 feet, to instead allow a reduced side yard setback of 20 feet for the west side yard. D. From Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii. which allows one (1)facade of a freestanding structure located in an outparcel of a PUD to be considered a secondary facade as long as that facade is internal to the site and does not abut or face a private street,to instead allow the secondary facade to be the north facade which faces a private street. E. From Section 5.05,08.C.9.b.ii, which requires outparcels and freestanding buildings within a PUD to have a maximum of one secondary facade, to instead allow two (2) facades to be considered secondary facades. F. From Section 5.05.05.C.4.b. which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one (1) illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of twelve (12) square feet on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway, to instead allow one fifty (50) square foot corporate logo on the canopy facade facing the Immokalee Canal right-of-way and two (2) thirty (30) square foot corporate logos, one (1) on the facade facing Bellaire Bay Drive and one(1)on the facade facing the vacant commercial parcel to the west. G. From Section 5.05.05.C.4.b. which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one (1) illuminated corporate logo on a canopy face which is adiacent to a dedicated street or highway, to instead allow one (1) illuminated corporate logo on the west canopy facade facing the vacant commercial outparcel to the west. H. From Section 4.05.04.G. which requires 1 parking space per 200 square feet of floor area for convenience stores, which has been interpreted to apply to Facilities with Fuel Pumps, to instead allow 1 parking space per 211 square feet. L From Section 5.05.05.C.4.c which limits Facilities with Fuel Pumps to one ground sign with a maximum area of 60 square feet and maximum height of less than 8 feet above grade, to instead allow a 118 square foot ground sign with a height of 12 feet above grade. J. From Section 5.05.05.E.1 which requires Facilities with Fuel Pumps to have a 25 foot wide landscape buffer with a 3 foot high undulating berm where the landscaping is adjacent to the rights-of-way external to the development project, to instead allow an enhanced 15 foot Type D landscape buffer on the south property line,as depicted on Exhibit E. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION II OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 03-40, AS AMENDED, TO ADD SECTION 2.27, PROVIDING FOR MISCELLANEOUS COMMITMENTS [15-CPS-01468/I 247437/I] Words underlined are added;Words-stfuek4hseHelrare deleted. PDI-P1.20 1 50001 083 4/6116 (14 _ _ Section II, entitled Project Development, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended,the Heritage Bay PUD,is hereby amended to add Section 2.27 as follows: SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.27 MISCELLANEOUS COMMITMENTS A. Issuance of a development permit b' a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actrions that result in a violation of state or federal law, B. All other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 03-40, AS AMENDED, TO ADD EXHIBIT E, SOUTH BUFFER ENHANCEMENTS Exhibit E, entitled "South Buffer Enhancements," attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby added to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO.03-40,AS AMENDED,TO ADD EXHIBIT E-1,AFFECTED AREA Exhibit E-1, entitled"Affected Area," attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby added to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 03-40,as amended,the Heritage Bay PUD. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Collier County Planning Commission after motion, second and majority vote this day of ,2016 a [15-CPS-01468/1247437/1] Words underlined are added;Words elk-threuglrare deleted, PDI-PL20150001083 4/6/16 • 3 ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA David Wilkison, Department Head Karen Homiak,Vice-Chairman Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality (& i / f( Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit E - South Buffer Enhancements Exhibit E-1 - Affected Area [15-CPS-01468/1247437/II Words underlined arc added;Wordsek through-are deleted. PD1-PL20I50001083 4/6/16 N `,i,— _ _ :., :� ....,,__ rs ....__...._....._....,L—.... .......:::._______________41,, 111 t � P ail i I E. b t, . ,, : f i rk k i ,t 1. I 11' ' i 1 ;I 'a� � '-�a f �� 3R�` {' 1 I�• i i I t i:., 1 t, ;( I 1 'rr ,i ' , h r .I k ! Il' Il _ e ,. __ 11 AFFECTED AREA LEGEND 1 •!1IIv:4i AFFECTED AREA i .' (IA'•LIL.1)I'1'I Lrll'i.R RACETRAC PETROLEUM,INC. DELISI FITZGERALD, INC. spa w"„""°W`�° EXHIBIT E-1 Planning-Engineering-Project Management 1,11 jjLn 1605 Hendry treet Project Mambo 21352 ry P31101 Sccnm ox) 23 Fort Myers,FL 33901 /ar��� V. 239.418.0691.239-418-0692 fax __ 'I I W.I ship 48 5 Runge 26 E Florida Certificate d Authorization: BELLAI RE BAY .l t••° State COLLIER COUNTY,FL + Engineering 18 e:26978 (EPN#1166-STORE#XXXX) t Sheet Number: 1 1 0 i r ; f it,grit':' t • 1I 0 . T X � © �;„, m O Q�.,Q 0 �,�, ,,- ao —I m :,',:_ � C/) 77 n O r O —I . ko °�', C - V s �D0 —I nm om C r- - 5 l'CO CA O 4. •1 -•C t ^ rn: P 36 II XI 5 m ..„ a E m X � m.� ° n .c.'6,''';...- T . ` '.m T 3” O m D 'iii ©\+ o Z Z .m �aC.N g xi 3 9 < < ;Z yfCli Ar s 2 8 �iIJ c 5 T , .0 , J�ii 1 w�'s`is© aA �`..,>>I C C i •D ii Ito A0 , Z -10c rno 20 COQ c `O ,�. � o ° "^ a. mmxi 73x nx CO m :� X � Q70 1D WO xO mm n 4 ",, �©, \ rnc� Z5 -gym CO 0n m Ql c {� . m Z Z 0 0 n Z m '. 411 ���.�� Z Z r r 2 $ rD en D cn •,.� Z0i xi ZO O --- n 2 m m n n Z co L N :: :: g. z° wOm � = mm m oOo 9> m oT• � � ° m Cl m l� 0 i I o -1 ? m m K 73 } �° ° z = cn v v xl nrnj1 ®'t 't L7 0 m ;Di( ` --- .c. LA• RACETRAC MARKET , RACETRAC P BELLAIRE BAY Race'TirAV' BUFFER EXHIBIT E' r -. ,_, DMTq COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC. r, : ;;° .w '; m.�x�,��,�., 3225 CUMBERLAND BOULEVARD SOUTHBUFFER s uw;r,:tr",. SCALE PER PLAN DALE AR. 31 2016 SUITE 100 ATLANTA, GA 30339 ENHAIVCEMFVTEXHIBIT �' JOB NO.IOOMJA: 215096 (770) 431-7600 ATTACHMENT #2 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review er Co-yHty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM,Principal Planner Zoning Services Section,Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: March 29, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PDI-PL20150001083 Rev: 4 PETITION NAME: Heritage Bay PUD—RaceTrac (Bellaire Bay) REQUEST: This petition requests ten (10) deviations itemized below, all applicable only to Heritage Bay Commons,Tract D Replat,Lot 4 of the Heritage Bay PUD: • Deviation Request 1: Deviate from required Joint Project Plan to allow the required west 15' buffer for RaceTrac to be submitted independently of the adjacent lot; • Deviation Request 2: Reduce the minimum 50-foot setback to a 25-foot setback for the north front yard; • Deviation Request 3: Reduce the minimum 40-foot setback to a 20-foot setback for the west side yard; • Deviation Request 4: Change the north façade(front yard)on Sage Avenue(private road) to a secondary façade, allowing two facades to be considered secondary instead of one on outparcels and freestanding buildings. • Deviation Request 5: Deviation Requests 5 through 7 and 9: Various deviations for canopy sign area and number of canopy signs, percent of window coverage, and monument sign area. • Deviation Request 8: Increases square footage per each parking space required—from 1 space per 200 sq. ft. to 1 space per 211 square feet. • Deviation Request 10: reduces required 25-foot wide landscape buffer with a 3 foot high undulating berm on the south(Immokalee Road)frontage to be reduced to an enhanced 15- foot Type D buffer. LOCATION: The subject site is situated on the northwest corner of Immokalee Rd. at Bellaire Bay Drive and just south of Sage Avenue in Section 23,Township 48 South,Range 26 East. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104.238-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject ±1.74 acres are designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (#3), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan and within the Urban - Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay. This project site is within the Heritage Bay PUD and is approved for commercial uses. The RaceTrac use was previously approved and the intensity of this use is not being increased with this application for Insubstantial changes to a Planned Unit Development (PDI). Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Heritage Bay PUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with,and complementary to,surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Given the nature of this petition,staff has determined an analysis of FLUE Policies under Objective 7 is not necessary(re: interconnections,loop roads,access to arterial/or collector roads, etc.). CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis,staff finds the subject petition consistent with the FLUE. cc: Michael Bosi,AICP,Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows,Manager,Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section CD/FLUE file Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104.239-252.2400 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT #3 Email from John Wojdak to Eric Johnson regarding Landscape Issues g g p } JohnsonEric From: John Wojdak<John @delisifitzgerald.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:21 PM To: JohnsonEric Cc: StoneScott; Hardy, Tom; SmithDaniel Subject: RE: Heritage Bay PUD - RaceTrac (Landscape Issue) Eric, Yes;We will revise the landscape plan and/or dry detention area,as necessary,to comply at the time of SDP. John John T.Wojdak,P.E. DELIS! FITZGERALD, INC. Planning-Engineering-Project Management 1605 Hendry Street Fort Myers,FL 33901 P: (239)418-0691 F: (239)418-0692 C:(239)565-3077 john @delisifitzgerald.com www.delisifitzgerald.com From:JohnsonEric[mailto:Ericlohnson @colllergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:19 PM To:John Wojdak Cc: StoneScott; Hardy,Tom; SmithDaniel Subject: Heritage Bay PUD- RaceTrac(Landscape Issue) John, Staff determined the landscape plan is deficient by 13 trees. Also, a portion of the east landscape buffer overlaps with the proposed water management area, which does not meet the intent of the LDC. Do you agree to demonstrate compliance with these issue at the time of site development plan (SDP)review? Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 LEED GREEN coffer Country ASSOCIATE 1 ATTACHMENT #4 Email from Daniel Trescott from SWFRPC ff 2 JohnsonEric From: DANIEL TRESCOTT <trescott@embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:41 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Heritage Bay PUD (RaceTrac) Email 4 Hello Eric I have reviewed the info you sent me on the Race Trac proposal within Heritage Bay. I find it consistent with the approved DRI retail land use within the activity center commercial designated on the Master Concept Plan of the DRI DO.This activity center commercial area is approved for up to 50,000 square feet of office uses and 150,000 square feet of retail. If you have further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Daniel L.Trescott, MSP Trescott Planning Solutions, LLC 421 Norwood Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 (239) 850-7163 Cell (239) 433-4067 Office (239) 433-0105 Fax trescott @embargmail.com From: "JohnsonEric" <EricJohnson @colliergov.net> To: "DANIEL TRESCOTT" <trescott@embarqmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:57:19 PM Subject: Heritage Bay PUD (RaceTrac) Email 4 Dan, The attached is the application for the PDI. Thanks! Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning Sr Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 LEER GREEN Co County AssociATF 1 ATTACHMENT #5 Letters/Emails from Public 3 1 ri 3E ksj ff If {pi Y 1 JohnsonEric From: Jane Rollins <jr @rollinsworld.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 7:04 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RaceTrac proposal Bellaire Bay Blvd Dear Eric, I spoke with John Wojdak of DeLisi Fitzgerald, Inc. yesterday about their development plan for a RaceTrac gas station at Bellaire Bay Blvd and Immokalee Rd.I know there is a public hearing today that I can't attend but I wanted to share a couple of concerns I have with the project. The most important concern is safety.I believe we will need a traffic light either at Goodland or Bellaire Bay Blvd and Immokalee Rd. Collier Blvd north of Immokalee Rd.is a narrow,two lane road woefully inadequate now. I've heard it's scheduled to be widened but the canal makes this a difficult project(I remember the difficulties when Immokalee was being widened at Northbrooke Plaza). It is being asked to support traffic from the Quarry,the CVS,the new commercial center with restaurants, and from November 21 on, the new NCH hospital with emergency facilities. It will be dangerous. I live at Heritage Bay and leaving my neighborhood has become a challenge. The new added pressure from customers using the Day Care Center at the Peace Lutheran Church making U turns directly in front of Heritage Bay residents leaving our neighborhood has become dangerous.The homebuilding boom has put an enormous • amount of trucks on Immokalee. The added pressure of gas station traffic to that area will make a bad situation worse. 1 The next concern is appearance.It seems there are too many deviations being requested for signage and l lighting. F, Thank you for your time, Jane Rollins 10487 Heritage Bay Blvd. 530-1250 1 THE UARRY Golf • Beach • Boating Mr.Mark Strain Collier County Hearing Examiner 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida Dear Mr. Strain, This letter is being written to you to show the support that The Quarry Community Association (QCA)has for the new RaceTrac facility. We have met on 2 occasions to discuss the proposed RaceTrac at Bellaire Bay and Immokalee Road. They have shared the entirety of their PDI(waiver requests)request with us. We have seen color elevations and renderings of the proposed landscape,building and canopy. Along with that we were shown that they were placing a good dense buffer along the NE corner (most visible from our association members).We feel it is adequate given the line of sight. The QCA is also aware of all their signage requests for the building and canopy. We,as a board,feel that RaceTrac has met all our requests and we are in full support of the PDI application that was submitted by RaceTrac. Most importantly,the HOA is in full support of a fully operating traffic signal at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay. This light should most definitely be in place at the time of RaceTrac's opening. This light will be most beneficial for the egress and ingress not only for those going to RaceTrac but it will also benefit every business there as well as our development. In summary,we have found our future neighbor to be most cooperative and feel they will be a welcome addition to the growing area around us. Respectfully submitted, E.David Thomas President, Quarry Community Association l i i 1 JohnsonEric 4 From: Ann Cowen <anncow @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:42 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area 1 Hello Eric, i I am sure by the time you are done reading this email,you will regret having given me your email address, but I am just so frustrated by the apparent lack of zoning in Collier County, I am happy to have somewhere to voice my concerns. I have been visiting Naples since 1975, and have lived here since 2003 and am currently residing at The f Quarry. I have become increasingly concerned with what appears to be completely unrestrained commercial i l and residential development in Collier County. Joni Mitchell's 1970's song seems particularly relevant to i Collier County in 2015: "Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got till it's gone/They 1 paved paradise and put up a parking lot...They took all the trees,put'em in a tree museum/And they charged the people a dollar and a half Just to see 'em " 3 People come to Naples rather than the East Coast of Florida for the lower density of population and for the relatively more attractive look and feel of the area. Unfortunately, Naples is quickly becoming a sea of concrete multilane roads and strip malls. It seems like the developers control the county rather the county controlling the developers. In my memory,other than Mirasol which was recently developed anyway, no major development project has ever been turned down. I I am originally from Massachusetts,where most towns have a zoning plan which allows residential i development within certain constraints, and in a separate area allows commercial development and/or educational or religious development. In Collier County, it appears that there are no such restrictions. t Commercial areas are squeezed next to residential developments with no seeming plan. At the corner of 951 I and Immokalee Road,there is a major shopping area (Pebblebrooke)next to residential communities. Across the street on the Northeast Corner,there are residential developments,a CVS, a strip mall and now an , emergency care center. There appears to be no master plan which puts suitable land use first,then divides the community into various uses rather than spot zoning all over. i Now we have a large RaceTrac gas/convenience plaza to be placed in the middle of a residential area, adjacent to the Quarry. It is completely inconsistent with the residential areas located in this area. Do you really believe this is the optimal use for this land, and do you want to have another unsightly, haphazardly planned j thoroughfare similar to Pine Ridge Road along Immokalee Road? The noise,lights,24/7 operation from the j proposed development are totally inconsistent with a residential area. Needless to say I am horrified at the prospect of 24/7 lights, noise,trash and loiterers at all hours of the day and night adjacent to an upscale residential community.The zoning regulations in Collier County are so broad that they allow a highly 3 unsuitable commercial venture close to a residential area. I find it disgusting that no one cares about residents who have paid a huge amount for their houses to be living next to a RaceTrac. i I cannot believe that an auto dealership and a RacTrac style of gas station are compatible with a high end multi-million dollar residential community. Most of the other types of land use that you spoke about at the 1 s j i meeting are daytime low density types of businesses...but a 16 pump gas station/snack bar, open 24/7, with lights, noise and odors from food in the dumpsters should not have been part of the allowable zoning for this area. Further, the high probability of leakage from the underground tanks will severely impact the Cocohatchee Canal and the related conservancy areas and the Quarry lakes, with disastrous results. Specifically, I am absolutely opposed to the changes mentioned at the recent meeting: • There should be no approval of increased amounts of signage on the site. The sizes and numbers of the signs were included in the original proposal and should not be increased in size or in number. I truly doubt that anyone would possibly miss a 16 pump gas station in the day or night. A residential area does not need additional large bright signs. According to the Racetrac speaker, he was afraid that no one would see the station going 60 miles per hour along Immokalee Road. The speed limit is 50 and I am absolutely certain that no one will miss this particularly unattractive edifice. Please go visit the RaceTrac on Bonita Beach road and you will see the glaring signage and there are no residential areas in that vicinity. The code specifies signage numbers and size and SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. • There should be no approval of the reduced set back along the back of the property by 10 additional feet. This will only bring the RaceTrac closer to the residential area and completely unnecessary for the operation of the store or the gas pumps. • The RaceTrac is unsightly from both the front and the rear. Although I am relieved that there will be large bushes planted in the back(and the live oaks the spokesman mentioned are not suitable for blocking) bushes and trees with a high berm should also be put in the front so people visiting or living in our residential community are not forced to look at the ugly building and gas pumps passing by on Immokalee Road and the residents of Bent Creek do not have to look at ugly gas pumps.. • As I mentioned in the meeting, the City Mattress building on Immokalee Road is too close to the road and has no plantings shielding the huge ugly neon signs. Although City Mattress is in a commercial zone, all the other buildings are set further back from the road and have denser plantings. • The City of Naples requited that RaceTrac not feature "tasty treat" promotional posters in the windows, and was required to plant shrubs at the foot of the store to soften the building's look, and use canopy trees in addition to palms to enhance perimeter landscaping,city records show. (http://www.naplesnews.com/business/breaki ng-groun d/in-the-know-is-racetrac-still-plan ned-for- airport-pulling-road-ep-313158717-330639501.html). I hope that the County will require similar restrictions since the RaceTrac on Immokalee Road is in the middle of a residential area. • Also why was RaceTrac not forced to double stack its pumps so the front would not be so ugly? Additional articles have been in the newspaper about the incompatibility of RaceTrac with residential developments on the East Trail. There is no difference here. A 24/7 RaceTrac should not have been allowed to build in this area and since the Councilors did not listen to residents and allowed this to go forward,the existing restrictions should be upheld and no variance should be allowed. http://www.naplesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-despite-smal ler-racetrac-pla n-neighbors- still-more-important-ep-812817757-335926611.html 2 http://www.naplesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editoria l-too-close-to-homes-ep-478638995- 337222591,html I really hope that you will consider my comments in allowing the additional variances that RaceTrac is seeking. The entire project is not appropriate for a residential area. (I am certain when that list of allowable commercial uses you read referred to the old fashioned two or four pump local gas stations, not the behemoth RaceTrac with 16 pumps and a snack bar.) Please do not allow the above variances to make things worse than they are. I would appreciate your response to this email. Sincerely, Ann Cowen 9319 Marble Stone Drive Naples, FL 34120 3 JohnsonEric From: Ann Cowen <anncow @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:40 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area2 Thank you Eric. Who actually makes the decision to approve the variances? Is it only one person or is there a board? When do they meet to decide? Also one other question...why are there no plantings along the median of Immokalee Road east of Collier? Every other part of this road has plantings as well as most of the other major streets in the county. Thanks again, Ann From: JohnsonEric[mailto:EricJohnson @colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:23 PM To: Ann Cowen Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area2 Hello,Ms. Cowen. I wanted to let you know that I received your email. I will print it and put it into the file where it will become"part of the record." I forwarded it to the Hearing Examiner and the applicant as well. Thank you for your comments, and feel free to contact me anytime. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 LEER GREEN Co ASSOCIATE er County From:Ann Cowen [mailto:anncow @comcast.net1 Sent:Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:42 PM 1 To:JohnsonEric<Ericlohnson @colliergov.net> Subject:RaceTrac zoning in a residential area Hello Eric, I am sure by the time you are done reading this email,you will regret having given me your email address, but I am just so frustrated by the apparent lack of zoning in Collier County, I am happy to have somewhere to voice my concerns. I have been visiting Naples since 1975, and have lived here since 2003 and am currently residing at The Quarry. I have become increasingly concerned with what appears to be completely unrestrained commercial and residential development in Collier County. Joni Mitchell's 1970's song seems particularly relevant to Collier County in 2015: "Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got till it's gone/They paved paradise and put up a parking lot...They took all the trees,put 'em in a tree museum/And they charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em " People come to Naples rather than the East Coast of Florida for the lower density of population and for the relatively more attractive look and feel of the area. Unfortunately, Naples is quickly becoming a sea of concrete multilane roads and strip malls. It seems like the developers control the county rather the county controlling the developers. In my memory, other than Mirasol which was recently developed anyway, no major development project has ever been turned down. I am originally from Massachusetts,where most towns have a zoning plan which allows residential development within certain constraints, and in a separate area allows commercial development and/or educational or religious development. In Collier County, it appears that there are no such restrictions. Commercial areas are squeezed next to residential developments with no seeming plan. At the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road,there is a major shopping area (Pebblebrooke) next to residential communities. Across the street on the Northeast Corner,there are residential developments, a CVS, a strip mall and now an emergency care center. There appears to be no master plan which puts suitable land use first,then divides the community into various uses rather than spot zoning all over. Now we have a large RaceTrac gas/convenience plaza to be placed in the middle of a residential area, adjacent to the Quarry. It is completely inconsistent with the residential areas located in this area. Do you really believe this is the optimal use for this land, and do you want to have another unsightly, haphazardly planned thoroughfare similar to Pine Ridge Road along lmmokalee Road? The noise, lights, 24/7 operation from the proposed development are totally inconsistent with a residential area. Needless to say I am horrified at the prospect of 24/7 lights, noise,trash and loiterers at all hours of the day and night adjacent to an upscale residential community.The zoning regulations in Collier County are so broad that they allow a highly unsuitable commercial venture close to a residential area. I find it disgusting that no one cares about residents who have paid a huge amount for their houses to be living next to a RaceTrac. I cannot believe that an auto dealership and a RacTrac style of gas station are compatible with a high end multi-million dollar residential community. Most of the other types of land use that you spoke about at the meeting are daytime low density types of businesses...but a 16 pump gas station/snack bar, open 24/7, with lights, noise and odors from food in the dumpsters should not have been part of the allowable zoning for this area. Further,the high probability of leakage from the underground tanks will severely impact the Cocohatchee Canal and the related conservancy areas and the Quarry lakes, with disastrous results. 2 Specifically, I am absolutely opposed to the changes mentioned at the recent meeting: • There should be no approval of increased amounts of signage on the site. The sizes and numbers of the signs were included in the original proposal and should not be increased in size or in number. I truly doubt that anyone would possibly miss a 16 pump gas station in the day or night. A residential area does not need additional large bright signs. According to the Racetrac speaker, he was afraid that no one would see the station going 60 miles per hour along Immokalee Road. The speed limit is 50 and I am absolutely certain that no one will miss this particularly unattractive edifice. Please go visit the RaceTrac on Bonita Beach road and you will see the glaring signage and there are no residential areas in that vicinity. The code specifies signage numbers and size and SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. • There should be no approval of the reduced set back along the back of the property by 10 additional feet. This will only bring the RaceTrac closer to the residential area and completely unnecessary for the operation of the store or the gas pumps. • The RaceTrac is unsightly from both the front and the rear. Although I am relieved that there will be large bushes planted in the back (and the live oaks the spokesman mentioned are not suitable for blocking) bushes and trees with a high berm should also be put in the front so people visiting or living in our residential community are not forced to look at the ugly building and gas pumps passing by on Immokalee Road and the residents of Bent Creek do not have to look at ugly gas pumps.. • As I mentioned in the meeting, the City Mattress building on Immokalee Road is too close to the road and has no plantings shielding the huge ugly neon signs. Although City Mattress is in a commercial zone,all the other buildings are set further back from the road and have denser plantings. • The City of Naples requited that RaceTrac not feature "tasty treat" promotional posters in the windows, and was required to plant shrubs at the foot of the store to soften the building's look, and use canopy trees in addition to palms to enhance perimeter landscaping,city records show. (http://www.naplesnews.cam/business/breaking-ground/in-the-know-is-racetrac-still-planned-for- airport-pulling-road-ep-313158717-330639501.html). I hope that the County will require similar restrictions since the RaceTrac on Immokalee Road is in the middle of a residential area. • Also why was RaceTrac not forced to double stack its pumps so the front would not be so ugly? Additional articles have been in the newspaper about the incompatibility of RaceTrac with residential developments on the East Trail. There is no difference here. A 24/7 RaceTrac should not have been allowed to build in this area and since the Councilors did not listen to residents and allowed this to go forward,the existing restrictions should be upheld and no variance should be allowed. http://www.napiesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-despite-smaller-racetrac-plan-neighbors- still-more-important-ep-812817757-335926611.html http://www.naplesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editoria l-too-close-to-homes-ep-478638995- 337222591.html I really hope that you will consider my comments in allowing the additional variances that RaceTrac is seeking. The entire project is not appropriate for a residential area. (I am certain when that list of allowable 3 commercial uses you read referred to the old fashioned two or four pump local gas stations, not the behemoth RaceTrac with 16 pumps and a snack bar.) Please do not allow the above variances to make things worse than they are. I would appreciate your response to this email. Sincerely, Ann Cowen 9319 Marble Stone Drive Naples, FL 34120 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG-www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 /Virus Database: 4477/11058 -Release Date: 11/24/15 4 JohnsonEric From: Ann Cowen <anncow @comcast.net> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:26 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area4 Thank you for the update, I appreciate it very much. If possible,can you let me know when the date is set. Thanks again. Ann Cowen From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 4:18 PM To: Ann Cowen Subject: FW: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area4 Ms. Cowen, It has recently been decided that the RaceTrac application will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission rather than the Hearing Examiner. The project is still in review and a hearing date is yet to be determined. Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:JohnsonEric Sent:Tuesday, November 24,2015 4:58 PM To:'Ann Cowen'<anncow @comcast.net> Cc:StrainMark<MarkStrain @colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi @colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net>;SawyerMichael<MichaelSawverPcolliergov.net> Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area3 Ms. Cowen, The applicant is requesting the petition be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner,who is 1 person who can make final decisions. However,the Hearing Examiner can opt to forward the application to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), which is an advisory board. They make recommendations(to approve,approve with conditions,or deny a petition)to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). If the Hearing Examiner forwards the petition to the CCPC, then the CCPC will make their recommendation to the BCC, and the BCC will take final action. Generally speaking,each body meets twice a month. If you received a letter for the neighborhood information meeting,then you will receive a letter for the next public meeting. You will certainly be given an opportunity to voice your concerns. With respect to your comment about the plantings,I do not know the answer. I will forward your email to staff who can best provide you with an explanation. Respectfully, Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Ann Cowen [mailto:anncow@comcast.netl Sent:Tuesday, November 24,2015 4:40 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnsonpcolliergov.net> Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area2 Thank you Eric. Who actually makes the decision to approve the variances? Is it only one person or is there a board? When do they meet to decide? Also one other question...why are there no plantings along the median of Immokalee Road east of Collier? Every other part of this road has plantings as well as most of the other major streets in the county. Thanks again, Ann From:JohnsonEric[mailto:Eric)ohnson @collieroov.net1 Sent:Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:23 PM To: Ann Cowen Subject: RE: RaceTrac zoning in a residential area2 Hello,Ms.Cowen. I wanted to let you know that I received your email. I will print it and put it into the file where it will become"part of the record." I forwarded it to the Hearing Examiner and the applicant as well. Thank you for your comments,and feel free to contact me anytime. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 • LEER GREEN CAT ty ASSOCIATE: From:Ann Cowen [mailto:anncow@comcast.netl Sent:Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:42 PM To:Johnson Eric<Ericlohnson @colliergov.net> Subject:RaceTrac zoning in a residential area 2 Hello Eric, I am sure by the time you are done reading this email,you will regret having given me your email address, but I am just so frustrated by the apparent lack of zoning in Collier County, I am happy to have somewhere to voice my concerns. I have been visiting Naples since 1975, and have lived here since 2003 and am currently residing at The Quarry. I have become increasingly concerned with what appears to be completely unrestrained commercial and residential development in Collier County. Joni Mitchell's 1970's song seems particularly relevant to Collier County in 2015: "Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got till it's gone/They paved paradise and put up a parking lot...They took all the trees,put'em in a tree museum/And they charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em " People come to Naples rather than the East Coast of Florida for the lower density of population and for the relatively more attractive look and feel of the area. Unfortunately, Naples is quickly becoming a sea of concrete multilane roads and strip malls. It seems like the developers control the county rather the county controlling the developers. In my memory, other than Mirasol which was recently developed anyway, no major development project has ever been turned down. I am originally from Massachusetts,where most towns have a zoning plan which allows residential development within certain constraints,and in a separate area allows commercial development and/or educational or religious development. In Collier County, it appears that there are no such restrictions. Commercial areas are squeezed next to residential developments with no seeming plan. At the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road,there is a major shopping area (Pebblebrooke)next to residential communities. Across the street on the Northeast Corner,there are residential developments, a CVS, a strip mall and now an emergency care center. There appears to be no master plan which puts suitable land use first,then divides the community into various uses rather than spot zoning all over. Now we have a large RaceTrac gas/convenience plaza to be placed in the middle of a residential area, adjacent to the Quarry. It is completely inconsistent with the residential areas located in this area. Do you really believe this is the optimal use for this land, and do you want to have another unsightly, haphazardly planned thoroughfare similar to Pine Ridge Road along Immokalee Road? The noise, lights,24/7 operation from the proposed development are totally inconsistent with a residential area. Needless to say I am horrified at the prospect of 24/7 lights, noise,trash and loiterers at all hours of the day and night adjacent to an upscale residential community.The zoning regulations in Collier County are so broad that they allow a highly unsuitable commercial venture close to a residential area. I find it disgusting that no one cares about residents who have paid a huge amount for their houses to be living next to a RaceTrac. I cannot believe that an auto dealership and a RacTrac style of gas station are compatible with a high end multi-million dollar residential community. Most of the other types of land use that you spoke about at the meeting are daytime low density types of businesses...but a 16 pump gas station/snack bar,open 24/7,with lights, noise and odors from food in the dumpsters should not have been part of the allowable zoning for this area. Further,the high probability of leakage from the underground tanks will severely impact the Cocohatchee Canal and the related conservancy areas and the Quarry lakes,with disastrous results. Specifically, I am absolutely opposed to the changes mentioned at the recent meeting: 3 • There should be no approval of increased amounts of signage on the site. The sizes and numbers of the signs were included in the original proposal and should not be increased in size or in number. I truly doubt that anyone would possibly miss a 16 pump gas station in the day or night. A residential area does not need additional large bright signs. According to the Racetrac speaker, he was afraid that no one would see the station going 60 miles per hour along Immokalee Road. The speed limit is 50 and I am absolutely certain that no one will miss this particularly unattractive edifice. Please go visit the RaceTrac on Bonita Beach road and you will see the glaring signage and there are no residential areas in that vicinity. The code specifies signage numbers and size and SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. • There should be no approval of the reduced set back along the back of the property by 10 additional feet. This will only bring the RaceTrac closer to the residential area and completely unnecessary for the operation of the store or the gas pumps. • The RaceTrac is unsightly from both the front and the rear. Although I am relieved that there will be large bushes planted in the back(and the live oaks the spokesman mentioned are not suitable for blocking) bushes and trees with a high berm should also be put in the front so people visiting or living in our residential community are not forced to look at the ugly building and gas pumps passing by on Immokalee Road and the residents of Bent Creek do not have to look at ugly gas pumps.. • As I mentioned in the meeting, the City Mattress building on Immokalee Road is too close to the road and has no plantings shielding the huge ugly neon signs. Although City Mattress is in a commercial zone,all the other buildings are set further back from the road and have denser plantings. • The City of Naples requited that RaceTrac not feature"tasty treat" promotional posters in the windows, and was required to plant shrubs at the foot of the store to soften the building's look,and use canopy trees in addition to palms to enhance perimeter landscaping,city records show. (http://www.naplesnews.com/business/breaking-ground/in-the-know-is-racetrac-still-planned-for- airport-pulling-road-ep-313158717-330639501.html). I hope that the County will require similar restrictions since the RaceTrac on Immokalee Road is in the middle of a residential area. • Also why was RaceTrac not forced to double stack its pumps so the front would not be so ugly? Additional articles have been in the newspaper about the incompatibility of RaceTrac with residential developments on the East Trail. There is no difference here. A 24/7 RaceTrac should not have been allowed to build in this area and since the Councilors did not listen to residents and allowed this to go forward,the existing restrictions should be upheld and no variance should be allowed. http://www.naplesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-despite-smaller-racetrac-plan-neighbors- still-more-important-ep-812817757-335926611.html http://www.naplesnews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-too-close-to-homes-ep-478638995- 337222591.html I really hope that you will consider my comments in allowing the additional variances that RaceTrac is seeking. The entire project is not appropriate for a residential area. (I am certain when that list of allowable commercial uses you read referred to the old fashioned two or four pump local gas stations, not the 4 behemoth RaceTrac with 16 pumps and a snack bar.) Please do not allow the above variances to make things worse than they are. I would appreciate your response to this email. Sincerely, Ann Cowen 9319 Marble Stone Drive Naples, FL 34120 Under Florida Law,a-mall addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mall to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227/Virus Database: 4477/11058- Release Date: 11/24/15 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227/Virus Database: 4477/11112-Release Date: 12/04/15 5 JohnsonEric From: Ann Cowen <anncow @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:36 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Heritage Bay PUD (RaceTrac) - CCPC April 21 Thank you very much. I plan to attend From:JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson @colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:03 PM To: Ann Cowen Subject: Heritage Bay PUD (RaceTrac) -CCPC April 21 Ms. Cowen, As a courtesy, I want to let you know the RaceTrac petition is scheduled for the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)on April 21,2016 at 9 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room,third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 LEED GREEN Co r County Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mall to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497/Virus Database: 4545/11927 - Release Date: 03/31/16 1 JohnsonEric From: Ron Kezeske <ronkezeske @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:05 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: PDI-PL20150001083 Hi Eric, Thank you for responded to m call so quickly,I greatly a pp reciate it. If you would be able to email me over the 10 requested deviations that would be fantastic. If other questions arise, I may schedule a time to swing by and take a look at the file,if that works into your schedule. I was having trouble locating much about the =: project online, so I'm sorry to bother you. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Ron Kezeske 239-963-5063 1 1 } 1 1 2 } JohnsonEric From: Susan Anthony <suetanthony @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 8:41 AM To: JohnsonEric I Subject: immokalee and the quarry 1 Thank you for answering my phone call regarding the recent letter we received from you department.We presently own a a home in the The Quarry. I am aware of Racetrack building a facility on Immokalee. I am not sure of the proposal..is it north east of the new strip mall? or is it on the corner of Immokalee and Collier Blvd on the Quarry side or north side?I do not believe this impacts our home but would like some more details if 1 possible. The location and zoning map that was sent to us does not show Lot 4 or Tract D Replat??Thank you Susan Anthony 1 { JohnsonEric From: Susan Anthony <suetanthony@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:40 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: immokalee and the quarry So the arrow is behind Gervais Circle so we are talking about property that is actually on Collier and not bordering Immokalee? Susan T.Anthony, RD Dietitian in Functional Medicine CDR Certificate of Training in Childhood, Adolescent and Adult Weight Management Certified LEAP Therapist(Food Sensitivities) 973-714-1303 HIPPA Notice:The information contained in this email communication is legally privileged and confidential information,intended ONLY to the use of the individual or entity listed above.If you received this email in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.The review,use, dissemination,forwarding,reprinting or copying or other distribution of this message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. On Wed,Apr 6, 2016 at 11:32 AM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Susan, Does the below help give context with respect to the location of the property? I\:;:11•1 . , 4.r Sri F t • _4°, 1---* ,,,., .' :"kl*:1 '444 111 A e g ¢ :c w i w s* +M c �s z *° .1 '}it�.. 4 4 .�, . ! y,.. i t,4<,rtiye. Y t<� a M4 ..*tai•.^ w{ed... • f •Jf.T.^i s f { f Q +.. v f b < z Y t , £ ,! E ice*ow. a.. fir. - i�� i : - ift 4- ,.< .. * A . S *' i � mil ._::..t �` ' _ - -� -` _ ,> Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Susan Anthony[mailto:suetanthony@email.coml Sent:Wednesday,April 06,2016 8:41 AM 2 To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson(acollierttov.net> Subject:immokalee and the quarry Thank you for answering my phone call regarding the recent letter we received from you department. We presently own a a home in the The Quarry. I am aware of Racetrack building a facility on Immokalee. I am not sure of the proposal..is it north east of the new strip mall? or is it on the comer of Immokalee and Collier Blvd on the Quarry side or north side?I do not believe this impacts our home but would like some more details if possible.The location and zoning map that was sent to us does not show Lot 4 or Tract D Replat??Thank you Susan Anthony Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 JohnsonEric From: Susan Anthony <suetanthony @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 5:36 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: immokalee and the quarry2 Thank you Eric. I can see the location. Susan T.Anthony, RD Dietitian in Functional Medicine CDR Certificate of Training in Childhood, Adolescent and Adult Weight Management Certified LEAP Therapist(Food Sensitivities) 973-714-1303 HIPPA Notice:The information contained in this email communication is legally privileged and confidential information,intended ONLY to the use of the individual or entity listed above.If you received this email in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.The review,use, dissemination,forwarding,reprinting or copying or other distribution of this message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. On Wed,Apr 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, JohnsonEric<EricJohnson @colliergov.net>wrote: The arrow must have moved during when the email was sent. The subject lot fronts on Immokalee Road and is highlighted in yellow. Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Susan Anthony[mailto:suetanthonvt'a gmail.com) Sent:Wednesday,April 06,2016 1:40 PM To:JohnsonEric<EriclohnsonCaicollierl;ov.net> Subject:Re: immokalee and the quarry So the arrow is behind Gervais Circle so we are talking about property that is actually on Collier and not bordering Immokalee? Susan T.Anthony, RD Dietitian in Functional Medicine CDR Certificate of Training in Childhood,Adolescent and Adult Weight Management Certified LEAP Therapist(Food Sensitivities) 973-714-1303 HIPPA Notice;The information contained in this email communication is legally privileged and confidential information,intended ONLY to the use of the individual or entity listed above.If you received this email in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.The review,use, dissemination,forwarding,reprinting or copying or other distribution of this message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. On Wed,Apr 6,2016 at 11:32 AM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson @colliergov.net>wrote: Susan, Does the below help give context with respect to the location of the property? 2 Atli _. -,_- -- • Vii, } x l_ ff � x g - or1,` . � ' , u 0 _•,._�,--� ..,.,.a ._...,�,„_ .,..o��......�.,..�..�,�n —�d , •! 4, '.. or �J .. ,r + ►- „,..isii,„... ' * is..71„ Jill6. - s -, ,-;,-.. la,nil,-I; : • , , x ;C4, 4 =. t ` , + a ! r" _ � � ... . , 41*,„„„ ,i t ,es , - . 4 , . Eric Johnson Principal Planner 3 From:Susan Anthony[mailto:suet<t,•, .Pgmail.cot ] Sent:Wednesday,April 06,2016 8:41 AM To:JohnsonEric< ns _• Subject:immokalee and the quarry Thank you for answering my phone call regarding the recent letter we received from you department.We presently own a a home in the The Quarry. I am aware of Racetrack building a facility on Immokalee. I am not sure of the proposal..is it north east of the new strip mall? or is it on the corner of Immokalee and Collier Blvd on the Quarry side or north side?I do not believe this impacts our home but would like some more details if possible.The location and zoning map that was sent to us does not show Lot 4 or Tract D Replat?? Thank you Susan Anthony addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request.do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead.contact this office by telephone or in writing. rS 4 ATTACHMENT #6 Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary and Legal Notices DELISI FITZGERALD, INC. October 30, 2015 Planning-Engineering-Project Management Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of an Insubstantial Change to the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development for site specific design parameters for subject property only further described below: Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat Lot 4;located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay Drive `ICLNITY MAP /Le # N SUBJECT 1 PROPERTY 8� B LLAIRE MY OIEME MIIIMALEE ROAD The petitioner is asking the County to approve this application to allow development of a RaceTrac Convenience Store with Fuel Pumps on the above described property. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our development intentions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on: Wednesday November 18th, 2015 4:30pm-7:30pm at the Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850 Immokalee Road, Naples FL, 34120 At this meeting the petitioner will make every effort to illustrate how the property will be developed and to answer any questions. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me. Sincerely, /74„/ John Wojdak, P.E. Vice President 1605 Hendry Street - Fort Myers,FL 33901 ° 239-418-0691 t 239-418-0692 fax AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to The Collier County Administrative Code Version 1.1, I did give notice by mail at least 15 days prior to the date of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting to property owners in the notification area, including condominium and civic associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed changes of an application request for an Insubstantial Change to the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development for the RaceTrac at Bellaire Bay. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners were obtained by Collier County GIS and are those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change. Per attached letter and property owner's list, which are he by made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. �'' (Signature, Applicant) apt(,.) , I,a,...iDe,c_Ii,E. p6L'Tr s-Irve.a'` 1 %', Inc.. State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 941a day of JOve.fir)11.12015 by JON1 T Apat. , who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. 1 i� )\. �� ALLWO1 L (Signatre of Notary Public) I L' �Uu ' t Sm ttivi rt (Notary Seal) Printed Name of Notary A!IN.. KELLY M.SNAUWAERT 4 MY COMMISSION#FF247233 EXPIRES July 07.2019 1001)308-0153 FlorldsNotry8ervbe.oar apLr Napirs B IaiLjj N s NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Coun- ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# KRISTINA JOHNSON 770582 NIM Pub Dates November 2,2015 ii2i, 6_,..„., (Sign ure of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me I % IJ).+;,r��%i IVONNE GORI This Nobe 18,2015 1 ii(91,4 1 My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2019 • I aR�sgoo Bonded through National Notary Assn. (Signatur of affiant) ' NAPLES DAILY NEWS C Monday,November 2,2015a19A Bronx 13 dead in trick-or-treaters group --- -- ,.. PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE , , l NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public Is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by John Woldsk of DeLisi Fiwgerald,Inc. ,-i.. - representing RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.on: Wednesday November 18th 4:30 p.m.-T.30 p.m. Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850 lmmokelee Road,Naples FL 34120 w. Subject Property.Lot 4 w the Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat,located at the northwest corner of '44,..... Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay Dave. /f �. P VICINITY MAP ,,,+ .ere ,0-'" .r,.x..w.,d A. ,,4 '." 41 _ .ma c. , ..- - PROPERTY ay °4 ._ . 3 _, .t - •.r 4aaMLrte•a65 +�.rr.rn � First responders examine an automobile after its driver lost control and plowed into a group use. ' of trick-or-treaters Saturday In New York. Police investigate if medical The pro Iry owner requests an Insubstantial charge to the Heritage Bay Planned unit Development to allow site specific design parameters for the subject property only including a deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 issue caused Halloween crashOC B o 5 Iwh h es A he a;r a .6 r r m nt setback a facility wrth fuel pumps Is 50 feet to allow a reduced from yard setback of 25 feet for the norm(front yard)property boundary;from Associated Press announced as of Sunday aftemoon,police LDC Section 5.05.05.8.1 which requires mat the minimum ode yard setback fora facility with fuel pumps is said. 40 feet to allow a reduced aide yard setback of 20 feet for the west(side yard)properly boundary;from LDC NEW YORK-Investigators of a horrific Nyanna's mother,Natalia Perez,told Seam"s.os.oa.cs.b.,,.which at ows one(1)rayde of a rreeaunaing atn,mure located w an outparoel of a Halloween crash that killed three people, the New York Daily News her father had face tonne seet.°ow secodayaa ale tobshenotafe is ie wmmmces atered steenormartc P P y face¢n 5.05.O.C.9.oallow asequires t apOutpobemenormfaandi ghknfags a allowed Luc at wuetheamedical problem are looking have beenweinguer daughters for some extra Beale"505.0adallowtoO facadeshotb eutpadsnds00ndar:frobuildingsctinnowed one4.b.secondary atwhetheramedical smash into a have Halloween fun. facade"to Instead allowtwo12)one(t(tom,atadcorposecondary;from LDCSectionottweloeOb.which caused a motorist to smash inro a group "It was all because my dad wanted to limits facilities whh fuel pumps to ogre(1)illuminated rwPerate logo wed a maximum area?twelve(121 square of New York City trick-or-treaters,police take my girls for a second round of trick feetenacar,opyfacegaeh IsadpcenotoadeorMe street orh d�t to insteadavowamaximum canopy said Sunday. or-treating,"she said."Isn't that crazy?I sand a miry(30)square foot�cor�te logo n thencan�facades i facing teen im Bay 0000 sod the vacant The car jumped a curb in the Bronx on had already taken the girls earlier." commercial parcel tome west:from LDC Sector 5.05.05.C.4.b.which limos facilites wnn fuel pumps to one Saturday evening,leaving behind mangled Witnesses described hearing a loud IN iiun„nated commove logo onacanopy rose"'Noh h adlacem toadedwaled.feet«highway to allow two bodies and bloodied costumes as neigh- boom,followed by screaming and crying, no)eMm yy4tiow tnen��fo mevare"c eoromerc v o�"''1707,7 wt nom iioc fr sun s a:c.x4. hors ran to help.Police were examining then seeing a trail of mangled bodies in which limes nonresidential single-occupancy parcels with double frontage on public ngmN-ol-way to two(2) whether the driver might have suffered a crumpled,bloodied costumes- wall signs.but such signs shall not be placed on one Ill wan to instead allow four(4)wall signs,three(3)on medical emergency,such as a seizure. "I saw a torso on the sidewallc I didn't the east facade and one(1)on the south facade;from LDC Section 5.08.04.F4.e.which limits non-residential A 65-year-old grandfather,Louis Perez, know if it was a Halloween dummy or a on-illuminated,non-reflective erg"a located m a window m 25-percent mow window area to instead allow a suffered severe head trauma and died at real person,"neighbor Fabio Cotza told the non-illuminated, neeast fa-rener"ve wind sign 10 25.P them or the window area for the two(2)requested winnow the scene,police said.His granddaughter, New York Post."I just clings on the soar facade. p gr g just grabbed a whole NyannaAquB,lQ was pronounced dead at bunch of towels and ran outside." WE VALUE YOUR INPUT a hospital.The girl's 3-year-old sister also Hours after the crash,neighbors gath- was Business era property owners,residents and',adore are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the hospitalized. ered fora small candlelight vigil toremem- Another man,Kristian Leka,24,also her the victims. project with the ownerfdevelocan and Collier County staff.n you are unable to attend this meeting.hut have was killed.His 9-year-old sister and a Mayor Bill de Blasio said authorities questions or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,tax or e-mail by November 11,2015 roc 21-year-oldfemale friend also were injured "will leave no stone unturned"in the inves- Ear Johnson but not critically. tigationand offered prayers to the victims Collier County Department of Land Development Senores A black Dodge Charger being driven and their families. 2800 North Horseshoe Drive by a 52-year-old man plowed into the "We do not accept tr edies like this as "ewes'Rorida 34104 503 y v P Pe at Fax:239}2528503 destrians on a sidewalk and then smashed inevitable,"he said."This could be any of Phone:(239)-252-2931 through a fence in front of a home,police our families.Each of us must contribute to EricJohnsoneCollie,gov.net said.The driver was taken to the hospital making this a city where everyone,espe- No.nasez November z zo15 in stable condition.No charges had been daily children,can walk our streets safely. , EXCLUSIVE WEALTH PLANNING EVENT **************** FOR WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES: **************** .......................... Hear from the following comprehensive planners: 1 Y Y Chris T.Christensen ® Mr.Christensen has over thirty years ADVANCED WEALTH of experience jn the financial services ADVISORS -ry ndustry act has honed his sneer et- as a leading estate,insurance,and tax planning specialist.Chris dlenn BUILD.ACHIEVE. , are wealthy families and individuals, • PRESERVE. owners and managers of privately held -- .:- ` ,' corporations,and highly compensated - --._____ ••` corporate executives, professionals, entertainers, and athletes. Chris Reduce your taxes and create a , throughout audience and ua throughout the country to constantly monitor and update their retirement comprehensive estate plan allele ate plans. WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE! Soren T.Christensen,CEP® The following can affect you: Manager and CEO of Advanced Wealth The presidential election is right g Y (11:1=111114X) Advisors,uc.Soren has over ten years •Higher income 13x!alez of experience in the financial services around the corner.There's talk of I1eri •Higher capital gains lax rale, industry and is a Certified Financial raising taxes and reducing tax'loop •Higher estate tax aic Planner"professional-a designation h01es'An60thSIdeSOfthealSle. •Lower estate Lis exemption lnlorein∎meysuble'to(151') that comes with extensive training •Denial of<IA lends effe<LVecstate planning stategioc •`fir -- in investment planning, retirement Procrastination is no longer an option. � planning,estate Planning, Ins e, taxes, and employee benefits..As As a Learn what strategies are available for you to plan for today and post election.Protect your � , result of his expertise,Soren has been assets,reduce your tax liability,and utilize all available planning options.Protect your heirs -s r, . me jawed by many financial media from their inability,their disability.their creditors and their predators,including ex-spouses. qudealinductingcPla mewadstreet Journal,Financial Planning Magazine, Are you worth over$3.5 million dollars?Are you and your spouse worth over$7 million dollars? and the Naples Daily News. JOIN US FOR OUR EXCLUSIVE WEALTH PLANNING EVENT: Special Guest Speaker Saturday,November 7,2015,from 9 a.m.to 11 a.m. Mark R.Klym,Esq. The Hilton Naples,5111 Tamiami Trail N,Naples,FL 34103 Hahn Loeser&Parks LLP SEATING IS LIMITED,SIGN UP NOW!www.AWAdvisors.com/Seminars or 239-455-1100 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by John Wojdak of DeLisi Fitzgerald, Inc. representing RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.on: Wednesday November 18th 4:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850 Immokalee Road,Naples FL 34120 Subject Property: Lot 4 of the Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay Drive. VICINITY MAP � 11 wEATHERED STONE DRIVE I SUBJECT PROPERTY N.1 BELAIRE SAY DRIVE 'red - _ TRAL NrONALEE ROAD The property owner requests an Insubstantial Change to the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development to allow site specific design parameters for the subject property only including a deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 Table 2.4 which requires the minimum buffer for Automobile Service Stations adjacent to Commercial as a 15- foot wide Type'B'buffer to allow a shared 15-foot wide Type'B'buffer along the western property boundary; from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 which requires that the minimum front yard setback for a facility with fuel pumps is 50 feet to allow a reduced front yard setback of 25 feet for the north (front yard)property boundary; from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1 which requires that the minimum side yard setback for a facility with fuel pumps is 40 feet to allow a reduced side yard setback of 20 feet for the west(side yard)property boundary;from LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii.which allows one(1)façade of a freestanding structure located in an outparcel of a PUD to be considered a secondary façade as long as that façade is internal to the site and does not abut or face a private street to allow a secondary façade to be the north façade which faces a private street;from LDC Section 5.05.08.C.9.b.ii.which requires that"Outparcels and freestanding buildings are allowed one secondary façade"to instead allow two(2)facades to be considered secondary;from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.which limits facilities with fuel pumps to one(1)illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of twelve(12)square feet on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway,to instead allow a maximum canopy sign area of fifty(50)square feet corporate logo on the canopy façade facing the Immokalee Canal right-of-way and a thirty(30)square foot corporate logo on the canopy facades facing Bellaire Bay Drive and the vacant commercial parcel to the west;from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.which limits facilities with fuel pumps to one (1)illuminated corporate logo on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway to allow two (2)additional illuminated corporate logos on the south and west canopy facades facing the Immokalee Canal right-of-way to the south and the vacant commercial outparcel to the west; from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4. which limits nonresidential single-occupancy parcels with double frontage on public rights-of-way to two(2) wall signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one(1)wall to instead allow four(4)wall signs,three(3)on the east façade and one(1)on the south façade;from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4.e.which limits non-residential non-illuminated,non-reflective signs located in a window to 25-percent of the window area to instead allow a non-illuminated,non-reflective window sign to 75-percent of the window area for the two(2)requested window clings on the east facade. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners,residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner/developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail by November 11,2015 to: Eric Johnson Collier County Department of Land Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Fax:(239)-252-6503 Phone:(239)-252-2931 EricJohnson @Colliergov.net No.770582 November 2.2015 DELISI FITZGERALD, INC. Planning-Engineering-Project Management Racetrac @ Bellaire Bay Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Date: November 18, 2015—4:30 P.M. —7:00 P.M. Location: Peace Lutheran Church—9850 Immokalee Rd, Naples, FL 34120 Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. Presenters: Tom Hardy, Senior Project Manager Andrew Fitzgerald, P.E., Engineering Consultant Sam Foisie, E.I., Engineering Consultant Collier County Representative: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner 15 Meeting Attendees There were two presentations given at the meeting. Tom Hardy arrived to the meeting at 4:30 p.m. followed by Eric Johnson at 4:37 p.m. Drew Fitzgerald and Sam Foisie arrived after the start of the first presentation at 5:03 p.m. The first presentation began at 4:45 p.m. with Tom Hardy of Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. explaining to the attendees that Racetrac has filed an application to Collier County to request deviations from gas station setback requirements and the signage code. During the introduction of the project Mr. Johnson read approved list of uses in the PUD. Mr. Hardy explained the purpose of the application was to apply for deviations to support construction of one of its new 5,488 square feet prototypical stores with sixteen (16) fueling positions at the northwest intersection of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay. Mr. Hardy proceeded to present a series of seven (7) presentation boards (see attached) to the attendees describing the location of the site, explaining the site plan, building and canopy elevations, pictures of the interior of the new prototype, and a conceptual landscape plan for the property highlighting the buffers for the property. Mr. Hardy then opened the floor to the attendees for questions and comments. Many of the attendees asked duplicate questions or provided similar statements. A summary of the main issues brought up by the attendees, and responses provided by Racetrac, is provided below. Action items pursued by the applicant in response to concerns by the attendees are provided 1.) A question was asked about the landscaping buffer on the north side of the property. Response: The applicant stated that RaceTrac is requesting a deviation from the required rear setback. As of now they the PUD requires RaceTrac to follow the gas station code for setbacks. They are required to have a 40 foot setback and they are requesting it to be 25 feet. To support this deviation, Mr. Hardy explained that they were going to have a three (3)foot high berm with 12 to 14 feet high trees on top of it. These trees are taller than what is required by code. Also there will be a continuous 5 foot tall line of shrubs. (The landscaping was one of the two major concerns of the public) 2.) A question was asked about what kind of trees will make up the landscape buffer. 1 Response: The applicant described the tree species that RaceTrac would normally use. The attendees expressed that they would like foliage that stays full year round. Mr. Hardy said he would take into consideration for their proposal. (The landscaping was one of the two major concerns of the public) 3.) A question was asked of RaceTrac why they did not want to put a wall in the north setback, like they have done on other projects in Collier County. Response: The applicant explained that they put a wall in the setback when they were directly next to residential. At the Bellaire Bay location they have a right-of-way, future commercial property and proposed assisted living between them and the closest residential property. (The landscaping was one of the two major concerns of the public) 4.) Several attendees expressed concern about adding a traffic signal at the Collier Blvd and Immokalee Rd intersection, and the lack of a traffic signal at the Bellaire Bay and Immokalee Rd intersection Response: The applicant explained that RaceTrac would love to put a traffic signal at Bellaire Bay and Immokalee Rd. Mr. Hardy then explained that Collier County would not allow a traffic signal until the warrants for a signal are being met at the intersection. (The traffic signal was one of the two major concerns of the public) 5.) An attendee asked about lighting for the project. Response: The applicant explained that RaceTrac uses LED lights so that it is focused beam. He also said that the bulb is shielded and will not be able to be seen directly. Mr. Hardy explained that because the bulbs are focused they will be bright if you are in the parking lot but if you are outside the property line it will be dark. RaceTrac also dims their lighting at night to conserve energy and to have as little impact on the neighboring properties as possible. 6.) An attendee asked about the 24 hour store operating time and the amount of costumers it generates. Response: The applicant explained that it is a 24 hour store, but because it is not directly next to 1-75, it generates less overnight visits than a store that is next to 1-75. Mr. Hardy stated that the overnight visits are minimal but enough to stay open. He also said that the store employees use this time to clean the inside of the store, and also pick up any garbage that may have accumulated outside. 7.) An attendee also asked about the deliveries in regards to if they would ever take place at night. 2 Response: The applicant stated that the store deliveries normally happen between 8am and 5pm. The fuel deliveries take place at a wider range of hours, and Mr. Hardy could not guarantee that they would not take place at late evening or in the morning. However he did state that they are normally between 7am to 10pm. 8.) An attendee representing a community within Heritage Bay PUD expressed concern that having a gas station in close proximity will raise the community's insurance rates. Response: The applicant stated that he has never had that question before. He also stated that he believed the community is outside of the radius that will affect the insurance rate. Mr. Hardy will research the question further. 9.) An attendee stated that they were concerned with the underground tanks being close to a water source. Response: The applicant assured them that RaceTrac uses a design that meets all applicable regulations. The tanks are double walled and have sensors in them that sound alarms if the pressure changes. In conclusion the general consensus of the room was not opposed to the RaceTrac being built. There was concern with the landscape buffer and not wanting to be able to see the store from their homes. Mr. Hardy explained that the thicker and taller buffer will take care of this issue. The main concern of the public was the traffic at the Immokalee intersections. RaceTrac was in agreement with the public and would like to build a traffic signal at the Bellaire Bay intersection. If further information is needed about each question it can be found on the audio recording of the meeting. The second recording has Mr. Hardy's entire presentation, as well as the two attendees that came in after the first presentation was completed. The first recording has the public questions and comments with Mr. Hardy's responses. 3 • ..re A . ._: 2—it,COLLIER BOULEVARD _ a ° i i ' , a $ .. -„,.. „,;,‘,,,,.„1„,,,,,Liv - ...'.- A ......:,04. ,.,,„_ ,,A ,,,,,, _ . . .4..._ „, . 1 , , ;1. ---_ . s = ' i 1. ...„, -,8,,,tiiit:- .: ‘.10;,„ :1 a ' k -GOOOLAND BAY ••... k.' * .._ T `'w�,. '''.G ak pRIV6 r re_, •£' L a 4111 �� xn -,.."L, ii,..-,is iiiiiIIN q D 3 m - •” 1 11 . a,; W !< h fir "!a"'p'!z ' f It M *41/4'4°y Y r _-,,.'-,-.--.0,'--.4f,..i.ere.-4.1.-',44.-4.-,-. -5,-.1-,e:2:- ' ' '--- - '" ,- *- `-'t' '''.- '4701,;`..atterg• %,144,7FIF,:f..,e...4t4VJ'fitY1' ' : i ,.'''' ,"b:-!-/ ", - .'- -, ";"4:1/4:40;"".'"V 416"44'.e' .-fle,rte,,:-.!,:r.,; .t.0.-3,-,40-01:7`,4,;---- ,....,',, _ is.,:f. ,. ..;.. ,t, ,. , 7 ,rya <k:dBb>a.N: Y :... K r+34Y � // i, a ` ..m !„ : aa- *, Y. ,,,tom c a f IL, �� ,. aa r .-4.4% « s ,'�.*,r.: w ,f,..1404.*-i 5,` °, r a F 4' 4t s NY A'�a i'.:q I. S �i3' spy h T 0 Y 'yr .Y.x.. _• �' y OWNER/DEVELOPER s _--- - - nE<caiNWN _ RACETRAC PETROLEUM,INC, E,' a'[14 - el .:,-7.,110-- �° DELI59F I FITZGERALD, INC. 2' 4a •_ r'....4 PROJECT PlanningEngineenn9-Protect Mooagemenf 3 8o:. g- p ya€ "' ; 1605 He.M Street F c� � � Eort Myers, 33901- =g BELLAIRE BAY 9418M1.239-018-0692 fax `" ` !&W v i&g (EPN#XXXX-STORE#XXXX) :,.','=',71°,1>r— g- ""' °"° I . I 0 m cy2 iii • 4 r >co m co it gi.c.,i-„, 0 xi a 1 z-r,0 0 g-9 0 rnm. " z x 0 ,.., z 0 —i 3.,, -a-< _1 —I> 6 0 1> M .11 Ill ... 234.6' >g .<z 1 ri - -- I / ---/*-- z I , —I—C !•I M . / -1 \_ C);•I v;,.. ‘A ti I I r% a 4 o -, To 0 x i r-0 •••• oa m cc Q c , Z I . r)J V% 4,Ho d vt m z m 1 8 : n c! ' 4 40' ■-• ii, e.'" / 7--- ---'\ al E 0 SE'BACK GI > 2 E Z 6 r m - - > N. rn g gm 2 : o 7. >000 ; >rn F1 g '1 -,, -4 77 -4 i P- -1 ,z m rT,5,7 0 m CO ° m I z ,.. -1 \__ 4-1 • =I= 4 -- , "-- RI Ir. ■ i —I / 0 , I PARKING I r„..----1 --'' C Z \,... I, 0 I g 3 3 '1) I I - ,..,8 67 # 1 1 I et l / I 1 1 ...---, -- I 1 4 PARKING . 1_4____ , • ,.. i ''' 0 44,'''''''' ---- 1 '----_ / , -„_, ,it / I, '' I C,:i A - \- 1 i'''''---- 4,1111111 / 11,f a ti. m #it -::::/- , 70, .. I -- , z,—„,•••.,- I *d I I g 6 .1„, _I•----------------_,._-_-7_ 141.5 .., --,„----_ --- 'F—EX)11 Z / A / J. ...- t..., ...- 1 ...-- . . OWNER/DEVELOPER: INMENINI11111 RACETRAC PETROLEUM,INC. DELIS1 FITZGERALD, INC. 12T=T=319 CONCEPT PLAN 1 (77()01-MW Planning-Engineering-Project Management PROJECT: ,, Project Number: 21352 1605 Hendry Street 11 Part of Section(s): : 23 Fort Myers,FL 33901 / Racer'rac.j/ Township: 48 S i Range E 239-418-0691..239-418-0692 fax 2 Florida Certificate of Authorization: BELLAIRE BAY *County,State: COLLIER COUNTY,FL Engineering LB#:26978 (EPN#1166-STORE#XXXX) Sheet Number: Ii OF 2 ., ■ \ . k ` . € 8" ;p,11I ifg€14 hil fi igl ig i a s L' €I z F 'min g a1 ' I 1`o s".. .1� g 12 Q1 eir #0toR 1r g s 5 C1ii5 IA $I 1: feE 14 5E I ide�gR s 1 3$I 111'15 m 6 e 112-1 4 iii 1 €€ i g 11 lob €` Ii Dip it i 1i°i;dill o m � : ex � � Ohl '� i s$li l e�� ¢�;" i � i21441,1 z a®e$ 11€ � I �$�� 51'i;a is i' " € i1 6e S- e o 'g gg$ !.1,1 € 1i i i 1s 1111 "i! =INEa g ii:1 iI' ii 1 g' m i s i1 1 e€ m e 1 3 c r €ad€$^i e°p $ .ge i 1 e ii 5r. 8i -6; 6 €35 „i HUD! i f 11 6> I i s°i w '1 of " 1 4 MN' Iii I'e. ;a a if; €1 1 i°1..11 i di oe asmaae eI g li° i € a -i a g Xvii 01 d, 0 €€a 1 Ri gi i 3M€ j, � ii a S ${I£ 11 i i pg i �iei 1 N¢ia_ Ri 'xis € 11 i t Ftl4 W ` - c r� ) E ^ 3 � p i gRLg R m �" imp 5 7 $€ i � � �.�4i N ` 3 i§ a In d ;TS F6 p ' h� a s a R $,_°$; E 1 d rd €e E E Pa E 1 i a" Q�a�i pi ; a ii ii 101 i3 ; e ii i ' l g ! i5ei' ° Hi t $ : 1 0 Ia . S i 12- age i I ill W 1 , 1 I i I;2- '2-i I i�® 1iiY�\� j ECM lip 1 4.F 0 € j ' $ el O B r- li gym; I �,N / F aEl ' o' , , i'it 8 , e a/ q _ 1 S .4, _,__. —, ii-#7 ,,-....,,,N, , NI . .111■_ , ,m,'!,..., / ,7 „,„ ,,,, .___---'. - :.„ 14,#\ °li ' - 13%7 , t i: - ',"-/ .-='', a IL — 11 .`I .k �, I EL --" ,.. cBaYaaWF r• � ..ROW/ �� � � �E /' $ T WilliOWNER/DEVELOPER. $(N 3 1.4 w Dare eu Ot VNFEIO+ ENGINEER OF RECORD:4 #% RACETRAC PETROLEUM,INC. i 1.1411 '%`" v °° .c.'''"w.ss,r, DELIS! FITZGERALD, INC. rt x D eROJECT: Planning-Engineering-Project Management 3 p f.0 ' p - 1605 McMry Street a 61',4, Fort Myers,FL 33901 — Zz BELLAIRE BAY 139118-0691.239-418-0692 fu W n z$S (EPN#1166-STORE#XXX0 µ,.a2-.2-,.,.—.W.,�.mN_ tM"°""" "" v z xl zm ro M mxi 4 cry n- Z 1 N W "t 'r _ T rX . lnC7EC =N� m 2 ' ,t+ ?I 47.1 x�mm m m pmw =mom 21 -4=� CDm 73 C=ps I Fa � � . 03 -m �aoz -� v cn n 0N0N m CD Z rm Z Z t J 1 D m mx *Fm 0 %0 OA 1 y =a � N mmf N N= OIITYPE'B'BUFER . is I I I Co -117[D O(D G) ..- • lan1W--assillaillinillirlitilkalEMIIIMINIMMIIIIM11111 11 a13-1C OAC CC �°'�'''� 1 oomm gOpT m o' - o uumm co 23 mm 1f - �YI�:* 1 000,0 c0„m m a ,�$? 0 m -a �l +e NTFT. gq m O •-� 1 p '.� i. om N o Z NmN :� .. �. --M--�I 07= O `2Nm m O 'O . - � `i �.-noc RCN Ivr (/v�J� �N��ZZ�� b J , ; 77770 r* Ic ii O D / NO�NT +. DY YfK $�R .;.:1 - ON C-1,-E0�O�.'0 'A Z m m ��` -1 R' � m >Ei- n 00115T ,. c ." . c opo�AelomC1e I p ry�� m `r�� �r i 4r1� D m z� fm C rn mom m • - M •OC) ' 1 z Zm ch z m m � 77 71 m z » . a r I� = D '11 ; I 1 rr% \ V E t 0 ::- .-.- 124 41 , ' 0- I Ilnillikss 4.f wo 0 H3dAREI,0:3du N o 77 mocm p7Cmm 0c 071°0 it, z*Imp*M W�� 1 * O Et O mm m LANDSCAPE PLAN G,TO p� �..� RACETRAC MARKET RM.0Ti7C, ,I DM{j A € RACL17RAC0BETIAIREBAY LAMS:ANr USE E ' orate SAME MTIdIT TIE 97E RACETRAC PETROLETAI,INC. EXPRESSED MUTTER m` A° COMER COURTS',R.ONDA 3225 CUMBERLAND BOULEVARD PFRY&4W+C' OF ":.4TJA:`'' g4 SCALE PER PLAN DATE ADC 13 2015 .SUITE 100 ATLANTA.CA 30339 RAEEIR Q, PETROLEUM RISER.NIE.i5 DRAW GJD ,Xe NO DANA,'215096 (770)431-7600 PREMSITED. ° N0. REMSIMS 55 DATE y -® ! II ��tt; ' — tee° ,...,E,';--.rt, In.! l' '-' ' ' ' I ' 1 V ; J MI IOWA IMIII!'._. — _ :iu 3 , �: ■M. #x a , It . 9' ci 1=I 1 till. W c k 1 ' 1 r+ Li 1 -.� w4, i r�,_ x i t a r 1 =I 1a4." lei d I �� rp� 1 \qt i ...... , , \ ..,; -. 1-• Iii1 c9.� �, ' Iii - IR • _, .. _ 1., ,e,„, 1 I 714 ■1 f .tig # I, }' f , 1 ki.' i r 001 a, s _ : �- -�-- � `.A AIPPI VWIC- ii, jar ffgi y\9 , . 1-----14'l *a« ids.,.. ' 't F , i .�i 411 � Aar ��� ��� � ' III rl . 4 ' ' !i n., --, 1, -IL__A L si:i __ _k ill m m il∎ j� 3�y' 1 al i 1 i , ., , , , e 1 - s t= " :4. ¢'fig., 1 `aQ GOODLAND BAY DRIVE f ,_ 1 I Wf i , v I j I _ 44 j I I ` ti f ,P a t 7 *t 1 P I 1 j E m I 1 I i 1 II i sj ttt t. j I I I —a • �_ rq 1 i ■ .. \__�x Fa F $ F P / / 4 1 .3_ F '— �� OW\ERi DEVELOPER. A w . oa,c 'A oesLn�P..ow RACETRAC PETROLEUM,INC. ,';u„°,°;�"" �"""°° DELIS! FITZGERALD, INC. .T ma...-T Planing-Engineering-Project Management D PROTECT'. A H' B 1605 Hendry Street Fart Myers,FL 33901 — =N BELLAIRE BAY 9-418-0691.239-018-0692 fax ==- _ - (EPN#XXXX-STORE#XXXX) E4B'"" ,SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8,COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s)must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15)calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s)must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code,Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s)must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED .J of r. T. W c b*1.- WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY L_ ' DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER 015 000_.it` Arr- *L _s' Tee,on 4'v. (rJ c l(,OS (4fp:oltA4 Sr. SIGNA j''A OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX �ot}a T. V)on-DA/1G— Si i M464.5 FL- 3390/ NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STATE ZIP # STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me th' day of , 20J by Vj C` ...personally known to me or who produced Nf t e e. as identification and who did/did not take an oath. ignature of Notary Pt blic �tiPPYPV6 KRISTIN ic DIIORIO .• �.:Notary Public State o`Florida 10 e` ., �— •._ �� Commission Printed Name of Notary Public "A••�lik.Ep�, My Commission Expires '''iF•OF0=`!: March 22,2017 (Stamp with serial number) Rev.3/4/2015 i ,, ► TIL R �- w -3 , 1'►,,�ir,���y `;may. ; 1• t` tt`� . ,4„,s..,,',.. .4144.':.:-',,,,,''!' (....■J - , CO i i -` S .n k U �F, b e,.i M1it� � 4. ■ Nord rest-D i ll ti E„,,' ,_- 1 „ i „ U * r f A '��++ f o � 't / __. Fy v � T 9 0 .- ��� / ';i. apt�� a [+�% p,,; l'" ` � , � ' � � . 0.fix : -A .h. - '---- C13 . 1„ir,,,...O f... 'x L � �� �. tf p m� �. - 'a': , .„ a "y a". a 1 A CO m 1418.11�r j 1 ' { "ZI a s _ --- � CollterB�d " t_n S ca WI iIiittlt,-E Fr '_ 0,, � s 2 p j r i , / • .. r a :. I li ' - p ,',r,..' , 2 a .S W C j s w d g . fY .q l9 0 2 ~ d V si 4 s ..: '•? S+z 1 s ti . .Rg�; - - �' i # : „„,44.-:-.=-__„;_••_ 4., . _ _ , -„...4:"....-- 1.;',',11,'41,--Ast:.4girks,- 194,10, ,,..4.1 %.,,40,01,,,, - ),,,,-., ' f;;4-;/';;"..7.t.”:L yRys .. f +P r s YLt .,{,.;,n, k.' r7 s +�y . -r t �w k.�,a e"4 4 Vim" 't" ` S"lr'` *'.. �l lir. ;- - € ,' < �f: R am _ >t h �,„, .4.,,....._. ,...„‘ ,. .....:,,„..___ _ . . .,. . .._$„ ...„,.. : - . .:,,,,,,a_.,,....,„ .J,4 ' C`d 4. _ Q = -__.---r*,,,,,„„..--- --,t-7-..= ....„-4.-- -....„--- - . -,..;.-. A .1._ =z =,...t-i ,•N t1 ' Old!: t4 N Vi �-:.r ,.••• _ q'w __ F .,. 4° --_ _ _' U q _ f _z 1 .. p • Lam,. - ! W _ = ; s ti Q _ 1 w 2 € y 14 i1,- o f i z Q - t ,'` _ l �� t - 1 I '. .O - n• • �� y 4, 4 I ! � >i Akv. v .i c � ' a r �i , -'sue � - -b. , 1 I C ' yk x,,5 V fr' � �w f , E t F �v I ' }� f; Wiz^ 6 " tG _ • a/. 3 2 4 2 w _ x;d Wz - 0 6 f : .. 4 " • 1 is y 1. ? ! ! I 1\� •. # ti .4,--•.ti.:!.:* k '7! \\ 1;:"...7.5i;..-:,7",j'V' 1� ,.,'S.- „.- ! ' It V / K . ',-W--',..'',.” ._., f.' v H r { 4,1 a ' x "'� �,,• t• - h } - r .,2.i� ,';' N- fyrI ' 1 #x! xi....v,,,c,_ v ..:__. . . „...., -_--,:.--4_— . ,-..,-.,, -:, . -f, r ,..4,...4...,'. rr , a. C = .,-'' H W _• ( iigt'. 4 .F t r' 4 eFi s. 4 ir43xas g Q W L = 2 � • f= a _ W.27 z jtyf1 ! W Z 11, !rrs'IgLII => . It x P 20. = h t-J W �0, c i!,[1,1.1 na1 x s =i i Z ! x Li 2 = i iitx! j I :iiiEe1c r aG = ." ppp xI 3 , ry 1 r •t; l-_ '''� cc., Y5 rSl'�9 he f 4` } `-►s♦ C* s v1 f 1.k x.. { °, yyyy d ,' �a - ... w _S_. I � ' \ \ fit. = ` s - J i -• 3cl;rt' t ' o ti= jmy = f 1 " )Af-: t' St , ∎It t - d et ■ Y°j IFili .r i J _ ✓. ,__': __l'_. _ ;t I °.z- . ,, x a F •i #, , , a f+ 1 , 'tfi Y . • 1 a}•t E I ti AL. ix I , : COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department April 1, 2016 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet(urban areas) or 1,000 feet(rural areas) of the following described property and that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County,Florida,at 9:00 A.M.,on April 21,2016,in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.,to consider: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended,the Heritage Bay PUD,to amend Section I,Legal Description,Property Ownership and General Description, by adding ten new deviations for the parcel described as Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, relating to a joint project plan,landscape buffers,building setbacks,architectural standards,signage and parking;and to add Exhibit E, which depicts the 15 foot Type D landscape buffer along the south property line of Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat. The subject PUD property consists of 2,562±acres, located on the northeast of corner of Immokalee Road(C.R. 846)and Collier Boulevard(C.R.951),in Sections 13, 14,23,and 24,Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [PDI-PL20150001083] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition application development plans and/or master plan if applicable,and other pertinent information related to this petition is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Division,Planning and Regulation building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at(239)- 252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, (52it Eric Johnson Principal Planner PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency at 9:00 A.M., on Thursday, April 21, 2016, on the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD, to amend Section I, Legal Description, Property Ownership and General Description, by adding ten new deviations for the parcel described as Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat, relating to a joint project plan, landscape buffers, building setbacks, architectural standards, signage and parking; and to add Exhibit E, which depicts the 15 foot Type D landscape buffer along the south property line of Lot 4, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat. The subject PUD property consists of 2,562± acres, located on the northeast of corner of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PDI-PL20150001083] n tz .....\ mw r PROJECT WV., r LOCATION • Wan is r .:._ „ •■ a L 1, — L _ i «.� . All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401, Naples, FL, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section, prior to Thursday,April 21, 2016. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252- 8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain, Chairman No.1016637 April 1.2016 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: APRIL 21, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140002809, HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT/CONl'RACT PURCHASER: PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. Kurt Scrudato Marco Shores Estates MHP, LLC Highview Homes, LLC %Comprehensive ACCT Ser,LLC 2952 Buttonwood Key Court 8700 East Vista Bonita Drive, Suite 202 Saint James City,Florida 33956 Scottsdale,Arizona 85255 AGENTS: Ashley Caserta and Patrick Vanasse,AICP Robert D. Pritt,Esquire RWA, Inc. Roetzel&Andress 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 850 Park Shore Drive, Trianon Center-31d Floor Naples,Florida 34109 Naples,Florida 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Highview Roost Road RPUD to allow development of up to 60 single-family detached dwelling units or 86 single-family attached dwelling units on the subject property. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 21.59± acre subject property is located on the west side of Roost Road, 1/4± of a mile south of Manatee Road and 3/4± of a mile east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. (See Location Map on following page.) PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 1 of 20 \sz(1e/� av1po 0 all glair 1,:f 41p, u. ca 1 t, --7- 1 ilit% i' Ile cc it ©a0 1Q40 1 a ;:€;is;€::::::;:i:iati>`:::::� i liEjE Si i I #141112111121 pI k iii€i'ii`ii;'[:i isi ;? V� f V !I#I!�lIIIA�II! Li 0< RA s V I — ;;,. z Iiiinitalow iH O 9�D ao 00 v N ppI 14!!#E#F A fiiE?i [sa!'iiii'iii'ii?i`!iifi it x r cecooC�c000caoccodi lbf�3fM WIOIII'p c no = cog a000coR o win j MN c E NMI - _,g . N r �r�r‘■ L.dK J a 37ns 0110N / 7 0 D a z L I ° W a 333 @ @ @@ O _ O a. lips - z O 1 4113 111W dr,41: it � Q 1P4'0;'?.. , V./ A t"b;-1„44 �! i d _ n NI g lain' Gw re1 oevtiare¢ 23m00 ,rlaY� J ilk e9 GS 4 te 8 3 : 11411)14 MI ' AIL 11 il /MME ° 11111111MI 4 Ale ZONING:E ZONING:MH o LAND USE VACANT` 0 LAND USE:VACANT yy Z 4 \ , `i ,-• J a �� _ I — _ j � 2C gz 0 T1 I A LA" m I 1 , z z 1 1 r C< I ' mm i I am i '� I I I , I-1 I i m ! � I I I + r !� T 2; oJ� T � � N IIi+ I i I 1 :i i ' I I y�^f LI ,.1 70 c r0,6 s= � f"L z Er. I m +! y ■ I 1 , -' O m D r 7-Oi 3 y ■ 6 I r 0 C Z m . JC I(y I * 1 I rri M 0 m 9 N I y r I I 1 I 1 'I z I 1 O m C x 09 J 1 mN zp70 I KO )yy m i O s. N r �' 0 1 m 1 I � ,� �, TN 8 � 1 ' 11 . I 1 i ' v w m� k4 1 I I N�I m Am To l p v 1 ` ` \m , 52 •1 I 1 Z i O —1 0 1 4 I I I •.- \ O .• ` _ I 1 iii ROOSTROAD 0 (100'ROM 6 F HIGHVIEW HOMES �a/ rM II' r HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD W I1■■■! 11111 1iwsMwWW. :xi I I1 mu MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 4.1.1/.1...141.1 i+M.n MW w 15nro./81m4575 A.�.INWMA .eau.nwwws 1 1 In N V dC)DC)5,_v O-vvvG V1m00 m*M0 C/7 gm w Iv K tg mg0gm< ?m0A< ni-iv,ms 7300‹ C) z� z D a 0 li7 cn°Z�o�s ��'ozS zn��-Di x=�� m 2 - >o z m ,om a0 m $ O.D.Im2Z mEmoo >m›o5 mom0 r C mm (� z mom 03 Opm�x �rOm�Z nO7DZ Aom4e r TT D -I'0 mO ro zmy=$ -ci 71 -�n5rl. z z_. m p z� n Rm._ vm Z P. D�13Ovm xNrN mmMom -D.Imt"m m Dn Ii1 OD m�Z ox xOm m m Z Am b Omv m CZmDAmmT. zmmDm vm?mT m�i� O { W mA '�K -�� O m01v30 O moA 11.n3,.0 -I-12W m D Dm * 0m01 OP 2 A=AONm vmv0W v03m mD=m C D Op < ��p �? IT a gmp' Sr �C)D_•1/ O p2r mr r D 0 O- o ONm mCn V7 p7 r-1 m 517:0 E m�-n5M �oFA,m x 3m m ADG) ZC) xm�0>E> , ,mx`e- m-I,xr _ T p m gm v -0705 00 rDA=Dr '7 O-DiZ=m vm°�'� 7�. �Qm Z v zm 0 m <n r�'oQgO 700 mmm00 m07>o0 C D� m Z-- O mm m-I' xZO o m��Cg ZAN$ * o +SAO _-I Cn D�-DDD�O W��rAng ommmo �cDn3o o Mr" z vO) <D ZO0 p„,,n SD9Q0 KOzptn omEo, m Dm y �yDZ ZZ zm c=>�x-0 > m»0 2 rn Z o x 0 N 0E m v m D fl T. t- g,,p 3 O p p m m m D 0 17 p m.-1----1 r p Z o ADZ �� I -npD2•=-Im vmm_ mp,N 0x>cn m b rw fZ Om Z pCZ O -,-I-'rm Z �mmI vNCa 000,, Um70xo g m= mO o c 2m,-1•±m zmZ° -<,- v<-16 m ZT z -4� ?m 67vrozz -iyOyD A 4 z P2ZG)m D pm AZ 0 xACam(mi, m>20 mODA 7,--1 x Cm C -n0 p -rnmpDZ D�v" ��[n� m bu7 mo c0' m0 0 3 z v n 0 m m O Z m 1 <--Ii z Z m m m m m o-m D u' 2<E O OAO-1 0 (n 3. 0;,-- O 7 rn Ai Xl sb g 1 T GO�� f$I VfJ -t �.", R x. II r n 0 \ m X S o y M A +b A 2. E _ m D t go n v 2 D D 9 m O c:7. m O m D ® O m go° N < o , N =t m O y 1 1 0 `m e'p t" ` 3 J, �,... IN I+ 1+ I+ H. 1+, n D Rp 0 414 73 N O m XI v D < cn GI m a z ? 72'vD r4 O a o ~ ~ m ' u, co � o O 0 q3 oasnyy I*0'40 mm IP 1,. 4es,,II G. Ili HIGHVIEW HOMES ■1 —.4. 1 ^0"" HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD 2 ,e1 N �_ .µENOOOS..CIH6_M MEW nPie1..-uwt.�+...•rxu _I MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT ..�..s....0...>..M cwar<.�n.mooe n.omsroan p 1 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Highview Roost Road RPUD will be located on 21.59± acres on Roost Road, south of Manatee Road. The property is currently vacant and zoned Mobile Home. The Applicant is requesting a rezone to Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a maximum of 60 single- family residential units or 86 single-family attached residential units. The Master Plan provided on the previous pages of this Staff Report depicts the areas of residential and amenity area development, water management, and vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian circulation. The Master Plan also shows that 10.76 acres will be residential area, 0.19 acres will be an amenity area, 3.56 acres are lakes/water management areas, 3.96 acres will be access drive/right-of-way and 3.12 acres are"other open space." 1 Landscape buffering requirements are met by a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer along the north, south and west property lines. A Type D right-of-way Landscape Buffer has been provided along Roost Road. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: a lake and then Marco Shores Mobile Home Park, with a zoning designation of MH (Mobile Home) East: vacant land with a zoning designation of P (Public Use) and Manatee Elementary School with a zoning designation of(A)Agriculture. South: Quail Roost Mobile Home Park with a zoning designation of MH(Mobile Home) West: vacant,undeveloped land with a zoning designation of MH(Mobile Home) and E(Estates) PUDZ-PL20140002809, HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 5 of 20 3 el►-Wyi sX...� atR*1:3 • ~ �. � *� r er sir •12 c am" saw + tit r z* t R. I.■ 8 alr l' r sra.Palm-y 111:111.7r111 lArir'-,1 a '�ir N . f P F, Tar . i Nn. ;; r 1 - r0-a ' B€ S Subject Site TPA•: $ ,, ,, , ` _ ' ' . irl - a'teti i t. 44,1pi `~ ' - ` pct Gomm u 0 I+wi.l '•'r I ,i 11r,. I „yam �" . . , _ i t 11,...,,...,PreparlyAer ,.NaRa..IL ill II 1111:* I'll ili 11IN.,..1114� : I � :. �Are =53Et AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses and open space uses—the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), without providing affordable-workforce housing which is not proposed — see below; eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes a maximum of 86 DUs,yielding 3.98 DU/A. Base Density 4 DU/A CHHA Density Reduction -1 DU/A Maximum eligible density 3 DU/A x 21.59 acres=64.77=65 DUs PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 6 of 20 l 1 i 1 However, the existing Mobile Home (MH) zoning on the site pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and has been deemed"consistent by policy;"the site is identified on Map FLUE-12,Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE by Policies 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 ("improved property"). Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)provides that the residential zoning of such"consistent by d policy" properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater 1 number of DUs than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning I district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning — as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved (reference Rezone application Attachment A, page 1 of 5, #1) and identifies the uses and densities t allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts as well as provides a comparative analysis of the public facility impacts of the existing and proposed uses and densities. I , FLUE Policy 5.1 states,in relevant part: i Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been f determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13,the following provisions apply: _' c. For such residentially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of development allowed by the new d zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district. *** *** text break *** *** *** e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. I FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part. l Part I:Does the new zoning district allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district? 1 t This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed density. The existing MH zoning district does not have a specified maximum density but does have a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet(s.f.); this yields a maximum of 157 DUs (43,560 s.f. per acre x 21.59 acres= 940,460.4 s.f./6,000 s.f. per lot= 156.74 DUs 4 157 DUs). The proposed Highview Roost Road RPUD permits 86 single-family attached DUs (a 45%reduction)or 60 single-family detached DUs (a 62%reduction). Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district. Part II:Is the overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district not exceeded in the new zoning district (based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as i allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)? i The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts for all Category "A" public facilities (arterial and collector roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, parks and i recreation and drainage) and schools that yielded that impacts upon all facilities, except drainage, are lessened. Impacts upon drainage facilities remain the same given that the same standard applies 1 3 PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 7 of 20 # 1 1 1 } for either development scenario (though the petitioner did show a reduction in amount of I impervious surface area). Conclusion: The new (proposed)zoning district does not exceed the overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district. Also, staff notes that the CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development. This petition does the opposite; it removes mobile home zoning. Analysis of relevant FLUE policies is provided below. Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies are implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The subject site does not abut an arterial or collector road.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Due to the property size and configuration, a loop road is not possible. All DUs will access the . proposed road ending in hammerheads.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts Roost Road to the east; adjacent properties to the north and south are developed thereby precluding interconnections. However, to the west are two undeveloped 20-acre parcels (one zoned MH and one zoned E, Estates) to which vehicular interconnections could potentially be provided. Notwithstanding the petitioner's position on interconnections (articulated in Attachment A, PUD Rezone Considerations, page 7 of 9, paragraph 6.), staff supports provision of potential interconnections to the west. 1 PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 8 of 20 Comprehensive Planning leaves review of the Transportation Element to Transportation Planning staff.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The property size and configuration limits the ability to provide varying densities and civic facilities; three housing types are included which may reflect different prices. Open space is provided for as required by the Land Development Code (LDC). As no deviation is requested, sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC (and are depicted on both sides of the street on Exhibit E Recreational Area, and on the Typical Lot Detail included within the application). A potential bicycle/pedestrian interconnection is shown on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, to the southerly parcel of the two parcels to the west; however, that potential interconnection is not included in Exhibit F, Development Commitments. Potentially, a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection could be provided to both of the undeveloped parcels lying to the west.] Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact =. Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP)using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant im p acts if the traffic impact ct statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. T Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed rezoning will allow a maximum of 60 single-family detached units or 86 "single- family attached" units on the subject property that will generate approximately 66 PM peak hour (single family detached calculation), peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 9 of 20 3 link. Staff notes that due to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual guidelines,there are different trip generation categories for those residential structures that contain a single dwelling unit (single-family) and those structures that contain two or more dwelling units (condominium/townhomes). This definition is not consistent with the single- family/multi-family definition found in the LDC. The development standards for this development contain both one and two units per structure (single-family detached and attached) and the TIS provided by the agent correctly provides trip generation calculations based ITE 60 single-family units and 86 condominium/townhome units. The current zoning allows a maximum of 157 Mobile Homes on the property that generate approximately 92 PM peak hour, peak directional trips on the adjacent roadway link. Therefore the proposed 60 single-family unit development represents a net reduction of 26 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Based upon the above analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, staff encourages the petitioner to: 1) commit to provide potential vehicular interconnection(s) to the west on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, and Exhibit F, Development Commitments; 2) commit to provide a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection to the northerly parcel lying to the west on Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan, and Exhibit F,Development Commitments; and,3) add a commitment to Exhibit F,Development Commitments, for the potential bike/pedestrian interconnection depicted on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan,to the southerly parcel to the west. ANALYSIS: 1, Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. An aerial provided in the environmental data show the project site previously cleared and farmed since at least 1975. No native vegetative communities occur on site, only native trees, 25 percent of which are required to be retained or replaced on site with native trees in accordance with the requirements of the LDC. PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 10 of 20 Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Utility Review: The Utilities Department has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. A commitment has been made in the PUD Document that an additional water interconnection will be provided in the south west corner of the site if connections cannot be made to the water main along Roost Road. Emergency Management Review: The Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition and has no comments. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS)District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that there is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle and high school concurrency service areas of the proposed development. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site plan or plat the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service } standards are not exceeded. ry Zoning and Land Development Review: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, aerial photograph, and the surrounding zoning discussion, the subject site is surrounded on the north and south side by mobile home development, The subject site is surrounded by mostly undeveloped lands to the east and west. gi The petitioner is seeking 4 deviations, for further discussion see the Deviation section of the Staff Report. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 11 of 20 As described in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as mobile home, public use, and estates lands. There is mobile home zoning to the north, west and south. To the east is undeveloped public use lands. The land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area, support the proposed PUD. This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of mobile home and public uses. The proposed PUD rezoning is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. 1 The proposed PUD rezone represents a net reduction in the number of peak hour trips. It will reduce impacts on the public roadway facilities. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP) or Subdivision Platting (PPL)review. ai PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 12 of 20 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Property to the north and south of the subject site are already developed. The basic premise 1 underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties, 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development will comply with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. It should be noted, the GMP prohibits new mobile homes in the CHHA (Coastal High Hazard Area) and this rezone will further that directive. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. } PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 13 of 20 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;however,this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff who are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. F To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following 1 criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The nearby area is undeveloped or is approved for development of a residential nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in the PUD exhibit adequately address the impacts from the proposed development, 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they 1 PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 14 of 20 F may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally,the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. f x County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 3 As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed PUD rezone represents a net reduction in the number of peak hour trips. It will have less impact on the public roadway facilities. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. t I If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property has the ability to support expansion based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 15 of 20 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking four deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the four deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the IL community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking four deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50-foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50-foot right-of-way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed deviation along with the related cross section and recommends approval as the petitioner has demonstrated that the required utilities can be accommodated within the proposed 50-foot right-of-way. Therefore, 1 Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that,, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3.,the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." The petitioner has also demonstrated in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h. that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations" as it is applied to cluster housing developments such as this with 35 to 40 foot lot widths. PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 16 of 20 } i Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, "On-premises directional signs,"which requires on-premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from edge of roadway, to allow a setback of 5 feet from the edge of private roadway/drive aisle internal to the proposed 1 development. l Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is to provide ' locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be s utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear Sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 60.06.05. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master-planned developments throughout Collier County. 1. 1 1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Sign permitting staff has reviewed the proposed deviation g and finds that the proposed 5-foot setback can be accommodated within a compact private _ residential community safely. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has g demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.01.A, "Off-Street Parking and Loading,"which . requires every building and use to provide off-street parking, to allow limited on-street parking for 1 the small scale recreation area as depicted on the attached On-Street Parking Deviation Exhibit. T Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the deviation would only apply if this project proceeds with Plans and Plat approval and utilizes a 50' right-of-way. Due to the compact nature of this community, allowing the amenity center and overflow parking to be located partially within the private right-of-way (see Master Plan), will provide design flexibility and allow more space to be allocated for landscaping and amenities. These "on- street" parking spaces will not have a negative effect on vehicular or pedestrian 1 movements, and conversely, will have a traffic calming effect by reducing vehicular speeds in those areas. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Planning staff has reviewed the proposed deviation and has found that due to the common ownership of the amenity center and right-of-way, no harm will be done with parking that is located both in the right-of-way and on the amenity center site. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC 1 Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h.,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." i Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, "Fences and Walls" which permits a 1 maximum wall height of 6 feet in residential components of a PUD, to allow a maximum wall height of 8 feet along the perimeter of the PUD, and allow a 10-foot wall/berm combination along PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD 3 April 8,2016 , Page 17 of 20 I t 3 i 5 the perimeter of the PUD. The berm portion of the 10-foot wall/berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet in height. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from the traffic along Roost Road and from potential park uses to the east. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Planning staff has reviewed the proposed deviation and has determined that the proposed 2-foot high berm will reduce the mass of the wall and make it compatible with the internal and external community. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on January 28, 2016. For further information,please see Attachment: "Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-PL20140002809, revised on April 4, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140002809 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Commit to provide potential vehicular interconnection(s)to the west on Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, and Exhibit F,Development Commitments; 2) Commit to provide a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection to the northerly parcel lying to the west on Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan,and Exhibit F, Development Commitments; and, 3)Add a commitment to Exhibit F, Development Commitments, for the potential bike/pedestrian interconnection depicted on Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan,to the southerly parcel to the west. } 1 PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 18 of 20 Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Neighborhood Information Notes Attachment C: Rezone application Attachment A,page 1 of 5,#1 Attachment D: Density Map - i 2 PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGI-IVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 19 of 20 1 PREPARED BY: VIAMIA WA/ AtiA2A 20(& NANCY ' CH, AICP, PLA DATE PRINCIP., P 1 ER ZONING w VISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: i 3 ,30A RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING M ER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION /16 MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: - -IG -�� RIM'S FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 4;)Vet 4 -/G' DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPAARTiwENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20140002809,HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD April 8,2016 Page 20 of 20 ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 60 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OR 86 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROOST ROAD, SOUTH OF MANATEE ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.59+1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ- PL20140002809j WHEREAS, Patrick Vanasse, AICP of RWA Engineering, Inc. and Robert Pritt, Esquire of Roetzel &Andress, LPA representing developer, Highview Homes LLC,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Mobile Home (MH).zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a 21.14+1- acre project to be known as the Highview Roost Road RPUD to allow up to 60 single family dwelling units or 86 multifamily dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [15-CPS•01475]63 Highview Roost Road RPUD PUDZ-PL20140002809 Rev. 4/7/16 1 of 2 Attachment A SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 1.41\1‘1 Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations including Typical Road Section Exhibit and Recreation Area On Street Parking Deviation Exhibit Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [15-CPS-01475]63 Highview Roost Road RPUD PUDZ-PL20140002809 Rev. 4/7/16 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses 1 Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development Regulations for development of the Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land Development Code(LDC)and Growth Management Plan(GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards,then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. MAXIMUM DENSITY: There shall be no more than 60 single-family detached dwelling units, or 86 single-family attached dwelling units, permitted on the±21.59 gross acres, resulting in a maximum density of 3.98 dwelling units per acre. <. PERMITTED USES: fi No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: I, RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family, detached 2. Single-family,attached 3. Single-family,zero lot line 4. Temporary Model homes 5. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to swimming pools, spas,screen enclosures,private garages, and other recreational facilities. 2. Gatehouses and other access control structures. 3. Project sales, construction and administrative offices that may occur in residential and/or temporary structures. Page 1 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development 4. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. II. RECREATIONAL AREA A. Principal Uses: 1. Structures intended to provide social and recreational space for the private use of the residents and their guests. 2. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, and water features. 3. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos,park benches and walking trails. 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: I. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped areas,gazebos,park benches and walking trails. T 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. pg 1 Page 2 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPIJD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-P1.20140002809 EXHIBIT B Development Standards Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Highview Roost Road RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan(SDP)or subdivision I plat. i } 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance, features are permitted within the "R" designated area abutting the project's entrance or 1 within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan, and shall have no required setbacks;however, such structures cannot be located where they create vehicular . stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height,30 feet zoned height. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL SINGLE- SINGLE-FAMILY RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES FAMILY ATTACHED a AREA DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE' i I: MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,000 S.F. 3,500 S.F. N/A 1 MIN.LOT WIDTH 40 FEET 35 FEET N/A 1 MIN.FRONT YARD''' 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET MIN.SIDE YARD 5 FEET 0 OR10 FEET '/1 BH f 7.5 FEET fr MIN. REAR YARD' from 7.5 FEET from 10 FEET from Perimeter Perimeter Buffer or Perimeter Buffer Buffer or LME or LME LME MIN, STRU CE 10 FEET 10 FEET 6 sum of the BH n BETWEEN STRUCTURES 1 MAX. ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET MAX.ACTUAL 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET c BUILDINGHEIGHT ∎t ACCESSORY SINGLE-FAMILY SINGLE- FAMILY ATTACHED& RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES SINGLE-FAMILY AREA r DETACHED ZERO LOT LUNE4 l' MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS MIN.SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS ?: 0 FEET from a 0 FEET from 0 FEET from MIN. REAR YARD Perimeter Buffer or Perimeter Buffer or Perimeter Buffer LME or LME LME 1 MAX.ZONED E GHT ILDING 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET MAX.ACTUAL BUILDING - 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET HEIGHT i Page 3 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD I RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 i iy EXHIBIT B Development Standards Higihview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structure BH = Building Height(zoned height) LME = Lake Maintenance Easement LBE = Landscape Buffer Easement 1. For private roadways, front and setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. Front- loading Y yard garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. 2. For corner lots on private roadways, only 1 front yard setback shall be required and shall be considered the yard containing the driveway. The yard that does not contain the driveway shall provide a 10' setback. 3. When single family development is pursued through the County's plat process, LMEs and LBEs will be platted as separate tracts. { 4. If side yard setback is 0 feet on one side, the other side shall be 10 feet for a total building separation of 10 feet. gti pk j @5 Page 4 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD 3 RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 F, 1 b F EXHIBIT C 1 Master Plan Higbview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development g 1 WNING:h .` 1.N.1>USC VACAN , a LAUNREYYMA T E ,, \� �:f• 7 . ; ti; N C z m A El ' a I :t; , ,-__ 7 „\.,,,. r, r., ___( ; i J EI I 1 g ,1 x) - 1 a I j1y s Z 1 if? % II 1 ill .., 1 j ) 4 4 r t A t W t ? I 7 I J4ti �(�� ; t�" Q it, I I 1 r.'C gm YI ii A Ll g II SS1 i ! a RR,�5, 5y Y 1 O= i+ ` 1 3 aog Sn 8 g m F 0 L / / I I II I I An il x F o , 0z___i I 5i ...... e "r _F.a. __ O I I b D I %` . li :3 t 1 i . -----clotri.D-- i 1. i: . 1 ) 1 i: .. IS 1 � l i l ,, F : � 7 C ) P:i , , 1 I � 1 �, 1113 ` `�-------- ;__—_-----ter � L -- ---_ - - )--__i parrowp $. '��I: l'— FCGFTKEWHOM ES - '.i 1 ■ '°" HMI/1FlM ROOST POOP Ai� '� r wrnrw.r ! MASTER PiM Extort 1°M66aw'rw�s��F�MIAOW ..a..r rvzr ir_�.u�.; i 3 7 gg P101° zxm �m�Ao an n $ g p w n D,N5E5 A,mcmia �s5 m 3 p m , -15oi cm A oz� 2,-1=� A z m A y m m moo rx�OZ v,3 CO m C ,,, mm 0 m .� m F''i2 0-ngrs Z Z1 m 'n D mtan D r 1im yC VT AC]�O =TDNN DmyN p m �j m A mOAD cm z rl- imm LDAOm mm;L7m M�-,m �f < m 3 DO m O <z CA Z 3 �Zf;11DA7c ZTmDT Sm?yx N' x O < Cn Z mm DO Omd m, z Sim G)�v3N max A�C-'N O A s m 2` Nzm2 O m a. m01Dm Gnt�A O2O=rn rn�'xL7 D n QnoE OO< mv,im m-y Vmi N.Q T O m y A -$$r m�i T c,rn y r A f71 "i 2 O 3 A Al s n rAxr m ��Z3r d�SoAm Z`LCr Z o Z om m nZ t m3cr33 zo-on roo mozp c y � o �$� my f mm O myz-4x om0 zzAm z v m z m 9 3p>D 6 � �03 0Omm "..0 O m N i v0> fD 1 'zmv pm ?DOZro mv;Om oo2m g im D Si =z ;m omo D�mm zmmm o occ, c N D1N ox Cm C -1 NrNN 1� -iZ N O m ,mD N ;mO aa d3t m D4�m0 magi Z m O-1 A '9 2 �-i mpD��tn vmm� mO;N oO�rn m zx rrm op, mA N' r0p 50mo ATN' vF 1n S' NA D DNO om r-1' mw TO-(2 OA y,pBpi Q1N.i,�i AO Z_ rCZ zD MC �WOmTN d1pCA GOON m�m° x-- C1� N TG1 OO Jco oC ZAO=1T 2m� D$Ll�, IdTI<ml fil O [�i OW Z ,› Oa m3*,'az mzb a< O <cm-i , D zT m p1 �'`m m,rOAO -,0, E,oZz rm-ZG1m n n oom m Az 0 ,jmmyy D.vp mDDDm -„ i 0 oy c yN ��71 ZZ C m D p O o�3�2d DC1C/nl mOZN -1� � C O rD r K--I O S mOm D-i0 S<3 I~^ oz -m-4 0 OAO-4 O N o Q 7 c y6 Y� n n y A G• ~ A W 1 p p w 2 D Z g r d5 N 2 6 1 , O D• m ? 4 � < to m O a ir:i a to T i • i+ i4- r A a o o m z t1 4'42 iBe L: o e aBe e a o alP 0 f. r ,".!'T r HIGHVIEW HOMES — ke' •, HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD v S x' .1 MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT MIAMI/ EXHIBIT D Legal Description Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTION OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN SO1°59'04"W, FOR 1373.61 FEET ALONG A LINE COMMON TO SECTIONS 11 AND 10 TO A RAILROAD SPIKE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 11,T51S,R26E; THENCE CONTINUE S88°50'23"E FOR 1362.55 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF MANATEE ROAD (100' RIGHT OF WAY) LINE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11, T51S, R26E TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION II, T51S, R26E; THENCE RUN SOI°42'51"W FOR 1388.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(1/4)OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER(1/4)OF SAID SECTION LL 11,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE CONTINUE SOI°44'05"W FOR 52.80 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF ROOST ROAD (100.00' RIGHT OF WAY) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LANDS; THENCE N89°23'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 155.15 FEET; THENCE N85°46'47"W, A DISTANCE OF 66.11 FEET; THENCE S87°4I'IO"W, A DISTANCE OF 32.02 FEET; THENCE S82°25'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 46.84 FEET; THENCE SI6°22'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 9.78 FEET; THENCE S30°07'50"E, A DISTANCE OF 24.34 FEET; THENCE S00°49'IO"W,A DISTANCE OF 225.79 FEET; THENCE S22°29'25"W, A DISTANCE OF 33.80 FEET; THENCE S63°20'43"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.19 FEET; THENCE N87°55'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 400.69 FEET; THENCE N84°29'20"W, A DISTANCE OF 236.07 FEET; THENCE S11°41'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 13.34 FEET; THENCE N78°39'13"W,A DISTANCE OF 38.61 FEET; THENCE N48°07'05"W, A DISTANCE OF 20.56 FEET; THENCE N77°17'48"W, A DISTANCE OF 120.52 FEET; THENCE N05°45'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 77.69 FEET; THENCE N84°36'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 132.98 FEET; THENCE S69°25'01"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.44 FEET; THENCE N87°42'49"W, A DISTANCE OF 81.01 FEET; THENCE S01°59'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 72132 FEET ALONG A LINE COMMON TO SECTIONS 10 AND II; THENCE CONTINUE S88°13'44"E A DISTANCE OF 1373.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE NO I°44'05"E A DISTANCE OF 905.13 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 7 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 EXHIBIT E List of Deviations Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets internal to the proposed development. See the attached Private Road Section. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.5, "On-premises directional signs," which requires on-premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from edge of roadway, to allow a setback of 5 feet from the edge of private roadway/drive aisle internal to the proposed development. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.01.A, "Off-Street Parking and Loading," which requires every building and use to provide off-street parking, to allow limited on-street parking for the small scale recreation area as depicted on the attached On-Street Parking Deviation Exhibit. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, "Fences and Walls" which permits a maximum wall height of 6 feet in residential components of a PUD, to allow a maximum wall height of 8 feet along the perimeter of the PUD, and allow a 10-foot wall/berm combination along the perimeter of the PUD. The berm portion of the 10-foot wall/berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet in height. { 2E� Page 8 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 1 i EXHIBIT E List of Deviations Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development 1 /1 1 i- 1 P r. 4 A _., \/ i 1 • N J P 1 _..„ 1 . e I 1 1 1 1 i i ''''' 1— i g 04 s g 14 O �' e 1 f G t$ r 4 1 Er . A q ,..i e i , 1 ; 6-J 1 f NOTE: 1 DESIGN CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. roan zois ,ci)ENT: HIGHVIEW HOMES i•Fia Jae& *Noma" 7)TLE HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD 6610 WIIbw Park Sy NO Raids M109 0°°4a" TYPICAL ROAD SECTION (739)597.0575 FAX(239)597-0578 BCD wWw.mnwk-rwe.mn Ku ter: pa PRO ECT SHEET FIE Flcrka CM ficaus dAuNhMZdIOn E9 7663 19 6952 iefaAtlHN1/tw 4 ,HUMBER 150007.40.01 I NUMRE/t 1 OF 1 I NUMBER qq 3 Page 9 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ•P1.20140002809 I i } 1 . 1 EXHIBIT E 5 List of Deviations Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development s 1 1 I i F k 1 S'CONCRETE SIDEWALK 2'CURB&GUTTER CANOPY TREE id CANOPY TREE 4 4.1 1 i 4 EDGE OF PAVEMENT t •1 ; 2'CURB&GUTTER i 7 5'CONCRETE SIDEWALK f NOTE: DESIGN CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. II . DEC . 2015 'CLIENT. HIGHVIEW HOMES L4_ 1_ A` =zo i "";, , TITLE RECREATIONAL AREA •6610WJIow Perk Drive,Suit* Florida 34109 ON STREET PARKING DEVIATION EXHIBIT (239)597.0575 FAX:(239)597-0578 waromauH-+we.aan PROTECT SHEET PILf } Raids Certificates ofAuthotiratian Ea 7655(a 6952 taRJMIEtt 150007.00.02 N EZER• 1 OF 1 1 NUMlER511 T WON EMI I +rrrrt seew/ e.r - — I 3 Page 10 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 a- i t EXHIBIT F Development Commitments Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development PUD MONITORING: A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Highview Homes, LLC or its assigns. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. ENVIRONMENTAL A. Retention of native trees in accordance with the requirements of the LDC is required for this PUD. A total of 100 cabbage palms, 30 slash pines and a DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) equivalent of 39 hardwood trees have been identified on site at the time of PUD rezone. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. The wastewater system will be connected to: a. An existing private force main located along Roost Road, with permission from the owner(s)of the force main,or b. An appropriately sized force main installed along Roost Road constructed at the owner's expense,to be conveyed to the County per Ordinance. B. If master metered,water connection will be made to the 8"water main along Roost Road, otherwise, an additional stub-out with 15' construction and maintenance easements will be provided along the western property line of the project. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum trip generation allowed for the development may not exceed 66 PM Peak Hour two way trips. Page 11 of 12 4/6/2016 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00,01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 1 EXHIBIT F Development Commitments Highview Roost Road Residential Planned Unit Development MISCELLANEOUS A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on I the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of a permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. { Page 12 of 12 4/6/20I6 revision Highview Roost Road RPUD RWA File 150007.00.01 PUDZ-PL20140002809 Highview Roost Road Neighborhood Information Meeting Date: January 28, 2016 Time: 5:30pm Location: South Regional Library Meeting Room Ashley Caserta, Planning Project Manager of RWA began the NIM meeting at 5:30pm Ashley introduced herself; Patrick Vanasse, Community Development Director with RWA, Inc.; Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services; and Kurt Scrudato as the Developer's representative. Ashley went over the purpose of the meeting which is to give information about what's being proposed and to collect everyone's thoughts on the project. Location is near Manatee Road and Roost Road The site encompasses 21.59 acres Currently zoned as Mobile Home 1 Current Zoning allows for up to 7.26 Units per Acre 1 Rezone request is for up to 3.98 units per acre Up to 86 Single Family attached or detached homes No multifamily or high-rise units Patrick Vanasse added as part of the PUD there will be a consistent design and landscape throughout.The development will have its own small amenity area. They are looking at a gated access point.The zoning that currently exists allows for 7.26 units per acre. Patrick explained that the developer decided to build conventional building instead of mobile home.They decided to go through the PUD process at a lesser density than what's allowed in the under lying zoning. There will be a 20 ft.wide landscape buffer on Roost Road and a 15 ft.landscape buffer on the other sides that will be made up of trees and shrubs. 1 Q:Are you building a fence also? A: From Ashley:There's not a fence planned at this time,they have a right with the LDC to add a fence. Attachment B , Q:So there won't be any kind of sound barrier other than the trees? Q: From Patrick: Typically with the water management system you have to create some kind of a berm around the water. I think you're talking about a big berm, like a visual barrier.That's not being proposed right now. We're meeting the requirements for vegetative buffer between the properties. What you're talking putting some kind of wall that would be a sound barrier like some sort of a wall that would protect the residents internal to the project from roadway noise. So usually when you're residential abutting residential project, those with mechanical uses and typically to put up a wall barrier or sound barrier between two residential projects. Like I said right now the plan is to have vegetation between and to have that large existing lake. Q: Is it going to be gated or is there going to be any fencing along that gate? A: From Patrick: Right now there's no plans for it.As you folks know,a lot of times the gates are more of just a mental or perception of security, there's no assurance of security with the gate. In Collier County most residents buy some place that has a gate. Q:The natural vegetation around that pond is pretty dense. Do you plan to tear all that out and start over or what? A: From Patrick: I'm not sure which side it's on. Response from Crowd:The side I live on. A: From Patrick: So that falls on your property and that's the responsibility of your HOA. If you want it there it can stay there. It's not something that concerns us.We have no right to that area. Q:How close to our property would you be going? A: From Patrick: We can go up to our property line.The buffer will be installed at our property line.And go 15 feet into our property Q: Where's your property line at the South side? There's a lot of heavy vegetation how much of that will be removed? A: From Patrick:Our buffer will be 15 feet from the property line.Any vegetation that's on your property will stay and any vegetation that's on this side will be within the 15 foot buffer. Q:(From HOA president to the south,speaking to resident)Our property does not extend more than 12 feet behind your house so their buffer is no more than 12 foot behind their house.We don't own much property back there.Do we have anything to say about the fact that it's only 15 feet? A: From Patrick: That's the required buffer. You always have the right to voice your opinion but we're consistent with County regulations right now. Q: Is the plan to take everything out?Do you have anything to say about that 15 foot or what happens in there? A: From Patrick:Well the 15 foot,the County has a say in what type of plant is there. Q:But you could take everything out that's in there.What's a buffer? A: From Patrick:Typically we have to fill the site to construct and part of the process is to clear the site. It's not like in some areas up north where you can keep pockets of vegetation. Usually when they go in to a project like this they will clear the site then plant a buffer all the way around. Q:And you're not going to be required to have any kind of conservation area? A: From Patrick:The preserve requirement is what they consider existing native vegetation.If the existing vegetation is infested with exotics it doesn't qualify as existing native. In our case you don't have high quality habitat there. You don't have the requirement from the County. Q:So all the other ones around us do. How do you explain that? A:From Patrick: Because their habitat is different from ours.We've had our experts go out and the County has reviewed.What happens is on a state level—the state and federal government check for wetlands.In our case we don't have any wetlands that would be protected on the site either that's why we don't have a preserve. Q:How about bears? A: From Patrick:Just with the location being in Collier County there is potential for wildlife. In some cases, we will need to put together a wildlife management plan. In this case it hasn't been a requirement. Q:So you're not aware of any bears? A: From Patrick: It hasn't been a requirement. Q:If you are successful in rezoning this,what's to stop you from rezoning this into something else,like a high-rise or whatever? A: From Patrick:We would have to go back through the entire rezoning process again.And you would be - notified and given the opportunity to provide input. Q:The owner of this property,is that the person that's going to develop it? A: From Patrick:The applicant is under contract with the land owner to purchase the land.The sale would be contingent upon approval of the zoning. Right now,our client as the applicant is weighing the options. Q:Are they going to be the potential owner? A: From Patrick:Yes. Q: How do you spell that? A: From Patrick: Highview Q:Are they local? A: From Patrick:They have some local folks. Kurt is local from Lee County but the majority of the investors are from the New Jersey area and winter down here. Q:Once the rezoning gets approved can they turn around and sell it again? A: From Patrick:They could sell it. If they do sell it they would have to sell it within the limitations of the PUD. They're going in with a maximum of 86 units. That is a decrease of what's allowed. The only way Y g g Y Y someone could increase is by going through this process over again. Q:How many stories will be allowed? A: From Patrick: 35 feet is the max height allowed. Currently their looking at single family attached / detached-they could go 1—2 stories. Q:How close is that line to the south end of the lake? A: From Patrick: I don't know exactly how many feet that is.There is some space but I don't know how much. Q:Can you clarify about the 15 foot buffer? A: From Patrick: If it is 10 feet from the lake then the 15 feet (our buffer) would start after the 10 feet from the lake. Q:How do we get the accurate information about where that line's going to be?Has it been surveyed yet? A: From Patrick:We have a survey but I'm not sure how far they went on the neighboring site. Q:Do you have any other project that Highview has done in the area, in Lee or Collier County? A: From Patrick: No not in Florida but in New Jersey they have. Q:So they've never constructed anything? A: From Patrick: No in Collier County Florida but in New Jersey Q:You might not know but is this going to be a 55 and over community? A: From Patrick:They're not asking for an age restriction Q:Since there will be children and schools will there be a sidewalk? A: From Patrick:There is a requirement from the County for a sidewalk.The developer has the option to either pay for it or build it.At this point I don't think they have decided to build it or pay for it. Q:We have children who walk to school and have to walk in the grass.Would that be considered? A: From Patrick: Bear with us a little bit—were addressing just our project here. I think what you're asking makes sense but this is maybe not the right venue. Your development went in before some of these regulations went into place.So the developer that developed your project didn't pay for a sidewalk,didn't build a sidewalk.The county doesn't have rules in place that the next guy that comes in is going to pay for your sidewalk. Q:Well they didn't need a sidewalk because there was nothing going down that road. A: From Patrick: But the County does have funds for building sidewalks. What you have to do as a community is contact the County is say you have a need here.You have kids walking to school without a sidewalk. You say you want to get on their list of projects and when the funding comes about you will eventually get your sidewalk.If you want to contact me or Nancy,I can get you in contact with the sidewalk person at the County. Q:Our property already has kids because were not a 55 and over community. A: From Patrick: I think it's a good idea and I think the county has changed their regulations over time. They want to see sidewalks on every road. I understand that maybe your community you don't have children but children come visit and even folks that are retired want to walk. Q:Is that property a flood zone property?In one of the worst flood zones in Collier County? A: From Patrick: We're pretty much in a flood zone everywhere in Collier County. But we are in an area that we'll address those issues.The site is going to be filled. We're going to be getting an Environmental Resource Permit as part of that permit we address our drainage plan and all of the engineering requirements for that. Q:Are you going to drop the park they were planning on putting in there next to the school? A: From Patrick: I'm not familiar with that park—maybe Nancy knows... From Nancy: I haven't heard anything about the park. It doesn't mean there isn't one but it just means I haven't heard. Q:When you say fill,are you talking to a certain depth?Are you going to raise the land? A: From Patrick:Typically projects down here you dig some lakes to retain the water on the site.You take the fill and raise your land to the level that it needs to be raised to depending on your elevation and the water conditions. Q:Can I ask about the entrance that you're planning? A: From Patrick:Yes—what about the entrance? Q:Right now it's kind of a narrow spit of land that goes across the canal there A: From Patrick: The entrance like most residential projects is going to be wider. We need to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles so standard county regulations any new projects the entrance is pretty wide to accommodate those vehicles.The entrance is going to be wide enough for those vehicles plus it's going to be controlled so there will be some kind of gate. If you just picture most newer projects in Collier County the entrance is going to be similar to that. It's not going to be a grandiose entrance like you see with some other projects just because of the scale of the project. It's going to be consistent with a project of its size in Collier County. Q:Is it hard to put that kind of a structure of that kind between two mobile home parks. It's like totally different configuration.Who do you think you're going to attract?Maybe they're trying to buy you guys out? A: From Patrick:Collier County is an attractive place for people to live.We've got a good place and people are coming to the area. Q:Is there any interest in more of the land around it?Like around Lucy Lane?I don't even know if that's considered a County Road. A: From Patrick: It's somewhat not related to this project. From my personal knowledge I know other lands in that area are for sale. I don't know what the status is but any reasonable person should expect that at some point you're going to see development in those areas. Q:I'm just asking about this developer. A:From Patrick: No.Our developer currently owns that land and that's what he's planning on developing. Q:When was the last time Collier County developed a mobile home park?You're threatening us with a mobile home park. A: From Patrick: I'm not threatening you. By right, meaning their existing zoning—the owner could do it. They don't have to ask for permission. The zoning allows it. It's an administrative process meaning no public hearings.The code is in place which dictates what you need to do to build your mobile home or a project with modular homes. If you follow the code they have to approve it. So I'm not threatening.The option is if they want to they could. Q:I'm just wondering if Collier County is going to let you put in mobile homes. A: From Patrick: What I'm saying is by right they could and Collier County would approve it. If someone doesn't have mobile home zoning and would want to get mobile home zoning it might be a little more difficult. But that's an existing zoning category,those are vested rights that they have. Q:So it's already zoned for mobile homes to go in there? A: From Patrick:Yes Q:What is the price range of the homes that are going to go in there? A: From Patrick:That's not defined yet.I think someone asked me earlier on, right now the developer is a for profit organization.They're running a business and they want to make money. They are going to sell product that is going to be consistent with the market and try to make as much money as they can. So while there's no identified price yet, if you look new residential projects in your area you it will probably give you an idea. Q:Mobile homes aren't 35 feet tall.You can have a 35 foot home that will be looking into my apartment. I don't like that. A: From Patrick:There's going to be separation.We purposely designed it to create a lot of separation and placed the lakes to create separation. If you look at a standard residential neighborhood a neighbor can build a 2 story home next to a 1 story home. Q:Can they accidentally dig a hole?Or a line from our lake and it fill your lake? A: From Patrick: No the permitting agencies are pretty strict about digging holes and building lakes and where your water goes so were not going to be connecting to your lake in any way. Q:What did you say the project end date would be? A: From Patrick: From a zoning standpoint—we probably have a 2 month or more review process, then the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) then about a month for after that to get scheduled and get a hearing date.The hearing has to be advertised and it will be a public meeting. Usually we go before the planning commission if they have any changes they would like to see they will ask for it at that meeting then you would go back with their changes the following meeting.They usually meet twice a month. Then we go to the Board of County Commissioners.The planning commission (CCPC) is a recommending committee so they don't have final approval authority so it goes before the BOCC. We also have the platting process and we have to obtain our ERR permit.So probably best case scenario about 6—8 months to break ground. Q:So this is all done, right?Everything is approved and settled? A: We're going through the zoning process right now. You can go to the planning commission and the BOCC.As part of the zoning process we're required to have a public meeting like this to inform you about the project. Q:The land on the east side of Roost Road,is that Manatee Middle School's land? A: From Ashley: I believe it's zoned as a public facility. Q: Is this a potential future water main interconnection or pedestrian interconnection? A: From Patrick:The County has regulations that they like to see projects interconnect.That way it's less trips on the main road.They asked us to identify possible interconnections.It doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. Q: Right now that's a pretty wide electric power line pathway is that something a bicycle can go through? A: From Patrick: FPL will allow you some cross easements but nothing structural within their easements. In the past we've done a dog park or a recreational area but nothing they couldn't drive through and get access. Q:Who owns that part of the land? A:From Patrick: FPL either owns the land or they have an easement on that land but it's controlled by FPL Q:And how far back until you get to the residential units? A: From Patrick: It's 15 feet away there and the water connection would put the pedestrian connection 30 feet away. Q:Is it possible to get a copy of this? A: From Patrick:Yes the county has our complete application packet so on top of this plan you can get all of that information from the County. It's available to the public for you to review those documents. Q:So this area goes down past the lake then it buts up to Marco Shores? A: From Patrick:This is the property line here.There seems to be quite a bit of separation in the corner. Q:The County has property lines.That's what you're talking about the 15 feet? A: From Patrick:There's 2 things we have to look at so if you're asking what kind of buffer—the buffer is I vegetation.And then there's a setback.The setback is from the buffer.We're 7.5 feet from the buffer.So I the closest a building could be is the 15 buffer plus 7.5 feet setback. I ! Patrick: If you have any other questions please contact us or Nancy from the County who is reviewing the I application. As I mentioned all of the application documents are available for the public to review. You can send in comments to Nancy or come to the Planning and board commission meetings we will be having.Those will be advertised and open to the public. 4 I II PL 20140002809 REV 2 ATTACHMENT A PUD Rezone Considerations(LDC Section 10.02.13.B) The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities. The Highview Roost Road RPUD is located in the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Coastal Fringe Land Use category.This land use category permits a variety of residential dwelling types and density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre may be allowed.The project is also located within the Coastal High Hazard Area and the Comp Plan states that 1 dwelling unit per acre shall be reduced from the 4 units per acre for properties in the Coastal High Hazard Area. By right, under the current mobile home zoning designation, the project is able to be developed with mobile or modular homes at 7.26 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 156 mobile home units. The existing Mobile Home(MH) zoning on the site pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and has been deemed "consistent by policy". Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the residential zoning of such "consistent by policy"properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater number of DUs than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning—as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The property is surrounded by existing and approved residential development, including Marco Shores Mobile Home Park to the north and Quail Roost Mobile Home Park to the south.According to aerial measurements and unit counts,it appears that Marco Shores consists of approximately 43 acres with 241 units for 5.6 units per acre. Quail Roost Mobile Home Park consists of 29 acres with 143 units for 4.9 units per acre. Therefore, the neighboring mobile home parks average approximately 5.25 units per acre.The proposed project is asking for a maximum of 3.98 units per acre,for a maximum of 86(multi-family)/single-family attached units or 60 single-family detached units. This project is less impactful from a trip generation standpoint than if the project was built with mobile homes at 7.26 per acre and will result in a decrease in trips. Additionally, utilities demand will be less intense than the potential mobile home project currently allowed by right The property is located along Roost Road and will have access onto Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East via Manatee Road. A traffic study has been completed and submitted as part of this application. Public and community facilities and services are available in close proximity.Manatee Elementary and Middle School is adjacent to the RPUD. For parents who elect to send their children to this school this can provide great convenience and ease of access. The project will provide the required buffers along its boundaries abutting the roadway and neighboring properties. Highview Roost Road RPUD PL20140002809 Revised 11/6/15 RWA File No. 150007.00.01 Page 1 of 9 Attachment C f Zonin ' PU : • . s J Zoning: RPUD ill dw' o GI . p,; .I}i .s Rs �rv, _ cji 1a 601 CIu• �' A ;r. Dens' ,y„(7i7 a Zoning: :° r'Q< ei��t _ ." ;.,a •4< �,: T ,e-r 1 #I�''P1wi x ii ,,,,,,V‘ 1f s#,► ii"t,�♦. u.Su GwY• ��, k,.,.. ° , Zo n i n P R nor �.�..�#� '.�,: �:; Densi , �1 ca - , _,. .,,,.g ., ryValn z __ a .�... ...1 'o T �"���� ��Ml�� y1 v1 F r' p it_ t�r. f'.'; t��y►i ��sl�� a .� ■ a M' ^iae .r I - _ A Q 1�#Af*► s.' `w�,yK.`r� # e +t*: k y p a �4y.>. 04141*--•q ,,k iv.-'► .•{{ 3 1 SM1M1II�w `Zo Ill g�., I'I I �`. . a - '"'3y*+c ; *ytC r,;," ��y��i . gt "t� i Highview Roost g ., �" 1►NM���' 4•#•#.:41 tMi�b� • "f Road RPUD -.7.1-7-'1. , 4w � ,pA '6.M ANI�1444 Rile.,-,.:, J1r1iquhnaur r` #�rlt, Density: 3.98 +�^y qV , 1 m'y ..y-404.11410.4.014V301,0111111. Z ' t i { w y °� M� � �C f ttlpq §:� 4..44,161.4-4"� ' •. mo t i ' .+;�.s .'"�t} : • i s 1 C'. . � . � 4 r. : 0 E l,f i. ... ,� t _ y�� i�i .��� ''d � ' rr� ,i'�'� z„ r 4; Zoning ;TTRVC �« ... _ !�,> Ya as r I [. ,f ,a' ,: '!�.►- '' a " r rate, y �_ '.; E. I; '." tr•#' 1�f. ,- ' 11•-'-' "DI..VII yt.\ - f f Gi.• )a '�L �47#dye +�j .1 ! C i tr. s.. "�}+� r � x OC .� 7 z W rani. I -w'� .. I P-411, . -i. �,, ! ,/ try •/ 4 a raw " sY +t �.. , . ..•I. ., -� zoning PUD � Pn, 4. _ wry r w ?9�M d-'i: ‘.--, k o °A t . .'lAk' eat.tq3:< '44"._. 1, w� �� . �.� " L , MarcorSh nr=s1 _ .;, . ,011110:1091g0"111141""1 . , n1ng:''R, `,_ . ,f7`1`�11'ei°d'Ier re , , �vGper ro x:-. e'e a D'e'nsity 2.081; ' t — ,' ,n.. 4' ` •ail r{ -, j r*- .4. ', en.s+rx r,r+-,•, +, ._._ _ __ .. •-•- '} .. +'a'r'I s -,_ N GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR HIGHVIEW ROOST ROAD RPUD AND Zso 500 ,,ate 1,500 Fee[ SURROUNDING PROPERTIES GISm.ppinq:BeN Y°np,AIGP Gre W o.Mansgemenl Gepnt•nenl Gab;AP°I°,2q1 q Attachment D Cor County AGENDA ITEM 9-C Growth Management Department Development Review Division April 13, 2016 Dear Planning Commissioners, At the February 4,2016 meeting,the Planning Commission reviewed an amendment proposed by the Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee and made recommendations for changes. The Committee met on April 6, 2016 to review the Planning Commission's input and the Committee's updates to the amendment were presented to the Planning Commission on March 17, 2016.At that meeting,the Planning Commission directed staff to send back to the committee several additional questions and comments regarding the proposed changes.The Committee met on April 6, 2016 and has provided a revised proposal regarding the changes to the original LDC amendment request. The Committee's proposed changes to the text, and additional discussion of the changes, are included in the attached table. The attached table only includes those sections that were suggested by the Planning Commission for the Committee to review again. Highlighting on the table represents the following: • Yellow highlighting(left-hand column) = Planning Commission made specific recommendations for changes to the proposed amendment. • Blue highlighting (right-hand column)= Modifications made to the Planning Commission's recommendation as a result of the Committee's reconsideration. In some cases,the Committee has not proposed additional changes to the original LDC amendment request, but has provided additional justification and discussion of the original request. Additionally,at the March 17, 2016 Planning Commission meeting,staff was directed to provide additional information as follows: • Staff was asked how the pedestrian pathway connection requirements in old LDC section 5.05.08 E.2.c(pg. 10)compare to ADA requirements.An excerpt of the ADA requirements in the Florida Building Code can be found in Attachment 1. • Staff was asked to provide an explanation of the landscaping requirements for large parking lots established in proposed LDC section 5.05.08 F.2.b.i. (pg. 9).This information will be provided on April 21, 2016. • It was suggested that pedestrian interconnection standards in LDC section 5.05.08 D.8.c(pg.7) could be relocated to another section of the LDC and staff was asked to provide a potential location.Transportation Planning staff recommended locating these provisions in LDC section 6.06.02 A—Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the proposed changes to the LDC amendment request. Sincerely, Jeremy Frantz jeremyfrantz@colliergov.net (239) 252-2305 Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Dmre•Naples,Randa 34104.239 252-2400 •www.coliergov.net O o O.i p w 1�0..0 _ iC CtE m MOu) o-O O @aC E C o N0JLa °2 - C 'OLIna$ N N N cm,>.. NN CO ° N O • - yU a) L > Oc ° N N�'23U — OLdN w L CUN aOC< U'oEo 0iyE4 CE N O W•O C0N NNU NN CNCoC O C > NyUN .0 m= Y LlCNC 82 N U 4_ OE " U0ON N N LY 'comU ... Uo o U ° E 22m dN . 3iLNH a) aU O•c c fOC O a •UNv O_c 300 po 0o 8O O N 2 X L_0 °12 r JIOhIlI! g .. 00, ° a E- oo Ouith L 2 d d .5 "cOC N mOUa.a) nE ` 2ydLNONE pydd oC .y -O NoNO LBOaN 7)aNN NO 3 o 0 "OUN 'Od«-.> Nd N -UNOi ... C NC N'ON O'3 NNNY + Oc .' N UO I!LUUh. UOwU > N CO . dN cNg ONN Vo - - isOd'B CN�aN(HN aCONLrNoNNO EEgZNMo ° g Eo -2230Ncf3 V ` HU a O_U TN0m0 4 OtH _co a. m Q2N, Z2Eoai a O N 0 O o L l6 C N O gra G_ N O p _ 4 '!' OOE c roiori o'N O O) 7. N O c N L.. N N -p ° ,0 a) 2 M N C N N :6 . =a a W ,O d L LO a U O) y -C -0 - N til .O .5g N 0 0 f6 U In.i C 2 d O .yNyVc3 E c °UUIU 22 0 -20 .7).1'N O N V O as a0N a • > 'CA Y ( 'O a c >a) myv -p cN OE0- 7 co- .cN ai y °y8 EE cU.�myEcmt -oO 6'9 ° o NUOya aNO O a '°'13g '6 „ U ON Or ° N m 0 • E LN O CNH NCLUNAE N ONE OON OG NpLH .•3 2.oO 2 aL. O y NC E. N0pE N N• NO No U E « 3oLco0 co oLL.�O 7 OO ON N _CYO a Das'; F4-,75O OE S'E''' V'''C' M ° O2NCN OC '6 V N : N _l"O N E bolo OOp0NCE a - 00.- mco o 4_ Ii 2 N Nc3cooEo 0N o NMpm. N � O ° C "OmNmc !r1 !!11 CMN • pE NNmp-U .0.�caLNN OV.> N t5N .. � !aC10111! EO ON'Q , ° m d E N.E • N iNCL Ef2 d6 C mrO a NUON`0ON oc) 2+ cNT LNCywE O OHO payENcE° Ol0 0UU aO a O •N3 U a UC _0 o . NmN aU H N a ! wO aQO� Z° NON ao NCm O a ii co f0 0 p G O 2 o CA C a c y8EE M_ ,o _ NN Or df N a ` C W N LQ° NUE AC N N N O OCC o N pOoC > C _ N v O o o ri y a) C U 0 o 202 I O V O o"O00d ' ° NO N Nc U c y UIIiOh1:m d C n omC; V ` Qa° a . E2E o6 cm a ,2 " oU ENdON co E ONEaw -7CCN iN OG u.53 O.L ; 21E5 o ,4s5-0 ,7,2 as NONr O CE cC QNa7 mNUN E �z U .2.. ..672.2.. ..672 ! :(2cr 0 a` No ` c ) L00w 0 . cE p p ,NNo7 O iadNC pN L CC '§ E NCEN` UOCNN.TO { U LNH oO2 `N O ONp'O cpO. N CC El28 -O oO dy � e,N2w0w m 5 �ag oEaEo NN N o .r5 '5-., NN2 '' NNm NaLCS N > ULa0UO LE ` C O C V rUN Cy wL • a) U rO . NN CL'OON L2 0-0 -4 E ONNEOU OYNC O aNNNC OUCC .NoN C` NQ 2 COOdJVCEdZ0.0_0,,4 - N -0 ° O7O). Nm 7' p0 oN —N a2ppOLlL'Cp .U d NC3CN NQ NCaCU N c a •o L ; C O N Cd. C 7 N -OwUC N NN$ C aO.92 C 'OaWNN U mw.O • .a aN= . ..Nr �NoEa °waaEa E = E'aUam E72d2 • 2xEdm M E U n G U = N.07 .d • O ° 3 c+ OF ° _ H E E C oIIY II LOc o i v Q N� z E'o ai • m (Ni L EP c = O a 71 - `° pm N N m m 0 N • O N C i m- L a) C m CO C t2 ... a 7 c O O 0 , N o a) o '3O 7 N 'O o - N .0 :� U d` O m -ap m m c d c .. E m.. 3apa COoo N-= 82'8. O y p N G- N a)O ..- U 0 a) a) a.`L of= Cl) 7v5 00t5 U C m m CO • a a)a co co c) nN '473-g ° CU CO Cm N a N N❑ O U- m 0= a a m m 7 C 0. O N,:M a) 0. 8 o 0 0) 00 7 a 2 C a8 m OC a) 0 o >,_• -O V� v c o c y V O c'- = V 3mc�o � V0.o c'117y mem -m Uo .. aci Dm V L . o rE=0 L N_ .L+ C m0 O yido 00,P0-so C 0 f a 0 _ C y y �o U O d 0 OO ya 1pL•O 0 O - 0 C 00 , L C.L. 7 '.. y m U .22-0t0575§ 0 a w C y U V O y o C x O m y m V U C N C m =. a m t Q Hmvm ao '50R-€z-5. 2cdZ cmN a Ea C.598.17) 270_ y 0 m tIJ O m N O m a E 3 = L,pcQNt4E OE 7a 7 mo 3E o O N ., . . .0.„ - 2 C L -° °Z2 $ • C o m y • o in, V c S-omoVEm C. c > > c c. (4'. '2 a c ON a m . .'1'_. 80,8f, 0 c° 'O vu) 3 E d c c -0 = e -10-• c c;a 7.,-(5.§ '500-0 0 ` m.� ccs ary c o.O y L L .-.F.LL. C o.9 y .x L o °) a)a 0 3 a O O y •0 V m 0a 5 0 t)m >, d3- Ecy U ohm V)0 >, m° w t do °o > 3- my too -- R- ) o a0i omw mcv Kaci a; m U = E m aoowa •£ Ey oy= oy (nao E ;60 " Ey °) `a) Eo ��20oc OVo opCLL° ON E m2a) Ovo �r om -.m._ Vmy ma > com o QCm Vmy - `m o m c • L L ` o <7,:16, U m CO (h O GLCL 3 134 °`o a O y CO' UaL. N COLC a 0L 7OCO mJN aO OO- .)o aE °o � EmOc " Ea ' • . 077.dm .m22-1= 0oo ooco O muEm . m L L d wcr � ` cm3 Coio0 . m3T °a • yi :coo amado a m i' 22.€-9 cm N c COn=wo 0 po° -5,6113 o : 0pyyo 7m E a7No_ a m Cyy.x= a C,0 = 3 0 a mcmo_0 OcVmma a •ymL a CO 7 d 7' Cl0 Q s 7_ U 3 m m 0 . p o-y a -_103-.,.-s X O v. @ 'p.) VoNawtE $1 ® ca E @Yv7 E cm 0V EL Em� yg E COyLomC E oo 0o CO EmV VwmooOd0 moia > e0 ciy 0� OOmo a d.c NV pa cop m O. • COL O CO 0 aa) 'a ooy_ N y aD. Eom ° ia • a) - Uy m UE U • L7L . U > = c U EO g. Q7cmO� o�aadnQ c - Oomm Q cQ� c `gaEm yrN_R ° E Ec) E ? = cLLc x3mCN og E O0N o 00 00 -0g O dU0 dO c 0m w . OO OY a - c .- uv-�__mm u St."; OcN >• .O • y .9 01-a ,� Oaawa O9, 3 ,- L0 ScOod LE Vw ` @amoa yymyo .c ' cU U mac () = YO m"OU ywOOCm 0. 7 d O• U o - o0 a0V 00UE° Lo E3m3 o Q5a E . (- a)aN 2 V < mm°COCOC CO C) C7 rO) ON 0 aC C O c0 N c CU mo.-_8 o E � of63 3g, CCoco ° a) a) d m o m ° , coisg E 3 • o1oad Cy O - ) -C0 °) mm o Otoa) m0am4a" c • o y E a" E CO O r E aaoa c c E •fu c d 2 1 E Nc E o m O m m U O a) 00 7 O C E O ma M V oy o 3 o •w V a 0 C Eco V y-_Lm, V Z2 'D 'm0 -0 ›.0 .0 7••O •O O0m02 '.- ° 02 d "m6 °) 3 U - 7.0 r C • m O m C C J 3 N y�0 C 0-rig C y a) • C y C y N = E t115—c a)�wa E ° o°° c : E o m a2 E mt a) .Ett -215 . y Q 0700=dc Q amyLLd > ° Q ii oAy ¢ 00 0. O Li E2.E oia . 37NN0CC 0 .8 ii Ems' m C '0 m'O ••Q 7 C m0_,_ 01, . C > > c 0 > ami N N 2 0 7 0 UOj C L,L.• U O O m 10a 002 N 2-o c a a`oai 0 o, � ; 0 c' m c d c = O L O L y N c O > > o m aJ a ma'3p" 'x m.- Oa m V :-° :-°03° V m 3. o oc a; U o•- m V - ��L.d OO � c �toy mp%� xmcif. m aop Cgm 0s2 . gm pia > 0) CO .o _m COO dEa0 ,, 87-5.8..s, `C Ea .- ' momo Ea cremi0 Ea mOc a l+ 02 N Noca o 0 0 •• y o 00 7a) 2'3 >" §-7j.2% C ' C Qcm 00 20 £ Va mwo - c V a :a > 3jOm Ua Ua a) aLMUm toC ,c4, 01"55 _— OO.O.U O Qam° mmC m U a C) C O d M ai A a0) (13oi m m m CO Cd d 4,3-EC . O N d E C d 'N wN .° E .2-s a N d `OO "O U e)Is = N ° o �' 0 E E ° C- O 4OG ° °=,- is y N d E d N 'w—N a U y o o d y N > d f0 0 gd UzO2pto7NQC> 3 C U O wpp- C d. TRE - sdL - C CUoQ OaT, dV d ° occc3 y a) i0- e° ma x 8° > O Y N,..l L V £ y Q - °y U;..d N c c d a E N O `'O N C 0 y C c C d 737 £ 7 E fa d C p N W b-2 O N L O N O'5 tap d V C. c O N N y-p C l0 C 4 ° o N -v d•aa�a 62 c� o V o ca-E•- m= E C et d'6 d C V 22'62',73E -2=. 2=" 8 g d d . d . N O O L d N ° C £y d o c =Z o E U ° O EErnXo °O3 >_'3 c E00' -c .Xwc Odd Nd° d30 > LwL . .„ = z3Ea`o a M M N d d t -O d (3 y C C 'O 2 7 y d wd-'N N d C dF. L7 Eac:= NOEd • • O ) y p d C W8 a)) 7.L o Z � dpg `o� _oa $ cv 3 > O y a)c N d W, 7 0 (a V N'X C N d � � N d y 3 d- d o o`0Ld. E,T °.g83 . £ a N yW >`a Eoc t01 w0 N 0 a))Ua. .7 aL'a - d C d d.yD"O Eaa y. E @ d �O- C C L > y y d 2 N' • a o °i3OcENca ° �c V U �0EddNooEy2E co ^,' C6y Nzi22. a`p) `O m ZcnTS O y C <06 0 . 5 f d 7 y O p d o rU :p E0.5.L..a y = O M ' `p 'O a d a L - N O c0 C 322":" 0 E C-0)..E. L-• .56 d CN 2 S O L d N 0 0 Om t'ydd°t2EU C) O i d N L U O m L_.«L.a E OE ._ Z3Ea28 a co wd d t a o o o2d N N OyN c E d d C dCNwCO e a) � O o nL ;; ` 0E � E 0. d �dLd. d3dCV •-,...-2 a) LoLF- .5«yE gdOo C yc oh° Eoyo °m=od r N EO.d O d N O C 7 2d L; do c > E oaorn2Lyo , nO ` wS5 E 000 ycvCmd ° d • U2id M U E ddLO Ld : 7 QC > dN teE c . ° d d y da a) od ° 'cmama: ov ° i $pcw �>= d � dc 2 .8 mEEdd= 2O. . ogX E _ aaL ° � , oQ pa � mcoEgadQXd >Qs0�N3y ocdo0 d �ooxa � 5a > � o2E' c N rnna' - Uaodo0oHc y)o . o2odc° . m2dgv3d xca °'ato ° cm2 ad°vL °p -5 dd .- Od • . uOa C C E °a.E d B OE N '5 N - G O y ad 7 N O Q. y S U jmcd E o " oiCrna o ° UsycL c o : odN ° NE.6QverO ,L E . . 20.. 2 . 0 Pt 'yLao12.VEgo=wali EL20Ec« 1.1 dEO 7 d•7- NywdN O Na aLOCV Ea • • 0 In E V OD � a 12 C C > ` L2=U C E .y p•3 g 0 fa d d o � d°a v)Z 3 g 3ZE C o d t ei d m fA c i y m m O _ L m 0 .. • E fliVi ' . ., , ' •' „ . E m •E 1-2 wLE •O E2m ` 7V O y Q U 6 gym75NG E " . . .yCN ., „ , C -0 O m = _ N m5 m d .. , ., , - To • • • C O C -O c m m N m m m E • .r , , .. O m 0 ma° aNm�'gcc8 a E V C to _c N U:. 3 `1 O"m m E O o m cc S' m= y E o o no E• E c° • " , .r , Z -O N T.L.. O m C C o m c m m 'O " , ., .r ., .. , E •r = _o C O-O m N to C-0 E N 0 • • • O N "> ami aa>> o'82'y `m y m2 o E 3-0 " •• ., _ • 40 0 aCEaaE> E"Ea°Emy U0Yrn c m3 Em oEonEmc Lmrct- y 4 O .L.. O o NL y O o, O CI"6 C o 0'm •0 'E : • . " • •. . . ••• .a N CY°N 3,,,- d NmmUa) N d.N: E > ' . LN 0. E : 0 . .p 0_c F- co d H° H O O co " cL @ N - Y E o °-o-o , E a g13 • • • • , O O N m•Om •• .r • T >,•5 f6 OCm mp_ V y '5 70m c ' ° Nm 2 Ea) > aa) yc •NE a> mL C0E 222) v� OE ° ca my mo y ° m m m o m L... Lg 0.Ow LAydUC0 0 L. d mL B.a) N- N X L m- 'N m y m LCm'3m'-.0+y N N Nym '5nmm C C am UmL a ,_9y O3.6EC d Q m m N L N UNcy« OU C N"O T is, LNoO m . 3m0N m a)0 O d y •- coo Q .L. m 5 i 3 maU 0 mm m U c . 0� 7L a) Etc cmaw mCyoi "O�L a m o.0amdama mCNm NE 2° 0 E m 0 7:: 7DN � m -o -o mca „ N. y C> C as a> W y C E..,yLm o ri5wQOo C _mWmNc ~2coc > c `0) OC y m ma 25'608 2 yc7aY _ E_oE O C > ELm C mm j m p @-O 42 p O L0 7 moL Em m E X-c oa u c ay c -0o ° E.cm0 2a60 co myy wE • za Fa c c m y o o 15., m O O m o VO U 5L O Q@a) myoE a.O0 C R 5 c.. C Q) U) O C N ' C d mu,N Fs';f O C NO C 20 ' .L,NEOo2L mUEayEwmEmimC)mm0 `2macymc a NyC a>.a> O.N« co m. O-o O Em , , ym EmEmaEaoEo° cm .p-a •j- m 0 Xd- cmcm a) y.ccm Om ,sOrm 6mo a)NpUmm c Er Ncco o • TD , m .. co�0 oao 0E ' ooEc= ma cLiam« mocm='nma:= E00om0 ao 11.1 C) � am ` 0 - aCEyCo. 04 'ji0 m 0_ C 0 0 m X o 0 >.c � NtOr -o m W -O E NOv ` N mmN . N.0a(.O •COa) OrCNcC.CDNLtlLyoNaONa= Er CC C '0 mm Ta'ma>y "Om y a.V o U C pm 'O m L m c.c. m U m Lp e=, C C -w mm � Cc m . `•.' G dF-% -%g.07 O m.2'5 5 O Y. aL >`O m NLLN.a ii!24 as CwVjCo7 33 C ,93 0�.N O_ E gC •yCEUU y.N C N 0 d T.'.!,..-§. L O a -0 7,-3 0C Or p O E m _ 0-m E Ora� _dm .rO 'O t m m Oi `PLENcO-6 CB c m 0 OL Hay. y 28w : 'CDV0.Nm UcCe0 >,C8 mm 0 y H E E D. N Q_co N U. 0 c o' E it w E 0.3 NNyN C.m 0CmC O y mCC -LLLLLCL U 3 300 aOC ...0...01- ma E E ofoa'Ea m aa 0 • • 0 N "O 7 0� 0.c y ym Ua ao.ioQ o mL0. _ __c m . LL m CU M ' ., , ., al d a U o r v y m tI3 CD E o a),-E • „ . • , L 0. my C YC Rm Om , , •i. .,, V aY -0.. j ., . r ,- .. V LNj -0 N80 . , .• 'E 0L e V NO.c9 ' y • • " - " • •• oM macl,38 0 m E d N� O0C5oE ..0 O . Lrn m 11 a L m ” m c -co co 11.1 y o o• dCO yOmd0 133a> C57°X3 c a "o y o "a maS''Nm m oE o ac,.._ LNNa c ••W Z 2 ENK.-. mNcmC 0 . y 0 m'0 0 0 0LGL. rmNNN • „ • .0. 0 a) m-5Q c 00 NA „ , , " aN C co 0 N • • 0 e E y o a m w a E Ea-a)TnEo2' aaccaa.`Eoa`C ' , . ., . ' C C E EoamoE-omoEmocECoa • 0 0 oi.omcmodEmdwC30c , • - .. .. • 2 a)tOmU > 3c >U. c > 0 oEUa °o . .c E_c C@33LU ' . . . O m OC L-O -O L a .0m V N O m 7C a i o o • • . . : • E 0 a o ., • E r ., 0 c) e p; O Vr. o y O • N O V ' y I 1 • • m m2 `ate E E N 9 _ Q N N E co O N d) V N Q)a L C N • a M E m c o E E O O j y 8 U X 0- y N N O OT 8 U c rc' 8m LCD• '•s U . Na 1!1 W N O 0) w E U 7 7 C 3 N f0 7 Q O k' Q 2 ;d a O 0 O d N �btu. ma U a m • r •• r • r ' M 9 • N " . •V ' 0 . .I g,-7, do '.I , ' ' '195 E. C j m 0 •C 731'5 0 in j 5 7 0 3 w w C N 2 o c y °'o m , a Eats a .,-.93'.- a` ., .. m O ° .t..m 0-06: 0 a)m o ° N C ° ° .6 W .. E ° 2 C m C ED O «) C E c-O C E.O C a)-O WE ° N° °0C0 ° O ° y " E pE RS t:, 0 .,oyd N 0 E p O C'd , OCy .m' i- a -• 4 C Csp °w rn°c0 0, E). o 0.) c-0 E o c ° E'c ° 0 N @ CL O- of 0 y Ca 0 m m cm miE N ' ° _ m • cs _ CO So _ � 7 EO m° 0 ,... 0- � �. @bE coccm ° EctEmEcw •.m � 0 -c , o CE co > °- EE E= E 0 ° a6•'-o ° a°mo ° a60: L N 0,-042-0 O La EN dV a) nC ... 2 > C NNZE ca > o ° .. E E .-5oE8 F a Np. E '3U ° NE yo05 E v_ ° aaaN oN (p 0 2E8 U N U T y T `) a) d a L a) c)E N L.. c dL°, 7 -60 0 °)t ? c ; cayiocarnc a) 0 a rnN c a c U c2° G'� C W C rn° ° 0 C N --.6. 0a3.20-5 a= c N $2 o .Lr N E cL. N a) 3 N C N-°Y N O.7-° •_'0 N oC ala-(?)732 ° T00 a) @ a) c-O U 0 n0 0' E .0 E@ E °n o o c °)2 c) ° c°i 0 of a•o ac E E a'y .,:-._c E tri=o o E Q;o EaE3 0-T,.. 0- m ,°,-0-0mL °u ` c m00.� m ;'a3 c E N ° N-Q"6 N fN 3 N ° —. c0 y i ill i N E o f ° c ° a) 0 a) O ° °w a a E ° a °-L2 I U c= paE d:ELy -°4' ELEwc co a 3 E `)0 E °E ° N 3 E c'' 2 '7862.77.c °' H 0.o E o 3-o E > E c a.) Z`E g o - a,- . =ou)- c. V m Udo,.0 0 00-000 .c N° ' a,� ` a°i 2 da c ° > a7 °N ° d o.S (DE: C.�.' Y�"6 V 5_07 z E .0-1--`.-0 a E H c H oo a°H c°) a c `L ° a EE 7al2. ao;nmo V • • • • N a E U a, E 0E C g)�`uaEccu y E°2 U ° o0CH.2,2 > aa U L 3 re- -2,, o 0 - 0 -O1 7 E ... N 3.�:0e2 C Uc) ZE'- cEE.N. mo.ip a c0 > 1:33.D.N a _. ° O °" cm..., - ,.. cn SI V a) C_ C ° c L E.00c 3 N N aE - EIIvoNE m d ` Ems '513 -° c� O rn „Lc Crn G� C ° 0 c ` CC 0 a _ _ .22 O x .2 cV a) c.0 N ° O N O ° a) y0 0 O a °)c'O d c a) 4- CN N O N.a J -.- E 'OO y V E ° • E-_° co >. f-2OmE, .,0 U o E o nc 072c °2 @ N d N N co y om0UNQ° amEL° E2cm 4. £ °i c N rn"E o.E v+°-' E F- O)_ c'O A o c 0 U C a a c .0 y U aj C Q a ° ° ° cn � m ��a= m o E 1-m72•N� L.; ayi ayi O d 30_71, E0 -N ° awa °� E ° ° > ° ° aU L HN � YL� ` ° `x yHoar° 2:c'3mo E 3 o n ay E u • . v a ° EU c ct ` 0 y c >lj ' dR 3 o o ° rn . Eu c.0E '1:220a 0._ ., > 0 U 0 L_ c 3 a) N -O '. G) C m -(7; 0 . y C .2 Ew `° N ' 0 ic °C ° NyC ° Nc . . - ET.,' • 0.0 yoa L � Ew ) QN v °i _ La ° a .a4 ' °' vay� ' ° 0a° aca E .03 amma g ° Ern E NQ° m°L ° c.0.o c c2 y ocE� co • a. • ' • > . 5 -a)" N.. M O � N N_7' C.5c c 0)a) o� . $ ° Eco N aNa) oaNmEE acti . N•° ° a - a) c-° .: • -0 a N C a ° C yc0 c a) E00 ° c '2 L C o' N Eac ° N OEa .'-cEN. ° °.O 9 E E ° O 2a O L a w E - � o c 0 2-. Ea` o m Eaa «) 0 2 N ° rn N a -° ° E . y c E UE E_0 O'C L I N O 0 C U- F N O N C . . to C a) U ° N U N O V N 3 3-c-° E °--p a 0 a.-E 7 ' 0 0 otL'Drm0--° E@;oa•S=0"5 ar?L-OL= . .. o VR NHodH `o.-J<< Nm < a.0 12:5-§ F, t, ° £ o ; Z2-05 ,7)1% . ° £ 0. u • . y . E V a G .mn�`i E. .. E o aa))C N.E-.2 " . • 0 U C 0 ci ei 0 G co oEO£aL_O rN aC 5pC le ccte. • JUCac1-.s • • O. ' U@yaN N �L' N@'DMC a) $ C..L,d 2 @ O) 4 • O@f2N0 "o 8 p)O.O O ° - •O @ ° N O yN • ° NI Q po@C • >.m • oocm �aQt@� ` � OCa r0)i N U Oa p @- a Ca ° � cLoY `° •Ts) 0m0a " d NN N= m@NWp .C CLa 0 @ CN o N( ° : aN N 0 NA @NU pa c0wmON. .. • . . CD.•I- myas cIa • owO.2st d * E ° oYoNCy2E 70a a ° . ; .o LC -c O U.7 U E a 7 d d •• N y•O c a> .°'g 3 0 N N N NO N 0 aa> oO 0 - E y * d@N °-y N am '0 °t0E 3 O Olj N C . E- a ° C@wa@. pNQ y _ aE a) dN - o @0@ow E EfCNOip0U a y. wo E c E o rn O 0 a m N_o @ E ay@ . . ; . C 7 LC:° - 7 aL c p c C C CEa E N O NO aO@ .. . -0aN , N- �@aUc,cOw0;'2 �oya2'NQ w • UC0E2 . C C to�r a3 C@L2,N@aN d .. . � @._ O@O °'` < ® — U0@_@.� °t0 aE°ooEoY@c „ ao a , • R -cw • oa - m> a ' _ p o E N m ° E ° ° `ao aO m e E C E ° n V o a d co ` Vm �* bIro'aa >T ° o o' c•U _ omUo � rEo8u' a . ComEm =. oaCo o >- Ewv a)c aEa., aa)f 3 >,yp_yc c•. a2oEmEOEa> a) w ycC 0L00 a)L a y O C L C . ) E * ° �No� oZc • 10oo_4I > >xoff°— c• cc o@ °` a ,_' , c� �rcE � os) ''• o LoaoEo U °ui ▪xEo • • • • - .V od „ , ., .. . -c amv@ @ m g > E f LoA V° 2 i,, >ui a v._ o a r c 75 N wE o ° ai w C@ C C7 U C c "ONpp.0 yc 5 C!U 3 N @ C a E p sa E La) Nt CLCwC ▪ 3 0 ° L@N ° 0 L OC I>,- p OLE @a U' N L m C O U 'O) )«. O L ° 3 a> 6a)o_ c O ° a> a) c-°r ui E p C C aL ° W _C 1 _ °' ONNaN@ @ O E N' O 2 N m a p. a Oy ` -8:1 NaN2 00 O)O- O Oo 2 E 7Ny @ o c C@0, `p0 a2a.c@2 a C@O)d a i7 • c wE XLO Q o d y c @ C.- a�O N N 7 60 NdOCN, aO g3odo @ao@c E Q@ o•yn ✓ mc cN ° 80•° co .oarno ° @ xy aom' ° � oc �� c@E EE-°6N� oS02EcV EOwv°' E�foaN � ° oNOaU� z. HOpMCO CU C C .yO E* �c ON<o RU a g rng as U2a) °� oQ t 8 C S' c mrr _ cmad y p2 aoa >, Q° N @ @ C a)O 'cmONm@ °'o@a aW > Ewd "4", . @> a3aor E 6c. mym ° mya m` @ ° F, 5m > E° 2* EIMlom >7 o a�N@Eco)a@ a ao)E@.ELc 0 200Ey 2C (,) (3a) V) aC@oa)OE 'OCW@. NO UO E • y • " O Eor ..L-2LLc00 -omcm • O* . J- 3cE ZI- No1-21m— a � 'c''.) o. rNo U o o0 o F.U V C °)L. @E' E loa Uo �p0 cin o U E �. >ui cv.- o -° di p) o -a a of @ C ° 2)..6.O. C O y @ E 0 C N E 0 C r 0 C N E@@ L E a) m e.0 d E O E O C c N C.L.. U.L-, C a) • w () 'O U -..4"1 ,91g2:5 ,1 ,9 V C 0 O 012 N 0 0 0 of Q O L @ 7 @ °' (-211-r°43 co @E N N y L NENNcC Oa Vo @ E aN a f.2 0 ° C a G N Q wmdNOm- E ' @y ` c0> @ CN o N ca,ROI ° co2° cr o gc d�ma 3 ca c 0 * o�cL° N ° 2 rn m@z aia N Eomo i a ° E d °) 17:, 4-0-0.1 ,00>E 17:, 4-0-0.1 ,0017:, 4-0-0.1 ,00 N (T.�C (>oa c N7 � Q @CgocaZ ° -Oa)N ° . l6apE > ) 0, Lc: oa a HOpNa) iiN N .0, U • a)L �42 w y * ! c'oit. 0 ,,CD 2" N w N N E N C) ° C • - as c G L £ vn@' ECa E 5 N V O O_ N `aVN. ' ENc C E > @ ° o NCV 2. ri ai= t aN0w20). �jcatd � p cH mC d N N -o a Co)wEwc c Lo' o y pLpm �� °a \. c ..@oV ° 'a H° a1- o o 0 4EoEo EaOcECmoa m .cuiEN'E> -n • • ° O °.c0702N O E°•a) 2 a N o o -0UI o C 0 xi p V = oio c 1:o C�a Lll Cl) c 0 c • y� o � • N o mL c› o no C 3 co H 5,-.•.<- .. N N y ' U- N 2 1�3a- 5 c LO - -wamo 2 E c0N@� ?NcQ38 ct as m . •• . SL cN0- « ° o '23. •. @Qcco o ° .cN N -°d Oc.cU cTE 12a).22.! -0 UNn3 f2(0 U o"O a•-0 EC cO .E. an ` °Eoc '9� U ' a w ° -°T d o c S ° oE :U ca0m E�° om .N2N c ° o��( ao w0 ,,i ° N 'O-O N U C o o3v 00 o cu) y . o LNT d C8 3 o w o O OaR C2 an-,9, •- 0 °)o O . 2 'al m o E ° ° 0 _ aV C wc ° y0V`a � °d0 L� c O �° ° :cCNaaO)C - r O 0 is 0 U C 8 N O )',•E c)0.. O)C 0) y N t'(0N 3 O p Z .• U E ° c a o c E•Et n r 4) N c E as o C. I vQwv ON X ° ° E-6L N y T w LEEE 2 ,7,14',,, • • 0 •E ay ° N 2 o N c0 aO a) a) C O U .. Oc w `E '4 € U . ° E N n°-2U ° c c''n o 0 o- a)d:c m oo« a) oOdO Oa) d C(0 ° Ein7N LV CO) C 4co d L L "O d Eo co E Eco u� CO m ' 3 E NcEcno°� Owe° o0 (13 CO E'OU ECn . w z002 zO.OC �Y O °a ° � Co :U« CvUcU ° ° 0 � o5N. Ndc o ° o :2 E cncod ° ovo ° c• m ° 0c oomma72 o•aaoaco-0 >.o ° om: a ` 5 yNHoEHotooaH2coac ...4). .6 a) Yo•y 2,-.'q NEa, Ez EE ° orn' c� oEwm EE0 H •• • . ' % §' wyo. o2asV oanGUoi- !• . Uocn�a • : '• a� f6 rn • C c ° .E r L L o - o O � y O c N .° Ln C no O O C 2 C NN EON (a a)• aN a) a)= 2 OT X to E -Q 7 i c c � w_� @� °E10o o o• ° ° o 4LN4ooT11a o a 0 o aO O N.0 O L V 3 0a) 0 U w Caa ' C ' O) p O Em E C)° EO CC) n U N - fN o ° 'a ca$ RcO.O >2,) SSE ENo a)T„-• ' cEON • O OUmYr 12.a1 ° OO V L C V . o EE-0�C • C CU U0O) • LT; ° a C ° OO o C •' C C m N C� — O,5 °d0'O - o E d0 o•C O NNsYOCNRO LN 0�4•_ nyWd•OyyN U y t . o V Eo3Y W • ro-0o mU E .5 oac a -,F,.T) r �w� o)oU .o mU 3 5 Od o2'xow — � T.Q J . aan`o w Y O ° ° 07 F- 0.)•C ° ' EEE-0E E mdowa� ° ° aE() m � ma .'c > 2o °cc • • myE Nwa) o 2az $ aazOaL �a a o cg•o 3 °cd E • o o_ EE - a) o (a ydTr vi – E8° c ° E o f oc o - m az - 3 L. X . a p mEa1 2noc8 � 0 � °p N3Ho.. toE a3 .. O NHUdaQa c dw'pY ° dLa ° °'V E d U ou . • ° d . .o OwLoL9 d ° . mU�� $3oU v.' U C Y ac'`dnO a) N a o m a C c •' 7) 2 ' a) c — E.C ., E ° .3o m9 C N `° .. U 2. co L4) c v °o (4 o o) a)a i. O. a) N° a m -2 o ui-° 8 ., c c a c - 3 T, .. U c Y . 8do co o_cooa ° . P N m°a a to. a Z ° E o .L. "O ac NTi; 5)_,wL p E y N N2N 0 N °L E E Lo Ey WcmNo. 00 N a) •f . .,. .. „ • • n ° •OC. ' U ' 'C� y .°v C °- . U .) 7 o o • N'o' . .. .EEcNN NY al ° NrnL ° . 1 .; .:. "Od ON▪ -• NnO°C��m vdNado49wY'OC�_ I .. . . . .. c..1 ° o .. E o aN O O E Q o@Qg . „ o oUc0 ° ° as ' rU M U fn• C0 iLC -O o . .0Z O p (n ar0 .. • 0 O tl U> O >` N'° 5;2 N Z 0ONN M CL r) '6 N .E 1% °-t TC ULN2U 3d 3 a) m ao m -° 0 a) O wc . . 3 m •. . c2NacUa) • . .. • 2 a rii � c ° -'a ECoaaan ' c m oc 2t.° ()' , E E. � 2Ec— Eolc '- •C E E ° E22 E2 N°c c Ea) � Ed 6I-21- u) , O TO..T. c0) O• o OV ` N •y cu a) O1g U . 04 - NU0$Um 't � • ..U • U ° -• O O ft 5 in •O c0 aO ` E a ' N T 0'O Q1H Ham 2 UN • E O N 7 ..,' ° E n u • E ° v . E V G ill y V D. • .1 0 V •. C p 2 a 0 N N o LL LL N a) N L ., N c „ O a N CA c `) 2 ., c E Y. R 5 O N U) a EO U c c 0 . ., ''U c w 6 O N cM(D ).0 Q U C .� •� ., C (_) d o m Q o 0 00 . w - U) U C a) G C a V �a Y O c 0 o ` a) `moac.� " CD E L 7 � O j U C a, c y U 2.:4...(2 .5 N V. C O N @ p, N • , E c z N Q O > o X c C > .. " O O w O c c c T c --OO'� ., ., 0 .- c N E.. Y Lc."2 c a10 EcExm .co ° N•NaCc N N E@ E= T c . mY 0V LO CNO N a)'ONUN °0 3c . et E, OO a « c cL 13cL2N3 ., N-O W 7) .I- o...5 F- a 0.2 . o .c C. E a a E • • Ili “2 8 .2_ 5 .8 • .0 12)_& c aE 0 a) mE d ENa7N7 8.5. _ '''''1' 4," ° O Q y.cLC3 0 NO-O o "O o d Nc 2 >. O °, 0 U °- 0o ° O .om o c U cc� E Tda3 0 O N O y j� w U N c V 'N 5 '5 E a) o n. N O E c c L° N 'O a) 0 EwaiEgy aOCm oo o�-o ° �m A 0) t.o p 0m80 " ° o c_ c a) I- c 5 N c 0 z a) c L. • c O L C< a) -05.211% M c oEo ,ca) E ma ° E a Tam a cr- E U C R V 7 N.L.• c N 7 °.0 > TL a) y O L c O (7)i- O.0 H"O A of, c V 7 W @ d U • • E-O c C O V O irE' >.2 ° N C 4) C O c'� > .. a E `° c • E „ °x Q C m 2 , , ., " V c Q a) N G • • .. '.:: c Or Vy @w -0 ams YNo 0 �. aE ' • E ., co . m owd 0)a- .. N U N ) O C L N . yc U � "0 r 'E > d ac U)m o ° ° O )o a °y °a n w 7- . . 6 C N °d NCc • U Oc E °) > N o o. • Nc6Ec a -° . " ` N a,'D E N0 mo . O a)_082 ' w ., c r as a a .. ,. . • N .E N.� J.'I:, N'E a N .. ' U) C E E E 2 '�i N d EBr U '. vi° �mUw . U U n ID O ., 2222c3-22113g0-.5-2 §12 O VP a .�1- E1- aQ al- a7Nal ., E a 3 0 V c O -o ci N d° LLl W Attachment 1 Florida Building Code 5th Edition (2014) Accessibility http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/2014 Florida/Accessibility%20Code/Chapter%202.html 206 ACCESSIBLE ROUTES 206.1 General. Accessible routes shall be provided in accordance with 206 and shall comply with Chapter 4. 206.2 Where Required. Accessible routes shall be provided where required by 206.2. 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where exceptions for alterations to qualified historic buildings or facilities are permitted by 202.5, no more than one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be required. 2.An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access. Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. Each site arrival point must be connected by an accessible route to the accessible building entrance or entrances served.Where two or more similar site arrival points, such as bus stops, serve the same accessible entrance or entrances, both bus stops must be on accessible routes. In addition,the accessible routes must serve all of the accessible entrances on the site. Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points Exception 2.Access from site arrival points may include vehicular ways.Where a vehicular way,or a portion of a vehicular way, is provided for pedestrian travel,such as within a shopping center or shopping mall parking lot,this exception does not apply. 206.2.2 Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site. EXCEPTION:An accessible route shall not be required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access. Advisory 206.2.2 Within a Site.An accessible route is required to connect to the boundary of each area of sport activity. Examples of areas of sport activity include: soccer fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, running tracks,skating rinks, and the area surrounding a piece of gymnastic equipment. While the size of an area of sport activity may vary from sport to sport, each includes only the space needed to play.Where multiple sports fields or courts are provided, an accessible route is required to each field or area of sport activity. AGENDA ITEM 9-D CIL County Growth Management Division 2015 Land Development Code Amendments Cycle 2 CCPC Meeting 4-21-16 Collier County Planning Commission Thursday, April 21, 2016 2015 Land Development Code Amendments—Cycle 2 No. LDC Section LDC Amendment Description Environmental Amendments 1 LDC sections 3.05.04 & Add flexibility to preserve signage requirements. 3.05.07 2 LDC Section 3.05.07 Identification of when preserves shall be identified. Planning and Zoning Amendments 3 LDC sections 5.04.05 & Amend the Temporary Use section to address community 5.04.06 markets on private property. 4 LDC section 9.04.04 Address glitches within the After-the-Fact Variance criteria. 5 LDC section 10.02.03 Allow for architectural improvements through a Site Development Plan— Insubstantial Change. Engineering Amendments 6 LDC sections 3.02.10 & Update the NAVD/NGVD requirements. 5.03.06 7 LDC sections 6.02.06 & Remove specific Level of Service (LOS) language from the 6.02.07 LDC and reference the Capital Improvement Element. 8 LDC sections 6.06.03 & Remove conflict with street lights being prepared by an 10.02.11 engineer versus an electrical engineer. 9 LDC section 4.05.10 (A Allow on-street parking for neighborhood mail kiosks and new LDC section) local neighborhood parks. Utilities Amendments 10 LDC sections 5.05.12 This amendment will be continued to the May 5th, Planning and other applicable Commission meeting. sections C u ~ m E f f ( CC 0 (A C \ ,lo kfNa - - E < k o C U 0:1) 2 E E # o . , o 0 o f E 2 0 A § = I CU \ mm3 / 2 \ � I 2 � § mak w CZ 7 / - k z >. 2 M. 3 / / f 2 @ E C © v E e # - 7 m © o — E « 2 E $ R ; E c@ ° -c 2 / ° ° $ 2 ° •VI u > 0 2 = 0 •c G m i I » - - 7 k 2 - UCO ce _ 3 5 o m ƒ 0 a a) = k V - . / / 0 0) 0C - s- a a- o § I k D a U. N C n3 CD 13 E § tn ra. C 4-1 \ = • 0 C CO 0 -0 ~ 0 a. E i as E . b IN Q o E § E 0 O VI / E t § Q � � m 0 - o c N 2 0 E $ / 2 J § 0 = 22g � w > E 2 { § / 5 / $ s- E 3 u \ n / ' 3 E ) 0 k , ., \ ƒ ESA 04 / o o E .% \ 0 a E 2 $ t a ± 2 2 .E _ . = as 0. CC c 17 \ ® as # NI .c E > R » ° E E \ / \ C r-I LW 7 \ § / / § 0 \ 2 E ' m 4 O \2 V)\ Ci O giVj iu 0 a, C 0 v1 fl; C 0 C N 1I N ++ U E 'L ns ns m ra " c a C u 0 cc ',� E =E tO �0 0„,,,, O c .: W 0 ' N OC i�P�ih ��;r Q aJ L t` t in +• Ti v 13 o en f a 2 c a• mi 0 = v 0 U m °C o• a C o a C In z m Z ca 3 el v- C C r0 O1 73 +, o 13 C 0 E co £ v • ati m fa �"� N rl > 1%1 d . v C �• N -,-• ;; a 'O fa R Q- C Q' C a „5.' H L 3 Q' O 0r.. O V1 D O U. N I^ in vi U •� V " °°'° 0 ado 0 re Q Q m �_ COO �_ LO cn V V G .— .c a•+ o ,ti O c N •� z = Z ; s II1OU a jL.cn�, d a3i c Q = a) fc L if? .i... Ci) �J a) Co E — -'';+1.• v .- ,+v_.• .c< rtes -c cis: C 3 a v !17 vi 't3 c O L1 C > N 3 0 agi a Z t c `a 0- L y C tolE a -a s a' Z a d z .c o o :d 0 aF �Y _Y '+ VI ice+ O U C V1 — i v O• _ 3 C O a o c c L, aa.) O •'X do co al vi d c7 `n c7 d v N m cn — N O c °'a cu `o 0 0 ZCl E •• o .Ecc o o v o o i 6- C O Q !/) lf1 Z of i� O W Z Q J {A f'�1 a. i i i i Vi'q it'i d �6 G 0 H +' C f0 O O C N a�-I N U E .5., ca tea f�0 � O V Q C Oa) 0J ce E 61 u,a CU d 0 f N CC v E _ Q tD L R vi 0 CU 73 a a g o • # L, O w i'I eo C4 CL C U ar ii vs N N N N O N en E L N CO +- c N +> a a) -°cu z, s O 0 CO C 1:11Cu L O O e6 O i d ' vi O i. vl •= m R ri N V • a - • C U •X- a 'a t ° > cdp o _ ro L v o 2 O .4...'"" t o E i i a � s o � o ac_ o o v o � � a Q O Vf i 3 to 3 L 0 O •.G t0 �j C ▪ 7 j� ° v Q H OC Q .LO T C > O f6 - a v O (1-) Y o �` 0 CL E s �' �' o s ° E s a ° a cu Cu o v a �O Q H c v v a 4,-.,c3 ▪ s E •in -a o 4-• 4 °�' u r-1 -_ f6 p C -' > ° co +, c O E o o m �+ ? • -C a L a -C U L C 41 O L o 7 O L N •3 a -° �— .� 3 U 0- M g C Q 4 � •c . PI! i�iil O L a+ 4 L a.' O a C M 0 a) N X O Op 4- Qr+j _ O L tit C ,a - t• N E 0 Q. 3 = -0 -0 4-0 i u ° •c O ai 4 g Q! _ a O s.+ Cy C U vii +' O CA u E CS0 0 *t L ++ O_ 4,4, 113 ,,, ebt o An " '470 o v cEd) f1.a C a O O a O ca C L E go tf1 0 — -' 0 "CS a i- to v� I a Q aE. t6 t3', h f3 , O C ;C �+ n U C. v, cu a L 'a j Z O To V1 C I� ,� 4-, a +L.+ -I ro C l6 L a O O N re O C0 0 2 a)To - C 0 Q Np CO v u C of Y U �^ 4,^ a a a) .. a o C L N C C a o CI C O ,0 O a O _ L C O •O O o a O '▪ 73 ,., O w Z O Q t%f a O a Q 0 Vf (./) 1=ai 0 8 : dflpi a ,, N C 0 N +_ C -0 riof m O 67 C N ,I N a E — >` >• T � u o a 2 2 2 C Iv 4J cc O `• a ;=- au n 0GJ cd ,N CC V a a! •. U °'ap� �O 'a of g oa V O v © v I m • eo a R (n 13 Z 0 z 3 tin c6 _ 4, o, _c c Q! CU N ;,; cu C M CD > V) -� 44 C -° C N N N C O 'Q i R DJ m o `1 N p v o f w ° v ¢, U > N E i u ° Q- c ° v ° o Y L 'a cu aN CU 01a Q O i'3 E 3 3 v E co .X ° c, .� o V y cc E a ° c o u E • v E 0i v vi N 0 '> o 00 0 ,o > ••— s 0 L a' o a a°10 ° ii 1E J -a °' ° o " v E c C o Q a °C E E v°'i •L• m o 0 o •'L v u o co E rI O E v ' Q E E u v o a ° co C N • 3 � Nim ., 1- v � .c � Z +, 411 E a. Z's � a C) = m au Gi CU E -45 v) c3 0 L -U to V• E I/ V, 0 — ? _cwo c L _ cU " ca c C Q H w o v c a a ns z3 ° + -CI Q v U a }- €1 c� siII �• us of H et to of L v) H aJ +� N i i E? aJ }1.),iii O 4 (LO (p +, E N C 0 N O > 4-, r-I YO "E 0 -0 v 0 V a a u •0 CO` ori C N `m c o E c c no o c 73 c +� } o U • ) L C lfl +J 0 Ln cu o E L v, C N - N N o C +� E 0 0 o a, v C L o ci 0 ._ c . Urn � (6 Y J .� = E "W u 0 0 0 a « _ Cl.) 'E � sa Ouu < Ln r. ooa � � oa0 � O ,,' z co 13 G r•I N ST d E g 41/ 3 iii ,',,,,,I,,,,,',, , i Ce C 0 N +' C f0 • 0 d CW N N ° E L f6 f V O a C U a) cc O a V tQE , 'i Iii lt, C. ..t. V O Q C C ' 0 i to > t0 S V 0 0! V OL c V i I m Q� Q = u, ,, iiiliii�'",, VII,' dl)iI 0 , € ars -c N 13 (1) '0 a +' trs fV +O �' c v) =73 O +' 01 v • N • > b�A m f6 ri N > a'i > 2 �+ ..O c3 U C L > OL N 0L e%1 Q.a. c C a -C CL ih Q N i 7 al Q. O a. 0 •3 0 +' v L V �N OC E w L vi jA ).• f/f O E c c • 0 _, LL Op d0 3 CI1c O N LD vl < L L '� C �' In Q O l� U f6 U , fa 4L+ O N O n- N *= ° ° ° ° c ' a t a o 0 0 z 3 Z ° L f- L U VI U a) f c 1- m v ' ▪ C y 0 N Wtu ) m i �.. ; Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Growth Management Department AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 3.02.10 Standards for Subdivision Plats 5.03.06 Dock Facilities CHANGE: To replace outdated references to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD)with references to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD)in the following sections: 1. LDC section 3.02.10 Standards for Subdivision Plats requires that all final plats indicate the finished elevation of roads, lots, and homesites using both NAVD and NGVD. This amendment eliminates the requirement that final plats indicate measurements using NGVD so that only NAVD is required. 2. LDC section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities references a dock height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. This amendment proposes to replace the reference to NGVD with NAVD and adjust the height requirement based on the differences in measurement between NGVD and NAVD. REASON: 1. Collier County obtains the finished floor elevation of all new and substantially improved buildings to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Collier County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance(Ord. No. 2011-07). In the past, elevation information was established using NGVD, but that datum has been updated and federal agencies now only use NAVD for elevation information. As a result, Collier County's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) now uses NAVD and the current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance requires floor elevations to be provided using NAVD. However, LDC section 3.02.10 requires finished elevations on final plats to demonstrate both NAVD and NGVD. Requiring the use of NGVD on final plats in LDC section 3.02.10 is unnecessary and could create confusion and/or inconsistencies when finished floor elevations are submitted. Therefore,this amendment proposes to eliminate the requirement to provide both NAVD and NGVD and to require finished elevations using NAVD only. 2. LDC section 5.03.06 J.3.a. establishes a minimum dock height of 3.5 feet NGVD when building a dock across seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Based on the conversion from NGVD to NAVD for Collier County, the minimum height is now represented as 2.2 feet NAVD. It is important to note that this conversion is not 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.02.10,5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update\3.02.10, 5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. intended to result in an actual change to the minimum dock height requirement,but simply represents differences in how NGVD and NAVD are measured. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment with no changes. DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: An amendment to the Administrative Code for Land Development to correct processes related to these sections and to remove several remaining references to NGVD will be completed at a later date. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management Plan impacts associated with this amendment. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner, 11/13/15 Amend the LDC as follows: 1 3.02.10 Standards for Subdivision Plats 2 3 A. All subdivision plats shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. 4 B. All subdivision plats shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, 5 electrical, and water systems, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. 6 C. All subdivision plats shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to 7 flood hazards. 8 D. Base flood elevation data shall be shown on the Master Subdivision Plan. 9 E. All final plats presented for approval shall clearly indicate the finished elevation of the 10 roads and the average finished elevation of the lots or homesite. All grades must be 11 shown in-beth NAVD_. - - •. - - - - - • - -- - • - - - -•- - - 12 -- - • - - - - -- •-- - - --- :- -- - - -- - .. . 13 the gradec in the other daft um. 14 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 15 16 5.03.06 Dock Facilities 17 18 J. Protection of seagrass beds. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any 19 proposed docks, dock facilities, or boathouses shall be protected through the 20 following standards: 21 22 3. Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and 23 adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock 24 across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass 25 beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: 26 a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 32_2 feet-NGVD NAVD. 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.02.10,5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update\3.02.10, 5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 b. The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square 2 feet. 3 c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet. 4 d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the 5 smallest area of seagrass beds possible. 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.02.10,5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update\3.02.10, 5.03.06 NGVD-NAVD Requirements Update 4-13-16 CCPC.docx II Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Growth Management Department AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Growth Management-Engineering and Natural Resources Division AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.04 Vegetation Removal and Protection Standards 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: 1. To delete a reference to an obsolete publication by Florida Forest Service related to protective barriers and add a cross reference for protective barriers to be installed pursuant to LDC sections 3.05.04 and 4.06.05.E. 2. To clarify when permanent installation of preserve signs are required. 3. To remove the requirement for preserve signs to state they are"protected areas." In addition,to change the setback requirement from a 10 foot setback to a requirement that the signs are located at the boundary of the preserve. 4. To not require preserve signs where preserves abut another preserve. In addition, to limit the number of preserve signs required where preserves abut lake maintenance easements. In all cases where signage is required, a minimum of one sign shall posted. 5. The proposed amendment retains the maximum size of the sign, however, it requires the lettering for preserve signs to be at least 2 inches in height and legible from edge of the preserve. REASON: 1. This amendment revision is in response to questions received by staff from stakeholders since the LDC provisions regarding preserve signs were adopted.Whenever possible, staff avoids making reference in the LDC to manuals, handbooks, or publications that are frequently updated or modified. It is proposed that a cross reference to an obsolete publication by Florida Forest Service is removed and by inserting a cross reference to LDC sections 3.05.04 and 4.06.05, awareness is offered instead and leads the reader to evaluate additional preserve standards. 2. Goal 6 in the GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element is to identify,protect, conserve and appropriately use the County's native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. Signage is one way to inform the general public that native vegetative communities are identified and protected from trespass or altering their use. Staff is providing relief from the premature posting of permanent preserve signs as there is sufficient protection during the construction period established in the requirements for a vegetation protection and soil erosion control plan. Pursuant to LDC section 3.05.04.A, 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term "During construction,all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or damaging of vegetation shall be taken, including the installation of protective barriers." The LDC guides applicants to construct a two (2) to four (4) feet height range, double row, staked silt fence barrier prior to the commencement of any land clearing or building operations. Therefore, the installation of permanent preserve signs are not necessary during construction since the protective barriers are required at the time of land clearing per LDC Section 3.05.04 E.and to be maintained through the construction and final soil stabilization process. Installing permanent preserve signs is more appropriate at the time of preliminary acceptance of each phase of final subdivision plat(PPL)or the first certificate of occupancy for site development plans(SDP),when construction or phase of construction is complete. 3. Currently, LDC section 3.05.04 states "Sign(s) should note that the posted area is a protected area." This has been understood by applicants as requiring the signs to specifically read "protected area." As the signs will state, in one way or another, the area is a preserve, there is no need to duplicate the message. The change in the setback requirement is designed to address changes over time. Depending on the type of native vegetation on the site and with the passage of time, a 10 foot setback from residential property can block or obscure signage. By placing the required signage at the edge of the preserve rather than the current required setback, the signs will be more visible and adjacent homeowners will not be as likely to encroach into the preserve due to poorly defined boundaries. 4. Based on the review of construction plans and field inspections, staff believes signs should be posted where preserves abut other land uses, ROWs and easements. It has been determined that requiring signs where preserves abut other preserves is excessive and unnecessary. Further, a limited number of preserve signs are proposed where preserves abut lake maintenance easements. In all cases where signage is required, a minimum of one sign shall be posted. 5. The proposed amendment retains the maximum size of the sign,however, it requires the lettering for preserve signs to be at least 2 inches in height and legible from the edge of the preserve. This height reflects the height required for address numbers on the top of mailboxes (Code of Laws and Ordinances section 22-352(e)). Other than the maximum size and height, the shape, style, and copy area of signs are designed at the individual developer or homeowner association's discretion. The signs illustrated below represent the desired location at the edge of preserves: 2 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term h did.K {� ,b - 'c- '`�' TGA H. �'° -*,..,,,i.„.41-:',..,... � - i . f� .`+ I r ��, + �n� j Y � ., l I Protected Area 4 !' R ., 7 '.+1) 11 a �i Preserve boundary 4 $ i 0, t q .5. y'' fft 1 No FiNmg PI A: PI I Digging ^i (r w , No Ve9etntion . , iF tlyS� Removal {- 1 .t.E do 'E K� g It '', „ North Collier Regional Park tt T;. lit 6 r �y / -'ii ' a` 1 ! / r_„ $ 'k , ,. ,„, 1' Falcon Ridge- Heritage Way 3 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term ' ,^ii" :'"al v ' , *1-.....:74:.:i 'A' -.IA ' 4 i°.*‘• . k . .. . . . ?...i. ''' i )i. , '' .11 t..” ' ' •It � ( t �, 6unoEHVATICN - ANC "EARA AREA nali i s I 1 ti b - �:..� k 4 ,,'',—:+- Horse Creek Estates DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee approved the proposed amendment with no changes. DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. Preserve signs are already required by the LDC. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 4.06.05 General Landscape Requirements 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: December 29, 2015 Amend the LDC as follows: 1 3.05.04 -Vegetation Removal and Protection Standards 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 G. Protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning 4 with the commencement of any phase of land clearing or building operations, and 5 ending with the completion of that phase of the construction work on the site, unless 6 otherwise approved to be removed by the County Manger or designee. All protective 7 barriers shall be installed pursuant to LDC sections 3.05.04 and 4.06.05.E. the Trcc 8 - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- , -• - - - • - - - - - "t- 9 or other methods approved by the County Manager or designee. All protective barrier: 10 shall be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers, 11 -• - - -- , - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- --- 12 --: - - - : • - - - -- - ...-e - -- •- - --:. - :-- - --• ' 4 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term 2 posted with appropriate signago dcnoting tho ar a as a Prcsorvo. Sign(s) should noto 3 _ -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ 4 from residential property lines; be limited to a maximum height of four feet and a 5 maximum size of two square feet; and otherwise comply with section 5.06.00. 6 Maximum sign spacing shall be 300 feet. 7 H. Signage shall be placed around the preserve to identify and protect the preserve in 8 accordance with the following standards: 9 a. Signs identifying preserves shall be posted prior to preliminary acceptance for 10 each phase of Final Subdivision Plat (PPL) pursuant to LDC section 10.02.04, 11 or first certificate of occupancy for Site Development Plans, Site Improvement 12 Plans and amendments thereof pursuant to LDC section 10.02.03, whichever 13 is applicable. 14 b. Signs identifying preserves shall be placed at the boundary of the preserve, 15 except where a preserve abuts another preserve. 16 c. There shall be at least one preserve sign posted every 300 feet, with a 17 minimum of two signs per preserve. However, where a preserve abuts a lake 18 maintenance easement, there shall be at least one preserve sign posted 19 every 1,000 feet, with a minimum of one signs per lake. 20 d. Signs identifying preserves shall be a maximum height of four feet and a 21 maximum size of two square feet and otherwise comply with LDC section 22 5.06.00. Lettering for signs shall be a minimum of two inches in height and 23 the sign copy shall be clearly legible from the edge of preserve as determined 24 by the County Manager or designee. 25 141. The applicant for a vegetation removal permit shall, at the time of application, 26 designate representative(s), who shall be responsible for the installation and the 27 maintenance of all tree protection barriers, and for supervising the removal of all 28 existing vegetation permitted to be removed or altered. 29 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 30 31 3.05.07 - Preservation Standards 32 * * * * * * * * * * * 33 H. Preserve standards. 34 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 35 1. Design standards. 36 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 37 g. Preserve management plans. Criteria i, ii, vii and viii below are 38 required for all preserves whether a management plan for the preserve 39 is required or not. Preserve Management Plans shall be required for all 40 properties with 5 acres or more of preserve or where listed species are 41 utilizing the preserve or where the preserve contains habitat which 42 requires management for fire (such as Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto 43 Prairie or Scrub). The Preserve Management Plan shall identify 44 actions that must be taken to ensure that the preserved areas will 45 maintain natural diversity and function as proposed. A Preserve 46 Management Plan shall include the following elements: 47 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 48 vii. Protection During Construction and Signage After Construction. 49 The Preserve Management Plan shall address protective 50 measures during construction and signage during and after 51 construction that are consistent with LDC section 3.05.04. 5 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 6 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.04 and 3.05.07 Flexibility to Preserve Signage Requirements\3 05 04 G 3 05 07 H 1 Preserve Signage 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Growth Management Department AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Growth Management-Engineering and Natural Resources Division AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: To clarify that preserves are to be identified at the time of the first submittal for a development order that requires the approval of a site plan or a conceptual site plan. REASON: Currently, LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.a.iii requires preserves to be identified at the time of the first development order submittal. The requirement to identify the location of preserves"at the time of first development order"is intended to apply to the first development order that requires approval of a site plan (including a conceptual site plan), such as, but not limited to: planned unit development, conditional use, site development plan and final subdivision plat applications. The provision is not designed to include land use petition submittals such as comprehensive plan amendments and straight rezones (RZ), because a site plan is generally not required. There is an exception when a straight rezone is requested for a specific use(s), which is noted in the Administrative Code for Land Development. It is important to note that the requirement for conservation easement is a separate process from the identification of preserves and only occurs during review of the final development order(site development plan and final subdivision plat). Requirements for conservation easements are established in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.d. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment with the following change: "The Preserve shall be identified at the time of the first submittal for a development order ..."This change has been incorporated in the current draft. DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: It is advantageous for the applicant to delay identification of preserves until such time in which site plans are required due to the costs associated with the design of site plans. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed LDC amendment will have no impact on the GMP. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: 4/12/16 1 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.07 Identification of Preserves\3 05 07 H 1 Design Standards 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 3.05.07 -Preservation Standards 3 All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate, at a 4 minimum, the preservation standards contained within this section. 5 6 H. Preserve standards. 7 1. Design standards. 8 a. Identification. Native vegetation that is required to be preserved or 9 mitigated pursuant to 3.05.07 A. through F. shall be set-aside in a 10 Preserve and shall be identified in the following manner: 11 i. The Preserve shall be labeled as "Preserve" on all site plans. 12 ii. If the development is a PUD, the Preserve shall be identified 13 on the PUD Master Plan, if possible. If this is not possible, a 14 minimum of 75% of the preserves shall be set-aside on the 15 PUD Master Plan with the remaining 25% identified at the time 16 of the next development order submittal. 17 iii. The Preserve shall be identified at the time of the first submittal 18 for a development order submittal that requires the approval of 19 a site plan or conceptual site plan. 20 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\3.05.07 Identification of Preserves\3 05 07 H 1 Design Standards 4-12-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: United States Postal Service AUTHOR: Development Review Division Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management-Development Review Division AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 4.05.10 Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations (A new LDC section) CHANGE: To introduce a new LDC section 4.05.10 that establishes minimum parking standards for centralized mail delivery locations (CMDL), such as mail kiosk or cluster box unit, in residential neighborhoods.The proposed standards provide for safe access to the CMDL,establish parking space requirements, and outline lighting requirements. The standards are designed to provide a safe environment to deliver and pick-up mail. REASON: The proposed standards respond to a letter from the United States Postal Service (USPS)Postmaster in September 2013 stating the USPS no longer offers door or curbside delivery for new residential developments. According to USPS Postal Operation Manual (POM), "Postal Service representatives are required to meet with builders and developers early in the process to ensure best choices are made and to assess if the mode of delivery directed to be put in place conforms to the policies of the Postal Service." The County's Addressing Division has been providing the notice and guidelines to developers when they request a street address for a CMDL. The Development Review Division also provides a "heads up"to a residential developers during subdivision pre-application meetings that they will need to identify where CMDLs will be located. The amendment proposes to include the following standards: • Requires CMDLs are identified on site development plans or construction plans for the final subdivision plats. This will serve to better coordinate locational approval with the USPS and the County. • Identifies a setback from intersections, crosswalks, and an entry gate for the parking. The Florida Department of Transportation's 2015 Florida Intersection Design Guidelines (FIDG) recommends parking clearances (setbacks) for an unsignalized intersection, at speeds from 0 to 30 mph, are 85 feet upstream and 60 feet for 2 lane downstream. In addition,the FDIG states, "Florida Statues prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection ..."Based on the FIDG recommendations,staff recommends utilizing an 85-foot setback from an unsignalized intersection and a 20-foot setback from a designated crosswalk, whichever is more restrictive. To avoid traffic congestion and provide safe access through a gated community, staff is recommending a minimum 60-foot parking clearance be established from an entry gate. • Establishes a minimum requirement of two parking spaces for a mail kiosk or cluster box units (CBU) servicing a neighborhood of more than 16 postal addresses. This will accommodate a mail delivery truck and a parked vehicle. 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current toxt to bo deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term • Establishes parking space design standards and requires the parking spaces to be accessible, such as providing an access aisle, curb cuts, or by gradient level design. • The amendment provides two exceptions from the parking requirements. The CMDL shall remain subject to identifying the location(s) on the site plan or construction plans, providing lighting and pedestrian access is provided. o The first parking exception is for CMDLs sited at recreational facilities, such as, sports facility,a clubhouse, or a private club,provided the minimum parking space requirements for the recreational facilities are met and there is pedestrian access from the parking lot to the CMDL. o The second parking exception is for CMDLs servicing 16 or fewer households. The exception is based upon the concept these CMDLs are located within a practical walking distance; there is less time spent dropping off the mail; and fewer residents driving would drive to the CMDL. • Establishes the CMDL to be lighted by the neighborhood streetlight system at an average illuminated intensity of 0.5 foot candle. This supports the USPS Postal Operation Manual policy 632.622.a. which states: "The area must be adequately lighted to afford the best protection to the mail and to let carriers read addresses on mail and names on boxes without difficulty." The subsequent photos represent existing CMDLs that have been accepted by USPS. The photos illustrate an adequate location in the development, nearby sidewalks,parking spaces, lighting, designs that limit impediments to street traffic, and provides for general accessibility to the CMDLs. _ • = 117 ! F.. t i }e 2011 Camden Lakes-Architectural Designed Kiosk-Neighborhood Delivery Center 2 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term • t, 1 2015 Raffia Preserve-At Community Recreation Center on Raffia Palm Circle—Mixed SF and MF. ,._ . —.��■moi 2015-Livingston Lakes- Butler Lake Dr. CMDLs and Parking Spaces (one designated handicap space) at gradient level without curb or gutter. The photos and site development plan below illustrate existing CMDL's locations which meet many of the proposed design standards. r. C,r _ Esplanade-Bellano Ct. —MF Arrowpoints to Kiosk 6- p Esplanade - Cavano—SF 5-CBUs located across street CBUs between bicycle rack and recreation center. 3 from Sales Center. Sidewalk behind landscaping. l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term ,.. a . -t.. .. . .. .... .... .- s.wr e _ s tvF s� N 1 s- Canopy, a 108 SF residential community on Canopy Circle. (See site development plan below) — 'd '_._/ _ —.__H . . ' . _ _ , ___ __ a z: 300 a I-: 4+ , ,r,:& CANOPY CIRCLE — -'s hs, 1 t:!, A •-•_,5„: ___ ______.,. , r 71 zi44,(f-S*66.1' -- -— ____ t i1 X N.l i.[to �1A a*PVC SAN4'7 MAILBOX PULL-OFF AREA n MAILBOX KIOSK nYP.} 10 0' ® 8"J�vC SANT ARV SEWER 1TVP.) PRC P U.E. DECORATIVE COLUMN(TYP.) & PRC R BBON CURB(TYP.) ©A (TVI DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the amendment with the following recommendation: consider adding flexibility to provide no parking spaces based on location and the number of households. This recommendation has been incorporated into the current draft. 4 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. Developer pays for mail kiosk/CBUs, lighting and parking. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: USPS Postal Operation Manual-Modes of Delivery and Delivery Equipment. Chapters 316.1945 and 316.2045 Florida Statues. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner 4/07/16 Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 4.05.10 Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 3 4 A. Central mail delivery locations, such as neighborhood mail kiosks and cluster box units, in 5 residential neighborhoods, shall provide parking and lighting in order to provide a safe 6 environment to deliver and collect mail. All central mail delivery location(s) shall be 7 identified on the site development plan or the construction plan for the final subdivision 8 plat. 9 B. Central mail delivery locations shall adhere to the following standards: 10 1. Location. Parking spaces shall be located a minimum 85 feet from the centerline 11 of a street intersection, 50 feet from end of curb radius and 20 feet from 12 crosswalks, whichever is greater. The minimum distance from a gated entry to 13 parking spaces shall be 60 feet or greater. The parking spaces shall not encroach 14 into sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, or impede street and pedestrian traffic. 15 2. Parking space design standards. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be 16 provided for the central mail delivery locations. 17 a. Each parking space shall be a minimum dimension of nine (9)feet wide by 18 twenty-three feet in depth. 19 b. Grade level access to the central mail delivery location shall be provided 20 by one or more of the following: an access aisle, curb cut, curb ramp, or 21 by a similar design. 22 3. Parking requirements in B.1 and B.2 above are not required when: 23 a. A central mail delivery location is sited at recreational facilities and parking 24 is provided as established in LDC section 4.05.04 and pedestrian access 25 is provided from the parking lot area to the central mail delivery location. 26 b. A central mail delivery location is servicing a neighborhood of 16 or fewer 27 postal addresses and grade level access in B.2.b. is provided. 28 C. Lighting. Central mail delivery locations shall be sufficiently lighted by the neighborhood 29 streetlight system at an average illuminated intensity of 0.5 foot-candle. Lighting provided 30 for central mail delivery locations shall be shielded to prevent excessive light and glare. 31 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 32 33 34 35 36 37 5 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 Reference Only: 2 3 USPS Publication 32-Glossary of Postal Terms: 4 Cluster box unit(CBU) -A centralized grouping of individually locked and keyed compartments 5 or mailboxes, such as a wall-mounted unit in an apartment building or a free-standing 6 neighborhood delivery and collection box unit. The carrier can generally access the individual 7 compartments at one time by using a special key to unlock a facing or rear flat panel(front-or 8 back-loading)or, for vertical boxes, (top-loading) an entire row of boxes that swing away from 9 the wall to expose the tops of each box. 10 11 Neighborhood delivery and collection box unit-A centralized unit of more than eight individually 12 locked compartments sized to accommodate the delivery of magazines, merchandise samples, 13 and several days' accumulation of mail. In addition,collection mail may be deposited in a 14 designated compartment. 15 16 USPS - Manual 17 631.442 Central Delivery Addresses 18 19 Central delivery mail receptacles (including USPS STD 4C equipment and CBUs, delivery 20 centers, and postal centers)must be identified by the same addresses as the dwellings for which 21 they serve as mail receptacles. The respective, conforming addresses should be displayed inside 22 the boxes and visible only to the carrier and customer when accessing that receptacle. USPS does 23 not assign addresses; however,the sequential ordering of any centralized delivery equipment is 24 subject to USPS approval for operational efficiency and to accommodate special circumstances 25 or requests for hardship delivery. For security or privacy,mailer associations or customer groups 26 may use another alphanumeric identification system on the outside of receptacles that is not part 27 of, or used in, the mailing address. 6 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\4.05.10 Required Parking For Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations\4 05 10 Required Parking for Residential Central Mail Delivery Locations 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 5.04.05 Temporary Events 5.04.06 Temporary Signs CHANGE: 1. To establish development and use standards for temporary special events, which includes temporary market events, sales and promotional events, and sports, religious, and community events 2. To add a new provision for temporary market events such as farmers markets,art fairs,and craft fairs,to the special events section and address standards for temporary signs. 3. To correct an inconsistency in the standards for sports,religious, and community events. 4. To clarify provisions related to temporary banners and sign permits. 5. To reorganize the time frames for temporary events and temporary signs for clarity. REASON: This amendment proposes standards for temporary markets, such as farmers markets, art fairs, and craft fairs which take place on private property. For reference, the BCC approved an amendment(Ordinance No. 15-28)on April 15th, 2015 which identified standards and an approval process for temporary events on Collier County property. 1. Development and use standards for special events (temporary market events, sales and promotional events, and sports, religious, and community events) are proposed. The standards include: providing for sanitary facilities; safe entry and exit to the event; use of vehicular use areas; use of temporary structures, merchandise and signage; obtaining permission from property management companies to host the event;compliance with other Collier County codes; and obtaining and displaying licensure or certification from other agencies. These standards are designed to address a range of event outcomes, including temporary market events which can take place on unimproved lands and sports, religious and community events which can take place at locations generally designed for another land use. Currently, special events may occupy, or render unusable,up to 10 percent of the parking required by LDC section 4.05.04. This amendment modifies this standard by allowing for 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. the use of up to 25 percent of vehicular use areas. Vehicular use areas are defined in LDC section 1.08.02 as: An area used for circulation,parking, and/or display of motorized vehicles, except junk or automobile salvage yards This will provide a simpler method of calculating the area of the special event allowed within the parking lot. Additionally,the increase from 10 to 25 percent will provide more flexibility for market operators, especially when events are held at locations with smaller parking lots.This means that applicants will be required to submit the area of the event that is taking place within the vehicular use area. 2. Currently, temporary market events on private property are typically reviewed by staff under LDC section 5.04.05 A.1. —Sales and Promotional Events. However, this section is designed for events that are related to the principal activities on the subject property. Additionally,temporary market event vendors do not always maintain physical storefronts and vendors at temporary market events sell a broad array of food and retail goods which may or may not be available for sale within the principal activities at the subject property. Certain applicants may also apply for a temporary market event pursuant to LDC section 5.04.05 A.2.—Sports,religious,and community events. In this instance,temporary market events are considered religious and/or community events and are restricted to zoning districts in which the temporary use is not specifically approved,unless otherwise approved by the Board. To address these discrepancies,the proposed amendment creates a new category of special event in order to allow for single-or multi-vendor events,such as farmers markets,art fairs, and craft fairs to take place on property where the goods sold at the market may be distinct from those sold at the established businesses located on the premise.Furthermore,the new category allows for religious and non-profit organizations to apply for temporary use permits under LDC section 5.04.05 A.2.—sports,religious,and community events without conflict. This amendment permits temporary market events on improved or unimproved non- residential properties. In addition to the standards applicable to special events, temporary market events are also required to obtain permission from the property owner to ensure coordination between event organizers and property owners. Additional standards are established to increase awareness of other Collier County business tax requirements and to ensure required licenses or certifications, especially when related to food preparation, are properly displayed for public inspection. It is important to note that the Cottage Food Law, Florida Statutes § 500.80, exempts individuals from obtaining a license from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) when they make less than $15,000 annually on the manufacturing of certain food products such as breads, cakes, cookies, candies, jams, jellies,and fruit pies.However,these products must be labelled in such a way that identifies 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. the product was made in a cottage food operation that is not subject to Florida's food safety regulations. Further, Collier County Code of Laws section 126-143 requires a business tax receipt for each operator of a business, operator, or profession. This means that unless specifically exempted, each vendor at a farmers market is required to obtain a business tax receipt. However, businesses from other counties are not required to obtain a business tax receipt when selling goods at a temporary market in Collier County. 3. Currently, LDC section 5.04.05 A.2.a indicates that sports, religious, and community events are permitted"on lands not specifically developed and approved for such activities on a regular basis." However, LDC section 5.04.05 A.2.c. states that "temporary use permits in this category shall be restricted to those zoning districts in which the use would normally be permitted." As these provisions are in conflict, and because these events frequently take place at schools, churches and other locations that are not specifically developed for temporary events, it is proposed new language is established to indicate sports, religious, and community events are limited to zoning districts in which the use would be compatible. 4. Temporary signs must be placed on site and are subject to a 10 foot setback from any property line. However, banners are frequently secured to trees, poles, or other objects which may not be located more than 10 feet from a property line.A new provision is added to 5.04.06 A.3.c.i. to clarify that banner signs are not subject to this setback. This means that banners are still required to be placed on site, but the location of banners will only be reviewed for safety issues or other potential hazards. Additionally, temporary sign permits require an accompanying temporary event permit in accordance with LDC section 5.04.05 unless the sale, event, or activity does not require a temporary event permit. In these cases, a "sign only" temporary use permit is required in accordance with LDC section 5.04.06 B.1. This amendment proposes to rename these permits to "temporary sign permits" and to reorganize this provision, now LDC section 5.04.06 B.2.,to better distinguish this type of sign from sign permits required for temporary events. 5. Currently, temporary use permits for sales and promotional events limit temporary market events to 28 event days per year.As a new special event,this amendment proposes to allow a maximum of 52 event days per year. Temporary signs for temporary market events are allowed on the day of the event only. It is important to note that Temporary Market event days do not impact the maximum number of event days permitted for other events. For instance, this means that if a farmers market is held at the same location as a sales and promotional event, the number of event days of the sales and promotional event do not also reduce the maximum number of Temporary Market Event days. 3 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term. Additionally, temporary event time frames and temporary sign standards for all other temporary events are found throughout LDC sections 5.04.05 and 5.04.06. These standards have been reorganized and relocated in table format in 5.04.05 F.1. and 5.04.06 B.9., respectively. It should be noted that PUDs may include temporary market events as a permitted activity or land use within the PUD and if so may not be required to obtain a Temporary Use Permit for each event. As a result,the applicability of these proposed standards to temporary market events in PUDs will depend upon whether a particular PUD has included specific provisions related to temporary market events. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment and recommended the following: 1) Remove the word"certain" from Section 5.04.05 A.2. 2) Clarify how maximum event days are calculated. 3) Allow a maximum of 2 temporary signs for Temporary Market Events. 4) Clarify the licensing requirements for vendors. These changes have all been incorporated in the current draft. DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Ordinance 2015-28. This amendment will require a change to the Administrative Code for Land Development. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management Plan impacts associated with this amendment. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: New standards or changes to existing standards are highlighted below. All other changes noted with strikethrough or underline formatting represent relocated or clarified language. --- ----------- - Amend the LDC as follows: 1 5.04.05 Temporary Events 2 A. Special Events. This section establishes the location and development standards for 3 special events, including temporary market events, sales and promotional events,and 4 sports, religious, and community events. 5 1. Standards applicable to all special events. 6 a. Sanitary facilities shall be provided for the duration of the event. Proof of 7 consent by business management shall be provided if permanent 8 business restrooms are to be used. 9 b. Safe ingress and egress shall be provided to the site, including 10 emergency access measures. 11 c. A maximum of 25 percent of the vehicular use area may be occupied or 12 otherwise rendered unusable by the placement of temporary structures, 4 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 equipment, and merchandise associated with the special event, unless 2 additional off-site parking is provided. 3 d. The minimum required number of handicapped parking spaces for the 4 site pursuant to LDC section 4.05.07 for the site shall not be used for the 5 special event. 6 e. In support of the special event, temporary structures, equipment, 7 merchandise, and signage may be placed on the site subject to the 8 approval of a site diagram depicting the locations of principal structures, 9 parking, temporary structures, and signaqe. 10 i. Temporary signage shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in 11 LDC section 5.04.06. 12 ii. All temporary structures, equipment, merchandise, or placement 13 and parking of vehicles in conjunction with the special event shall 14 be located in a parking lot or open space at least 10 feet from the 15 property line and shall be removed at the conclusion of each 16 event. 17 iii. A building permit may be required for the erection of temporary 18 tents or structures. 19 f. See Collier County Code of Laws Sections 118-102 and 118-131 to 118- 20 155, or successor sections, for additional standards related to solid 21 waste and recycling collection. 22 q. No sales, advertising, or other activity related to the special event shall be 23 permitted in the public right-of-way in accordance with Collier County 24 Code of Laws Section 26-1, or successor sections. 25 h. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedural 26 requirements for special events. 27 i. Termination of Convenience. The Board of County Commissioners may 28 terminate any special event permit at any time without notice and for any 29 reason. 30 2. Temporary Market Events. A temporary use permit is required for temporary 31 market events to allow for the temporary sale of retail products which may not 32 normally be available in non-residential zoning districts. Temporary market 33 events shall be defined as a single- or multi-vendor event where vendors sell 34 goods or personal services directly to the public, such as, but not limited to: 35 farmers markets, art fairs, and craft fairs. 36 a. Location. Temporary market events are allowed on improved or 37 unimproved non-residential properties. For temporary events on Collier 38 County Property, see LDC section 5.04.05 C. 39 b. The applicant shall provide a letter from the property owner or property 40 manager granting permission to utilize the subject property for the 41 temporary market event during the requested time period. 42 c. Operators and individuals selling goods or personal services at a 43 temporary market event are responsible for compliance with local 44 business tax requirements, pursuant to Collier County Code of Laws 45 Sections 126-143 and 126-152, or successor sections. 46 d. Each vendor is responsible for securing and displaying all necessary 47 licenses or certifications to the general public in a conspicuous place, 48 including but not limited to any license or approval required when offering 49 prepared food for consumption. 50 4-3. Sales and Promotional Events. 5 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 a. A temporary use permit is required for temporary sales and/or 2 promotional events on non-residential property, such as grand openings, 3 going out of business sales, special promotional sales, sidewalk sales, 4 overstock sales, tent sales, or other similar uses for sales and 5 promotional events related to the principal activities in operation at the 6 subject property, unless otherwise provided for in this section. 7 b. The Administrative Code shall-establish the procedural requirements for a 8 temporary use permit for sales or promotional events. 9 • - --- e - e e: - -' -- - . - - • , -- - - , • 10 merchandise, structures, and equipment may be placed subject to 11 approval of a site plan depicting same. 12 i. Temporary signage shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in 13 14 -- - - - - - -•e - - --- , • - - - --, - 15 - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - -16 temporary sale, shall conform to the minimum yard requirement° 17 of the zoning district in which it is located. 18 iii. A building permit may be required for the erection of temporary 19 structuress. 20 db. Temporary use permits for sales may be issued to the owner(s) of a 21 commercial establishment, or to the tenant(s) operating within a 22 commercial establishment with the approval of the property owner or 23 property manager, provided said tenant provides documentation of a 24 current annual lease with the property owner. Uses permitted by an 25 approved temporary sales permit shall be operated by the property owner 26 or tenant(s), except as provided for in LDC sections 5.04.05 A.43_e. 27 and 5.04.05 A.43_f. below. 28 ec. Temporary use permits for sales shall be restricted to those zoning 29 districts in which the sale of the items would normally be permitted. 30 Further, the sales activity permitted by the temporary use permit shall be 31 related to the principal commercial activities in operation on the subject 32 property, except as provided for in LDC subsections 5.04.05 A.43_e 33 and 5.04.05 A.43.f below. 34 fd. Special event temporary use permits for Sales and Promotional Events 35 shall not be issued for undeveloped unimproved properties, with 36 exception to pre-construction ground breaking events with a valid 37 development order. 38 ge. The County Manager or designee may issue temporary use permits for 39 satellite locations subject to the applicable restrictions set forth in this 40 section, provided the applicant currently operates a business from a 41 permanent, approved commercial location within the County. Additionally, 42 the purpose of the temporary sale shall be the same as the principal 43 purpose of the existing commercial business of the applicant. 44 hf. The County Manager or designee may, in determining a specific benefit 45 to the public, grant a temporary use permit to facilitate the sale of an item 46 or items not generally available within a specific planning community, 47 subject to the applicable restrictions set forth in this section. 48 24. Sports, religious, and community events. 49 a. A temporary use permit is required for sports, religious, community, or 50 other similar events sponsored by profit, nonprofit, charitable, civil, or 51 membership organizations, on lands not specifically developed and 6 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 approved for such activities on a regular basis. The County Manager or 2 designee may grant a nonrenewable temporary use permit of up to 1/1 3 days duration for such events. 4 b. Temporary use permits of this type may, in support of the use being 5 permitted, include the placement of temporary signs, merchandise, 6 structures and equipment, and a mobile home as an office, but not for 7 residency. 8 i. Temporary signage shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in 9 section 5.01.06 10 ii. A building permit may be required for the placement and/or 11 erection of temporary structures. 12 c. Temporary use permits in this category shall be restricted to those zoning 13 districts in which the use would normally be permitted be compatible, 14 unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners via a 15 public petition request. 16 d. The County Manager or designee shall accept, without fee, temporary 17 use permit applications for sports, religious, community, or other similar 18 events, upon presentation of documentation that the sponsor of the event 19 is a bona fide nonprofit organization and the event is intended to benefit 20 the community at large or a specific group of individuals. Two such events 21 per calendar year per organization are eligible for this permit. 22 3. Special Event time limits. 23 a The County Manager or designee may grant nonrenewable temporary 24 25 the sum total duration of all permits for such events for that location does 26 not exceed 28 days. 27 b. For multiple occupancy parcels with 10 or more tenants the total duration 28 of all such permits shall not exceed 42 days per calendar year. 29 c. Temporary use permits for special events may be extended up to an 30 additional 4 weeks when approved by the Board of County 3132 additional constraints which shall be noted as conditions of the permit and 33 the permittee will be required to sign a notarized agreement to abide by 34 such conditions. 35 B. Temporary seasonal sales. A nonrenewable 5 week temporary use permit may be 36 issued for seasonal and holiday related temporary sales subject to the following 37 restrictions. 38 1. Temporary use permits for seasonal sales may be issued only for the following 39 seasonal/holiday related items: 40 a. Christmas trees. 41 b. Fireworks, as allowed by F.S. Chapter 791 and subject to the issuance of 42 an approved permit by the jurisdictional fire district. 43 c. Pumpkins. 44 2. Temporary use permits for seasonal sales may be issued on improved or 45 unimproved properties. 46 3. The applicant shall provide a notarized letter from the property owner or 47 property manager granting permission to utilize the subject property for the 48 temporary seasonal sales. 49 4. Temporary use permits for seasonal and/or holiday sales may, in support of the 50 use being permitted, include the placement of signs, merchapd+se, temporary 51 structures, and equipment. 7 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 a. Temporary signage is subject to the restrictions set forth in subsection 2 5.01.06 A & B. 3 b. A building permit may be required for the erection of temporary 4 structures, 5 C. Garage sales. A permit is required for garage sales,: In the case of garage sales, lawn 6 sales, and other similar temporary sales to be held at private homes, churches and 7 other places of worship, community centers, or other nonprofit residentially zoned 8 institutions, •- -_. _ __ e _ _ •-- • _ . _ _•- __ . _ ••• _ 9 10 D. Temporary events on Collier County Property. 11 1. A Board approved agreement shall be required for temporary events on all 12 Collier County parks, facilities, and other property. A temporary use permit shall 13 not be required. 14 2. Signage for temporary events on Collier County property shall comply with LDC 15 section 5.04.06 Temporary Signs. 16 3. The applicant shall coordinate with emergency medical services, fire districts, 17 and Collier County Sheriff's offices to determine the appropriate level of coverage 18 required for the event. 19 E. Temporary Uses, not elsewhere classified. At the direction of the BCC, the County may, 20 from time to time, be called upon to allow certain uses for specific periods of time.After 21 public hearing, the County Manager or designee may issue a Temporary Use Permit 22 upon receipt of satisfactory evidence that all stipulations and/or requirements have been 23 satisfied. 24 F. Temporary event time limits. 25 1. Table 5.04.05 F.1. –Temporary Event Time Limits Maximum number of Maximum event days allowed number of event Temporary event type for each permit days allowed per calendar year per location Temporary market events 13 52'1 Salesand promotional events 14 2822 3 Sports, religious, and community 14 2823 events — — Temporary seasonal sales 35 105 Garage sales 2 4 Temporary events on Collier County As approved in accordance with LDC property section 5.04.05 D. Temporary uses not elsewhere As approved in accordance with LDC classified section 5.04.05 E. 8 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 Maximum consecutive event days shall not exceed two event days at any one location. 2 Extension. Temporary use permits for sales and promotional events and sports, religious, and community events may be extended up to an additional four weeks when approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled public meeting. Such approval may be subject to stipulations and additional constraints which shall be noted as conditions of the permit and the permittee will be required to sign a notarized agreement to abide by such conditions. 2 For multiple occupancy parcels with ten or more tenants the total duration of all such events shall not exceed 42 event days per calendar year. 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 3 5.04.06 Temporary Signs 4 A. A temporary use permit is required for the placement of any temporary ground sign, 5 snipe sign, or banner that is not otherwise lawfully permitted. Temporary signs shall be 6 allowed subject to the restrictions imposed by this section. 7 1. The County Manager or designee may issue temporary sign permits, classified 8 by use, as necessary to adequately address each of the temporary signs 9 described within this section. For each permit type the nonrefundable fee shall be 10 as established in the fee schedule for the services performed by the Growth 11 Management Division Department. 12 2. Temporary signs and banners shall not be erected prior to obtaining the 13 appropriate temporary use permit, except as provided in LDC section 5.04.06 14 B.2., and shall be removed on or before the expiration date of the temporary use 15 permit authorizing said sign. 16 3. Standards applicable to all temporary signs. 17 a. Temporary signs and banners permitted by authority of this section shall 18 not be placed within any public right-of-way. 19 i. Sign placement shall not obstruct or impair the safe visibility, 20 ingress, or egress of pedestrians and motorists. 21 b. •- - - - - - - - - - --- 22 - - -- - - -- - - •; - - -- - --23 - _- _ _ _• - - -- - - _ -_e-- . - e -.The maximum 24 number and time limits for temporary signs are established in LDC 25 section 5.04.06 B.9.a. 26 c. Absent specific standards to the contrary, temporary signs shall be 27 located onsite and no closer than 10 feet to any property line. 28 i. Exception. Banner signs are not subject to the 10 foot setback to 29 any property line. 30 d. Temporary signs and banners used on non-residential or mixed use 31 properties shall not exceed 32 square feet in sign area or 8 feet in height. 32 e. Temporary signs used on residentially zoned properties shall not exceed 33 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. 34 B. Temporary Sign Permit Types and Standards. 35 1. Temporary Events. A temporary use permit for a temporary event, issued 36 per LDC section 5.04.05., shall allow for the placement of temporary signage as 37 classified and regulated herein. 38 2. A temporary sign permit is required for temporary ground signs and banners 39 used to promote a sale, event, or activity not requiring a temporary event permit 40 per LDC section 5.04.05, such as, but not limited to: study or course offerings, 9 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 vacation camp, non-public indoor events, and sales events occurring within the 2 confines of an established business. 3 a. A temporary sign permit will be allowed, regulated, and enforced as a 4 temporary use permit for special event signs. 5 b. No permit shall be required for temporary signs associated with 6 temporary events on Collier County property approved in accordance with 7 LDC section 5.04.05 D. 8 a. A"sign only" temporary use permit may be issued for temporary ground 910 - -. -- - - • '. -- -• - - _ ..• e-- .e- ..'4 ' e - -ee • 11 Such uses include, however are not limited to, study or course offerings, 12 --- e -- e - - - --- - - - - -- - = - - - - 13 within the confines of an-established business. 14 i. "Sign only" temporary use permits will be allowed, 15 -- - - - - • - --- -- - - - - 16 ii. Time limits for"sign only" temporary use permits shall be 17 the same as those for special events, see subsection 18 5.04.05 A.3. 19 b. Special event signs. 20 i. Special event signs shall be erected not more than 15 calendar 21 days prior to the supporting event and shall be removed-within-7 22 -- - -- -- - - .. = - -- - - - 23 c. Seasonal sales signs. 24 D3. Garage sales signs. Two The temporary signs may be placed on the property 25 where the sale is being conducted. 26 24. Grand Opening signs. A one-time 14 day nonrenewable grand 27 opening temporary sign only temporary-use permit may be issued upon the 28 opening of a new business, or the approved relocation of an existing business. 29 a. A current valid Collier County Business Tax Receipt or an approved Land 30 Use and Zoning Certificate (Non-Residential) may serve as evidence of 31 the new business, or location, opening. 32 b. A separate permit is not required for a grand opening sign if being placed 33 in conjunction with a special event temporary use permit issued 34 per LDC subsection 5.04.05 A.43. 35 c. A grand opening sign temporary use permit may be obtained only within 36 the first 3 months of establishing a new business or location. 37 dc. A grand opening sign is limited to an anchored banner. 38 ed. A"sign only" temporary use permit for a grand opening sign shall be 39 exempt from the annual time limitations identified in subsections 40 5.04.05 F.1.A.3.a. and 5.01.06 C.1.a.ii. 41 35. "Coming Soon"Signs."A one-time non-renewable temporary use permit may be 42 granted;for a coming soon sign located within a non-residential zoning district, 43 subject to the following: 44 a. As applied in this section, a coming soon sign is defined as a ground sign 45 used to inform the public of the intended opening of a new business. 46 b. A temporary use permit for a sign shall not be issued until the applicant 47 has applied for a building permit for the new principal structure. 48 c. The temporary use permit number shall be placed at the base of the sign 49 not less than 1/2 inch from the bottom. 50 d. •- e • - - •e -- - -- - -- e - -- ee - - •-• - • - - - - 51 issuance of the temporary-use permit or until the issuance of a permit for 10 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 the permanent sign, whichever occurs first. The non-refundable fee for 2 this temporary use permit shall be as set forth in the fee schedule for tho 3 4 Services Division. 5 46. Temporary business identification signs. A temporary use permit allowing for the 6 temporary placement of a sign solely for the purpose of displaying a business 7 name for an existing business undergoing a permitted renovation, remodel, or 8 repair that would require the temporary removal of an existing legally conforming 9 sign. 10 a. As applied in this section, the sign must be constructed of wood, plastic, 11 or other similar material, may not be a banner sign, and is limited to 16 12 square feet. 13 b. If placed in a shopping center or multiple occupancy building, the 14 temporary sign for each business must be of similar color, lettering, and 15 style. 16 c. The sign may be affixed to the building or free-standing in front of the 17 building so long as the sign does not obstruct or interfere with pedestrian 18 or vehicular traffic, parking or fire lanes, or access to adjacent units. 19 d. The sign may remain in place for no longer than 120 days, until 20 -- -- - - - -- - ' -, - - - • - - - -, 21 whichever occurs first. 22 57. Temporary sign covers.A non-renewable temporary use permit is required to 23 erect a temporary sign cover over an existing sign unless otherwise provided 24 herein. Temporary signs shall be allowed subject to the restrictions imposed by 25 this section. 26 a. A sign cover shall be made from white vinyl or canvas, and may be 27 authorized for an existing ground or pole sign,for 120 days, or when tho 28 _ ' - e, • - ---- . , -• - - -• After 29 the timeframe established in 5.04.06 B.9.a. the cover shall be removed, 30 regardless of whether or not the sign face has been replaced. 31 68. Election and Referendum signs. Signs for elections and referendums shall be 32 permitted subject to the following requirements: 33 a. A bulk temporary permit shall be obtained prior to the erection, 34 installation, placement, or display of signage before elections and 35 referendums. The fee for the bulk permit shall be as set forth in the fee 36 schedule for the services performed by the Community Development and 37 Environmental Services Division. 38 b. The bulk permit number shall appear on every sign or on the pole 39 supporting the sign. 40 c. - •- - = -- ••• . -- - - -- -- - 41 after the event. Each sign not removed within the required time identified 42 in LDC section 5.04.06 B.9.a. shall constitute a separate violation of this 43 Code. The permittee will be subject to issuance of a citation for each 44 violation from the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. 45 d. Signs erected within residentially zoned or used property shall not exceed 46 4 square feet in area and 3 feet in height, and shall be located on-site and 47 no closer than 5 feet to any property line. 48 e. In all other zoning districts such signs shall not exceed a maximum sign 49 area of 32 square feet and 8 feet in height, except when affixed to the 50 surface of a building wall, and shall be located no closer than 10 feet to 11 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term. any property line. The quantity of such signs shall be limited to 1 sign for 2 -- - - -3 9. Signage timeframes. Timeframes for temporary signs are established in Table 4 5.04.06 B.9.a. 5 a. Table 5.04.06 B.9.a. Maximum Event Type number of Maximum duration of temporary signs temporary (calendar days) signs Temporary market 2 Duration of event only. events Sales and promotional _, 15 calendar days prior to the event and 7 days events 1 after the event has taken place. Sports, religious, and , 15 calendar days prior to the event and 7 days community events 1 after the event has taken place. Temporary sign , 15 calendar days prior to the event and 7 days permits 1 after the event has taken place. Temporary seasonal 11 Duration of event only. sales — Garage sales 2 Duration of event only. Grand-opening sign 11 14 days and only within the first 3 months of establishing a new business or location. 6 months from issuance of the permit or the date on which a building permit for the new principal "Coming soon" skins 11 structure is issued, whichever is later, or until the issuance of a building permit for a permanent sign, whichever occurs first. Temporary business 120 days or until construction is complete, identification 11 whichever is later, or when a permanent sign is installed, whichever occurs first. 120 days, or when the permanent sign is installed, Temporary sign covers 1 whichever which the permit is issued shall be removed within occurs first. Election and 1 for each lot referendum signs or parcel per All signs for 7 days after the event. bulk permit.? Temporary uses not As approved by the Board of County elsewhere classified 1' Commissioners in accordance with LDC section 5.04.05 E. Two signs are permitted for properties with two street frontages. One sign may be displayed on each street frontage. 2 In residentially zoned property, there is no limit to the number of signs per property. 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 12 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\5.04.05 Temporary Markets on Private Property\5 04 05 Temporary Events-Temporary Markets on Private Property 4-13-16 CCPC.docx The utilities amendment: LDC sections 5.05.12 & other sections will be continued to the MAY 5th, 2016 CCPC meeting Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Growth Management Department AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 6.02.06 Potable Water Facility Level of Service Requirements 6.02.07 Sanitary Sewer Facility Level of Service Requirements CHANGE: To remove outdated standards in LDC sections 6.02.06 and 6.02.07 regarding potable water and sanitary sewer-wastewater treatment facility level of service requirements. The standards are inconsistent with the current potable water and sanitary sewer-wastewater treatment provisions established in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) - Capital Improvement Element (CIE). It is proposed a cross reference to the level of service standards in the Growth Management Plan GMP -CIE is provided in LDC sections 6.02.06 and 6.02.07. REASON: Following the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the GMP-CIE, ordinance 2013-03, the level of service standards for municipal and private water systems level of service standards were removed. However, the level of service standards for the county were retained in Policy 1.5 D and E, respectively. In 2013,the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- Elements of the Public Facilities Element, ordinances 2013-05 and 2013-06, were also amended and the level of service standards were removed and replaced with a cross reference to Policy 1.5 D and E in the GMP-CIE. Throughout these changes, the level of service standards in the LDC section were not updated. The level of service standards in the GMP-CIE will continue to be evaluated and updated several ways. The County's Water-Sewer District evaluates the potable water and sanitary sewer demand through the Water-Wastewater Master Plan updates and adjusts the LOS standards established in CIE Policy 1.5 D. and E, as needed. The figures are also updated through the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process. Therefore, there is no longer a need for the standards to be duplicated in the LDC. In addition, LDC sections 6.02.06 and 6.02.07 provide criteria for determining public facility adequacy. This language is similar to Policy 5.1 in the GMP-CIE. It is recommended that the LDC language is modified to reflect the GMP-CIE provision in Policy 5.1 noted below: "The concurrency requirement for the Potable Water,Wastewater Treatment,Drainage Stormwater Management and Solid Waste Disposal Level of Service Standards of this Growth Management Plan will be achieved or maintained if any one of the following standards of the Concurrency Management System is met: A. The necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a final site development plan,final plat or building permit is issued; or B. The necessary facilities and services are under construction at the time a final site development plan,final plat or building permit is issued;or 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.02.00 Removal of LOS standards and reference to CIE\6 02 06 6 02 07 Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Facility 4-13-16 CCPC.docx 4/13/2016 2:10:52 PM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term C. The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement that includes the provisions of paragraphs A and B of this policy. An enforceable development agreement may include,but is not limited to,development agreements pursuant to Sections 163. 3220- 163. 3243, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380,Florida Statutes.The agreement must guarantee that the necessary facilities will be in place when the impacts of the development occur,pursuant to Section 163.3180. F.S." Furthermore, the amendment removes the specific standards and provides cross references in LDC subsections 6.02.06 B. and 6.02.07 B to LDC section 10.02.07.F-Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy, as they are alike. LDC section 10.02.07.F - Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy: "F. Standards for review of application. The following standards shall be used in the determination of whether to grant or deny a certificate of public facility adequacy if the State of Florida adopts legislation to ban the collection of impact fees.Before issuance of a certificate of public facility adequacy,the application shall fulfill the standards for the following public facility components: 1. Potable water facilities. a. The potable water component shall be granted if any of the following conditions are met: i. The required public facilities are in place at the time a final site development plan, final subdivision plat or building permit is issued. ii. The required public facilities are under construction at the time a final site development plan, final subdivision plat or building permit is issued. iii. The required public facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement that includes the provisions of the LDC section 10.02.07,above. 2. Sanitary sewer facilities and solid waste facilities. a. The sanitary sewer component shall be granted if any of the following conditions are met: i. The required public facilities are in place at the time a final site development plan, final subdivision plat or building permit is issued. ii. The required public facilities are under construction at the time a final site development plan, final subdivision plat or building permit is issued. iii. The required public facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement that includes the provisions of sections i.and ii. " DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.02.00 Removal of LOS standards and reference to CIE\6 02 06 6 02 07 Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Facility 4-13-16 CCPC.docx 4/13/2016 2:10:52 PM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Ordinances 08-63, 13-03, 13-05, and 13-06; GMP- Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.5.D. and E; GMP-Wastewater Treatment Sub-Element Policy 1.3 and Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 2.3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by: Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner, 04/08/16 1 Amend the LDC as follows: 2 3 6.02.06 - Potable Water Facility Level of Service Requirements 4 A: See Policy 1.5 D, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan or 5 successor section, for the level of service standards for potable water facilities. The LOS 6 - --- - -- -- - - - --" - _ - --- -- - - - - -.. - - - - _7 systems. 8 1. For the Collier County Water and Sewer District, the LOS is 185 gallons per capita 9 per day(GPCD). 10 2. For the Goodland Water District, the LOS is 163 GPCD. 11 3. For the City of Naples unincorporated service area, the LOS is 163 GPCD. 12 4. - - - - ---- _e ee - :e -- -- - - •- '- j -- - `. 13 5. For independent districts and privato potable wator systems, tho LOS is tho 14 -- - - - - - • - -• . . •e. e. .- •e :e • '= - - - "e - e : 15 Water Sub Element of the GMP, except that approved private wells are exempt 16 from these LOS requirements. 17 B. The Ddetermination of public facility adequacy for potable water facilities shall be based 18 on the-fallewing4 LDC section 10.02.07 F.1. 19 20 - - • e , e e .. .-e. 21 2. The required public necessary facilities and sorvicos aro undor construction at tho 23 issued. 24 3. The required public necessary facilitios aro guarantood in an enforceablo 25 - - - - • . - - - ---- : - - '_•e•_ e ._e_ - - - E. . 26 and 6.02.06 B_2. of the LDC. 27 28 29 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 30 31 6.02.07 -Sanitary Sewer-Wastewater Treatment Facility Level of Service Requirements 32 A: See Policy 1.5 E, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan or 33 successor section, for the level of service standards for sanitary sewer — wastewater 34 treatment facilities. The LOS for capital sanitary sewer facilities varies between public 35 sanitary sewer systems and private sanitary sewer systems. The LOS for the North Sewer 36 Ar a The LOS for capital sanitary sewer facilities varies between is 145 GPCD. The LOS 37 for the South Sewer Area is 100 GPCD. The LOS for the Southeast Sewer Service Area 38 is 120 GPCD. The LOS for the Northeast Sewer Service Area is 120 GPCD. The LOS for 39 the City of Naples unincorporated sewer service area is 121 GPCD. 40 B. The LOS for independent districts and private sanitary sewer systems is the sewage flow 41 design standards identified in Policy 2.1 of the Sanitary Sower Sub Element the GMP, as 3 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.02.00 Removal of LOS standards and reference to CIE\6 02 06 6 02 07 Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Facility 4-13-16 CCPC.docx 4/13/2016 2:10:52 PM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 42 - - - - •- - - - - - - • ' -- - . . • . - - - -- . _•. •43 LOS requirements. 44 C_ The determination of public facility adequacy for sanitary sewer-wastewater treatment 45 facilities shall be based on LDC section 10.02.07 F.2. 46 1. The required public facilities are in place at the time a final site development plan, 47 48 2. The required public facilities arc under construction at the time a final site 50 3. The required public facilities arc guaranteed in an enforceable development 51 . e - • - -- - - • •-• - -- - •-• •e .e • ..e -.e .e 52 C2. 53 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.02.00 Removal of LOS standards and reference to CIE\6 02 06 6 02 07 Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Facility 4-13-16 CCPC.docx 4/13/2016 2:10:52 PM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Engineering and Natural Resources Division AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 6.06.03 Streetlights 10.02.11 Submittal of Streetlight Plans CHANGE: To amend the professional requirements for submitting streetlight plans from an "electrical engineer"to an"engineer"and delete the provision requiring an electrical engineer to install streetlights. REASON: The change to LDC section 6.06.03 Streetlights is to provide consistency with LDC section 10.02.04 B.2.e.iv which establishes that an applicant's engineer may design streetlight plans on private streets at the time of construction plan and final subdivision plat application submittal. LDC section 6.06.03 D.1 Streetlights provides for the following: "Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through an electrical engineer registered in Florida, shall design and install the street lighting system subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. " LDC section 10.02.11 Submittal of Streetlight Plans stipulates: "All street lighting plans shall be prepared by an electrical engineer." However, LDC section 10.02.04 B.2.e.iv, which establishes required improvements for construction plans and final subdivision plats, does not include the term"electrical". It states: "Street lighting. Plans for streetlights shall bear the approval of the utility authorities involved. If the street lighting system is to be privately owned and maintained by a property owners'association or similar entity, it shall be designed by the applicant's engineer;" To date, there have been no concerns or issues raised with non-electrical engineers submitting street lighting plans. Staff and the development industry do not object to allowing an engineer to submit streetlight plan designs. Moreover, the professional license for engineers in Florida includes electrical engineering. Further,the amendment proposes to remove LDC section 10.02.11 in its entirety since it no longer serves a purpose and these standards are contained in LDC section 10.02.04 B 2.e.iv. 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.06.03, 10.02.11 Streetlights Submittals by Applicant vs. Electrical Engineer16.06.03 and 10.02.11 Streetlights and Submittal of Street Lights 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment with no changes. DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Section 10.02.04. An amendment to the Administrative Code-Chapter 5 E.1,Requirements,for Construction Plans- Submittal Credentials will be completed at a later date. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner, 4-12-16 Amend the LDC as follows: 6.06.03 -Streetlights 1 D. Wherever, in the opinion of the County Manager or designee, based on an engineer's 2 determination, a dangerous condition is created by sharp curves, irregularities in street 3 alignment, or other similar circumstances, additional lights may be required. Streetlights 4 and mounting poles shall be wired for underground service. All conduits and casing to be 5 placed under the roadway required for the lights must be installed during each 6 construction phase prior to roadway subbase completion. Streetlights shall be designed 7 and installed in either of two 121 ways: 8 1. Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through 9 an-electrical an engineer registered in the State of Florida;shall design and 10 install the street lighting system subject to the approval of the County Manager 11 or designee. Upon completion of the streetlights, they shall be owned, operated, 12 and maintained by the property owners' association, a condominium 13 association, cooperative association, or other similar entity, or the public utility 14 furnishing the electric service. 15 2. Where the streetlights are to be installed on public streets, the developer may 16 elect to initiate a municipal services benefit or taxing unit in coordination with the 17 County Manager or designee in order to provide street lighting. If the municipal 18 services benefit or taxing unit is approved by the BCC, the County Manager or 19 designee shall authorize the public utility to design, install, and maintain the 20 street lighting system at no cost to the County's general fund. If no municipal 21 services benefit or taxing unit is created for public streets, the provision of this 22 section shall govern the design, construction, and maintenance of streetlights. 23 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 24 10.02.11 - f Reservedl 25 - :- - - - - - :-- -- - - - -- = •-- . 26 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\6.06.03,10.02.11 Streetlights Submittals by Applicant vs. Electrical Engineer\6.06.03 and 10.02.11 Streetlights and Submittal of Street Lights 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Planning and Zoning Division AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment CHANGE: Currently,there is a conflict between the criteria established in the administrative mi- nor after-the-fact encroachment provisions. This amendment rectifies the conflict. REASON: Ordinance 2006-63 amended LDC section 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachments and established several distinct criteria for granting an administra- tive variance. LDC sections 9.04.04 A and B provide varying degrees of relief for two types of after-the-fact situations. However, one of the criteria is located in both subsections, creating confusion and po- tential conflicts. The proposed amendment clarifies which criteria are to be met for each scenario and establishes that the encroachment applies to the yard requirement in effect the date the building permit was issued. Additionally, it is proposed 9.04.04 C is amended to clarify that one of the three criteria is to be met in order to qualify for administrative approval. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment with no changes. DSAC-RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Collier County Ordinance 2006-63. An amendment to the Administrative Code for Land Development will be completed at a later date. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Richard Henderlong,Principal Planner,4/7/16 CC Amend the LDC as follows: 1 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\9.04.04 After the Fact Variance Criteria\9 04 04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-The-Fact Encroachment 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 9.04.04 -Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment 2 3 Minor after-the-fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory 4 structures, may be approved administratively by the County Manager or designee. Exceptions 5 to required yards as provided for within section 4.02.01.D shall not be used in the calculations 6 of existing yard encroachments. 7 A. For both residential and non-residential structures the County Manager or de- 8 signee may administratively approve minor after-the-fact yard encroachments 9 of up to five (5) percent of the required yard, not to exceed a maximum of six 10 (6) inches when= 11 1. A a building permit has been issued and is under review, but for 12 which a certificate of occupancy has not been granted. The encroach- 13 ment applies to the yard requirement in effect as of the date on which 14 the building permit was issued. 15 - -- ••• - - -- -- - - - . . - - - e : - 16 order has boon granted. 17 B. For both residential and non-residential structures, the County Manager or 18 designee may administratively approve minor after-the-fact yard encroach- 19 ments of up to ten (10) percent of the required yard with a maximum of two (2) 20 feet when 21 1. A a building permit and certificate of occupancy or a final develop- 22 ment order has been granted. The encroachment applies to the yard 23 requirement in effect as of the date on which the certificate of occu- 24 pancy or final development order, as applicable, was issued. 25 2. The encroachment applies to the yard requirement which was in effect 26 _ _ •- .. - _ _ '.. - - -- --- - 27 mons orrder was issued 28 C. For structures on property supporting a single-family home, two-family home, 29 duplex, mobile home or modular home, the County Manager or designee 30 may administrativelyapprove encroachments of up to twenty-five (25) percent 31 of the required yard in effect as of the date of the final development or- 32 der when one of the following conditions exists:.- 33 1. In the presence of mitigating circumstances, where the encroachment 34 does not result from error or action on the part of the property owner. 35 2. Structures for which a final development order has been issued. 36 3. When no building permit record can be produced the following criteria 37 must be met: 38 a. An after-the-fact building permit for the structure, or portion of 39 the structure, is issued prior to the application for the adminis- 40 trative variance. The administrative variance will only be ap- 41 proved once all inspections have been completed, and the cer- 42 tificate of occupancy will be issued only in cases where an ad- 43 ministrative variance has been approved. 44 b. The encroaching structure, or portion of the structure, was 45 constructed prior to the purchase of the subject property by the 46 current owner. 47 c. Evidence is presented showing that the encroaching structure, 48 or portion of the structure, was constructed at least two (2) 49 years prior to the date of application for the administrative vari- 50 ance. This evidence may be in the form of a survey, property 51 card, or dated aerial photograph clearly showing the encroach- 52 ment. 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\9.04.04 After the Fact Variance Criteria\9 04 04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-The-Fact Encroachment 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 d. The encroaching structure is either an addition of living area to 2 a principal structure, or an accessory structure of at least 3 two hundred (200) square feet in area. 4 e. The encroachment presents no safety hazard and has no ad- 5 verse effect on the public welfare. 6 4. Where a structure was lawfully permitted within a residential zoning 7 district under a previous code, and where said structure is considered 8 nonconforming under the current Land Development Code, due to 9 changes in the required yards, the County Manager or designee may 10 administratively approve a variance for an amount equal to or less than 11 the existing yard encroachment. 12 D. Under no circumstances shall any administrative variance be approved which 13 would allow a reduction of the separation between structures to less than ten 14 (10)feet. 15 E. Administrative variances approved pursuant to the above do not run with the 16 land in perpetuity and remain subject to the provisions of this section regarding 17 nonconforming structures. 18 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 l:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\9.04.04 After the Fact Variance Criteria\9 04 04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-The-Fact Encroachment 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Growth Management Department AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development. Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof CHANGE: To expand the Site Development Plan—Instbtanti , Change(SDPI)process to allow existing buildings, which are subject to the architectural standar CA„,,,e LDC, to have the ability to make architectural modifications through the„SPT process. REASON: Currently, LDC section 10.02 03 G.2 es abhshes teria that irl` he met in order for a modification to a site development plan to quahf}' n SD:- ; he following t , synopsis of the criteria for a SDPI. • No South Florida Water Manage:erg District perms .letter of modification is required, • No new accesses to a public street::,,s props • There are no additi . e :xisting t•Ings, • There are no ch ages to t .building �� tpri l • w`There are no c ; tes to, or `e onfiiguraton6f,preserve areas, • There are no ne _ A essory�ctures that generate additional traffic, and • There at revls><rto � dans thawould impact the site development plan. The curr SDPI trite s;,#+ not a- + = for architectural alterations to an existing building. Rather, modificattons which are sit,,i. t to LOQ section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards require a Site evelopment Pl Ame + -nt(SDPA)process. When the criteria for SDPIs were established bd. No. 03-2 ,.hey we"wtdesigned to identify when the scope of work would require an extensi or mu.ltidi 1.lmaryreview process. At that time, changes that trigger the requirements of t�'l , chitectur and Site Design Standards were identified as one of the conditions that would �.'re ® :-D PA process. However, since that time numerous applications which only impact the arch?(,,. ral design have been reviewed, such as facade enhancements and interior renovations and are' mited to the existing building. These applications do not trigger the other SDPI criteria and therefore the review is not extensive and does not require a multidisciplinary review process. When an SDPA is required,the entire project must be brought to the current LDC standards. This amendment may support facade improvements by limiting the review to only architectural and other changes that fall under the SDPI criteria. I I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amtendments\10.02.03 Architectural Improvements through SDPI\10 02 03 Requirements for Site Development Plans-Insubstantial Changes 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed amendment with no changes. However, the Subcommittee recommended that comprehensive changes to the SDPI section should be considered in a future cycle. DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimously approved with no changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Providing for architectural review through an SDPI will reduce the staff time required to complete reviews for some insubstantial changes to architectural plans since they will no longer be required to submit a full SDPA, and will reduce associated time and costs to applicants. N RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:LDC section 5'I. i 8-Architectural and Site Design Standards. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS t-re are no a ctpated Growth Management Plan impacts associated with this amendment. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Preparedby Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planer, 12/15/15. Amend the LDC as follows: 441,-; ; OF 1 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Deve o s metltr Site Impre ;-> ent Plans and Amendments 2 thereof * * * * * * * 3 � 4 G. Amendments and ins,• -ntial -s. Any d change or amendment to a 5 previously approved site ."evelopme „Opp-hall be subject to review and approval by 6 the County Manager or desi ee. Upon° tbmittal of a plan clearly illustrating the 7 proposed change County Manager or designee shall determine whether or not it 8 constitutes a substan l,phtitngio,in the event the County Manager or designee 9 determinesthe Chang ubstar til a applicant icant shall be required to follow the 10 review procedures set ford for a new r- velopment plan. 11 1 Site dever ent plan.amendm- s (SDPA). A substantial change, requiring a 12 v site develo t plan amendment, shall be defined as any change which 13 bstantially a s existingransportation circulation, parking or building 14 a gements, • age, la dscaping, buffering, identified 15 pr " ation/con ra ation areas and other site development plan 16 consrd rations 17 2. Site delft p erOplan insubstantial changes (SDPI). The County Manager or 18 designee s 1 aluate the proposed change in relation to the following criteria; 19 for purposes• this section,the insubstantial change procedure shall be 20 acceptable where the following conditions exist with respect to the proposed 21 change: 22 a. There is no South Florida Water Management District permit, or letter of 23 modification, needed for the work and there is no major impact on water 24 management as determined by the Engineering Services Director. 25 b. There is no new access proposed from any public street, however 26 minimal right-of-way work may be permitted as determined by the 27 Transportation Planning Director. 28 c. There is no addition to existing buildings (air-conditioned space) 29 proposed, however a maximum area of 300 square feet of non-air- 2 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\10.02.03 Architectural Improvements through SDPI\10 02 03 Requirements for Site Development Plans-Insubstantial Changes 4-13-16 CCPC.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 conditioned space used for storage, or to house equipment, will be 2 permitted. 3 d. There is no proposed change in building footprint or relocation of any 4 building on site beyond that needed to accommodate storage areas as 5 described in LDC section 10.02.03 G.2.c, above. 6 e. The change does not result in an impact on, or reconfiguration of, 7 preserve areas as determined by the Natural Resource Director. 8 f. The change does not result in a need for additional environmental data 9 regarding protected species as determined by the Natural Resources 10 Director. 11 g. The change does not include the addition.,of any accessory structure N. 12 that generates additional traffic as determined by the Transportation 13 Planning Director, impacts water man gement as determined by the 14 Engineering Services Director, or contains air-conditioned space. 15 h. The change does not trigger tho req uirem is of LDC section 5.05.08 a., 16 -- - •• -- - - -- - - 17 ih. There are no revisions to the existing landsc c lan that alter or impact 18 the site development plan (as opposed to only,fhJandscape plan)as 19 determined by the landscape architect. :., 20 # # # # # # # # # `` # F # # 3N 3 I:\2015 LDC Amendment Cycle\2015 LDCA Cycle 2\Amendments\10.02.03 Architectural Improvements through SDPI\10 02 03 Requirements for Site Development Plans-Insubstantial Changes 4-13-16 CCPC.docx