Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 07/07/2016
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JULY 7, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JULY 7, 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 25,2016"Special"LDC/CCPC,June 2,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the June 16,2016 CCPC meetinj': A. PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing county-initiated amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, primarily to update and clarify text and correct map errors and omissions specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map; Stormwater Management Sub-Element of The Public Facilities Element to remove the discharge rates; Transportation Element and Transportation Map Series; and the 1 Capital Improvement Element; and furthermore recommending transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,May 25,2016 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis ABSENT: Wafaa F.Assaad ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek,LDC Manager Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now it's a contest between who can get to the mike first,and Mike beat me to the mike. Welcome,everybody,to the Wednesday, May 25th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.This is a special meeting for a review of the Land Development Code amendments. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good evening. Mr.Eastman is not here. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad is not here. And, Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Assaad made a note that he had another item;he couldn't be here tonight,so his is excused. And let me ask the next person. Is Charlette here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Roman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I do okay? Did I say the name right? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You're getting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,addenda to the agenda;there are none. It's the--just the Land Development Code amendments tonight. Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting will be next Thursday. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have no minutes from the last. Ray,we'll hold the BCC report--Ray's not even here, so we'll hold the BCC report till next week. No chairman's report. There's no consent.We'll move right into advertised public hearings. The first item up and the only item up is 9A.It's the adoption of the amendments to the Land Development Code. These were sent around in a separate packet for the Planning Commission. There are summary--it's a summary packet of the actions that have occurred over the past month or two on this issue. And let me start out with,first of all,telling staff that their format has been very workable, so thank you. We--and I know Andy and I would appreciate this over many. The hot tabs that you have for the sections and the index work great. They work on,I believe,Andy's computer,which is a Windows based, and mine,which is Apple based. So that's turned out to be a real good thing,and I hope that's the way staff does it from now on. That will be very helpful,not just for LDC but for all of them. The other thing I wanted to mention, in your cover page on May 17,2016,you provided a cover page with a formatting up on the top talking about that,and the second page you talked about the group housing amendment. One thing I noticed in Item 3,you referenced the Medicaid patients possibility. The only thing I'd like to point out is when you contact the various facilities that are currently Page 2 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 existing or you have discussions in that regard,there's a big difference between those that allow Medicaid beds and those that provide Medicaid beds. And what I mean by that is generally dementia care or Alzheimer's care will get into the 5-or 6,000 price range per month,and most of the facilities that I am familiar with have indicated they'll accept Medicaid,but that means they only accept it to the value that it will offset the 6,000 a month by. And I think the intent of this board at the time we talked about that issue was to consider Medicaid beds ones that are supported solely by Medicaid in regards to availability in the county. So that might be something you differentiate when you follow up with that comment on the last of that page there. MS. CILEK: Thank you. Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that,Caroline, I'd like to move directly into the various items tonight. We have 14 LDC amendments.The first nine--actually,the first seven are ones that this board has already reviewed and weighed in on,and tonight was the final reading of them. And then 8 and 9, same thing occurs for the Planning Commission,but those also require EAC review. The last five, 10, 11, 12, 13,and 14,are ones that still have outstanding issues that would probably be more--more items we'll end up discussing tonight. So in order to make sure that we don't pass by something that members of the public are here for,I'm going to ask,if I can,to see by raise of hands--and I'll try to see if everybody's here for one of the five that we're going to discuss. If they're not,we'll pull some other ones off and have those discussions. We have a Conservation Collier action tonight concerning monetary payments that will take some discussion. Is anybody here for that one? Okay. We have one involving designing and engineering street-lighting plans. Is anybody here for that one? Okay. And then we have community markets on private property. That's the flea markets and resale markets like that. Is anybody here for that one? Okay. Then the only other two,we have one concerning public school and charter schools in outlying--in the various zoning districts of the county. Anybody here for that? And the last one we would be discussing,or the other one we will be discussing is the--and I'm trying to figure out where it is--mobile home parks. Mobile home parks,how many are here for that one? Okay. That's the majority. So we're going to do that one first,and that is actually one of the ones that we were going--I'm glad we asked. That was one of the ones that would have been approved under a blanket approval. Then the last one we're going to discuss is the administrative minor after-the-fact encroachments. Anybody here for that? Okay. For those of you that are here tonight,members of the public,are all of you here for something that we've just asked about? Is anything I haven't--is there anybody here for something I have not asked. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary,which one are you here for? MR.BEYRENT: I actually came here because I thought they were going to discuss-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you use the microphone? I'm sorry. I should have asked you that first. Sony. MR.BEYRENT: For the record,I'm Garrett Beyrent. I was here,actually,because I was told you guys were going to discuss 3.05.07 on preservation standards,and that's what I had. And then I looked at it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are. That's the Conservation Collier one. MR.BEYRENT: Oh,that's Conservation Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? MR.BEYRENT: No? MS.CILEK: There are multiple--yeah,there are multiple amendments that address this section, 3.05.07,and he's actually looking at No.9 on the list. MR.BEYRENT: Oh,okay. Page 3 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got two 3.05.07s. MR.BEYRENT: Then I'm not in the right place.That's four times in 45 years I didn't do that. That's amazing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We were going to move the ones that members of the public are here up first. But since you're one person for that one,we're going to take where the majority is here. MR.BEYRENT: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Gary. Okay. With that,then Caroline. MS.CILEK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's Michelle want to mess up? MS.ARNOLD: For the record,Michelle Arnold.I was inquiring about the overlay zoning district in Immokalee,whether or not you guys were going to be talking about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are now. Which one is that,Caroline? MS.CILEK: Number 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to pull 6,7,and 9 from the ones that would have been just--at the beginning didn't appear to have further conversation needed,and we'll end up discussing those. So with that in mind,I think what we'll do is we'll take the mobile home one first since the majority of people here are for the mobile home,and then we'll go after that to the quantity of members of the public that are here for each one. So with that in mind,let's move to No.6,which will provide the new application process for nonconforming mobile homes. Caroline,do you want take us into that? MS.CILEK: Sure,absolutely. If--that is on page-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forty-seven. MS.CILEK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy,do you know how those new hot buttons work? You just click on the number on the index,and it takes you right to it. Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Very nice. Thank you for doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I thought that was-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's very helpful. MS. CILEK: So following the Planning Commission's last review of this amendment,staff has made no changes;however,we do have several public comments that have been submitted to staff,and we have several people who would like to speak on the amendment,if needed. There have been no changes to the actual amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an amendment the Planning Commission heard probably a couple, two or three weeks ago,and it was coming in for final reading tonight. It's the after-five meeting for it. So if there's any--is there new questions from the Planning Commission on that one? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I just have a question for Caroline. MS.CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: When I turn to Page 47,I'm on the attachment to that. MS.CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MS.CILEK: If you go just to Page 37,that's where it begins. I will make a note that this amendment currently proposes to address nonconforming mobile home parks and nonconforming mobile home sites. I did want to make that very clear to the Planning Commission prior to their discussion today to make sure that is, indeed,what they are seeking to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any members from the Planning Commission have any comments before we go and hear from our public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Caroline,did you have anything you wanted to add to it from a staff Page 4 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 perspective? If not,the first thing I'd like you to do is read the one public comment. One individual from Immokalee couldn't be here tonight,so she had submitted a request to have her issues read into the record. Since they were short,it seemed appropriate. So I'll let Caroline handle that. MS.CILEK: Thank you. So I received public comment from Carrie Williams,who is a mobile home park owner in Immokalee. And the following is a summary of her comments that she provided to me yesterday. She supports mobile homes as an affordable housing option. She supports the ability for mobile home owners to be able to replace units. She wants to make it clear that this will impact all nonconforming mobile homes in Immokalee, including those outside of parks. She does not support the relief provided to nonconforming mobile homes outside of the parks and believes this will have a major impact on the community. This--she further believes this issue needs more time in order to be vetted with the community. She does not agree that relief should be provided to park owners who recently purchased a nonconforming mobile home park. She supports the time frames for completing--a time frame for completing the process. She's supports the 1993 plan process/concept to remove older mobile home units,and she has concerns that park owners don't have a process to help mobile home owners replace their units. She notes there are some health, safety,welfare issues with the older mobile homes that are owned by non-park owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Caroline.I appreciate it. And those are just read into the record because Ms.Williams had contacted Carline's office and was not able to be here tonight. So,as a courtesy,Caroline read it in. With that,we will start calling public speakers. And,Mike,are you making the calls, or Caroline? You guys are going to do it. Okay. Whenever you're called,either speaker(sic)you could please use,and we'll go from there. MR.BOSI: The first public speakers is Max Griffin. MR.GRIFFIN: Hello. My name is Max Griffin,and I'm own three mobile home parks in Immokalee,three small ones. And I want to say my support for the Land Development Code amendment request that was worked on about a month ago,that enables park owners to replace mobile homes which would be put in according to up-to-date standards but has nothing to do with the other mobile homes that are already in there. That's it. Just to replace units. And anything that helps the supply in Immokalee will bring prices down. The less--the less supply, the higher prices are going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice you started out by saying you started about a month ago. I know you haven't been in all the meetings,but I know that Mr.Davenport and I,God,we must have met several years ago when this started. So this has been in the works for quite a long time,and I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware,this hasn't been a rush-through-quick application. It's been going on for a number of years, so... MR.GRIFFIN: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.GRIFFIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR.BOSI: Next speaker is Christy Bentacourt. MS.BETANCOURT: Hi, everybody. For the record,Christy Betancourt with the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency. We had a meeting May 18th,and I presented it to the advisory board just as a--you know,just for them to have it in front of them to review it.And I told them to come to this meeting if they had any concerns or questions,and that's why some of these people are here today. They had questions about density,whether they're going to be allowed to have more mobile home parks at those locations,and they had questions about the mobile home parks--a lot of the mobile home parks in Immokalee don't own the mobile homes. The mobile home park owners own the land. Page 5 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 So some of those mobile homes look very,very delapidated. They are not being used or not livable, and they're living in them. So that's a concern from the community. We do want a mobile home park initiative program in place because we do have some mobile home park owners that want to improve their property,and they cannot,but we also want to make sure that those mobile homes that need to be replaced--that are not livable need to be removed somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll let staff address the response to that. I mean, if,Caroline,you don't mind. If you don't want to,I think I can fill in some of the blanks. But how would you like to approach it? MS.CILEK: I mean,this amendment has the goal to enable people to replace their units. It is voluntary,the way that the amendment is constructed. But without some type of process to identify their land with these units,they will not have the ability to replace them. MS.BETANCOURT: And that's to replace them if they want to,not--what if they can't afford to and they tell the landowner,hey,I can't put a new trailer in with new requirements. I have to live as-is. So where does that lie? MS.CILEK: Currently the amendment doesn't address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but it may be addressed in another manner,and I guess this is where the County Attorney's Office may have to weigh in. There's been a series--I think there's 82 or 83 mobile home parks on a list that I've seen at Code Enforcement. And I started looking at this list three years ago with Mr.Davenport and others trying to figure out a way to get these mobile home parks in compliance. The purpose of rewriting this amendment was to gain compliance for the park as well as the ability to replace the mobile homes. Now,a secondary facet of that is,if this passes and there's now a relief to the mobile home owners to finally come in and get their parks corrected,one that actually fits Immokalee better than any one previously, previously issued,what happens afterwards,after this is over with? How much time before those seriously concerning mobile homes,ones that may be a threat to life,health, safety,and welfare,are addressed by new Code Enforcement actions,because that's probably the way it would have to be addressed. And I--my assumption would be that after this goes into effect,there would have to be some kind of time frame in which the mobile home owners would have to start responding to this,or those ones that have life,safety,health impacts would then have to be addressed-- MS.CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --through other actions. And I guess I would refer to Heidi as the County Attorney's Office to see how they would see this in a time frame or if that's something that needs to be further resolved. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I think you're asking how would they address the dilapidated mobile home parks,and the only way it could proceed under Code Enforcement is if there's a violation of one of the county ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And as far as the threshold,at least for buildings--and I can't tell you off the top of my head whether it would fall under if--whether a mobile home park would fall under the definition of buildings,but they have to be unsafe to live in,essentially,to require that they come down, unless there's another code provision somewhere in the Code of Laws that they're not in compliance with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it was--I think what the issue is,that there may be some that are currently unsafe. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes, sir. I also attend a monthly community task force meeting, Sheriffs Department,Code Enforcement,fire department,a lot of community nonprofits,and a lot of the trailer parks--and some of them aren't in mobile home parks. They're outside of mobile home parks.They're in the screen on a presentation that need--that are health and safety that right now we can't do anything with them. All they do is board it up. That's it. They look terrible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then maybe we need to talk with--as this meeting rolls out tonight,find out if there's some provision we can suggest or recommend to the Board that could be considered as a time frame for response to the new rules that are put in place. Page 6 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 MS.BETANCOURT: As a community,we have been addressing some of those as far as the Sheriffs Department will make sure there's no homeless living in it or something like that. We're trying to keep it safe,but that's only going to be a short-term solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,see,a lot of--a lot of what's happened is the park owners have been afraid that if they take the mobile home unit off the property without replacing it,they may not ever get that density back. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The density,more or less,is grandfathered in because the unit's there. So we're hoping--at least I expect that after this got approved and finally got worked out you'd see a lot of those go away just because they can now go away,and the park owner can legally replace them and keep their density. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's been part of the issue. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe through discussion tonight we'll find out more and be able to respond to your concern. MS.BETANCOURT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: The next speaker Andrea Halman. MS.HALMAN: Hi. My name is Andrea Halman.I'm a 10-year resident of Immokalee. I'm here because I am also concerned about the trailers in the community. It's not that we don't want trailers. We want Immokalee to look better. We are trying as a community to improve the look of Immokalee,and we can't do that with trailers falling apart. We've tried--I heard you say the County Attorney would be of help. We tried to get other places in Immokalee to improve,and we can't do it. We're not getting any help here. And we need your help because we can't--we can't force people to do anything. We want Immokalee to look better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and I think the intentions with this ordinance is to open the door for that to happen,at least that's how I've been told was the--was everything that--the need this was needed for was that if they were to go in now to improve a mobile home,especially if it's dilapidated,and they wanted to replace it with a new one or make extensive changes,they would have problems getting it through the process,because as soon as you go in for a building permit to apply for something,all the surrounding area has to be then verified;your density,your zoning,your setbacks,your landscaping,your drainage,your parking lots,your dustproof surfaces. All that would come into play. This amendment corrects this--those applications for Immokalee. It gives Immokalee special exceptions to some of the rules that we have across the board in the county for particularly the urban area that would make it easier for people to come in and clean up their mobile home parks. That was the intent. Now,we had hoped we've gotten there. And I don't know if you've read every page of this,but if you see where we've not gotten there,we need--it would be helpful to know that. MS.HALMAN: Well,I'm concerned about the density,how close these trailers seem to--there--seem to be closer than they were before.I'm kind of concerned that it didn't seem as though Immokalee was given time to look at this. We got this on the 18th. I read through what I--what we were given,and just regular citizens that didn't have trailer parks,I don't know if they were included in this. Because people that don't have trailer parks may have good ideas that trailer park owners may appreciate. So I'm kind of concerned that it wasn't--it didn't have a lot of variety of people that were involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the CRA--I know I just heard someone mention the CRA. MS.HALMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're involved with the CRA,aren't you? I thought I recognized you from those meetings. Page 7 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 MS.HALMAN: Yes. I'm on the board of the CRA and MSTU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've had a representative from Land Development Code department at all your meetings recently,or most of them,haven't you? And I'm just wondering,was there discussions at some of your meetings involving the mobile home parks? Were you guys aware of what was going on? MS.HALMAN: No,we weren't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.HALMAN: We would ask about the trailer parks,ask,but we were not given any information. We were told that someone would tell us sooner or later,but we didn't know what was going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline,as far as staffs outreach to stakeholders,what efforts were made from your department to get that effort accomplished? MS.CILEK: Sure. Given the timeline of the cycle,we were able to provide the amendment basically right as we provided to the Planning Commission. And so that's when it was finalized by staff and County Attorney's Office and stakeholder involvement,those that were participating. And so it did go to the CRA for awareness on the 18th,and I always let Christy know to feel free to give me a call if they have any questions or concerns. We did not present at that meeting.We had presented at previous meetings for other amendments. That's what we were able to provide for this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the CRA ever presented in a manner in which they could have made a recommendation? MS.CILEK: It was presented to them,and they're always welcome to make a recommendation. We didn't ask for one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.HALMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your board--your board never weighed in on it officially? MS.HALMAN: No. We didn't have a--we didn't know anything very much about what was going on. I attend all the meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we're trying to find out. In your reading of this,did you see this as an improvement over what we currently have in regards to the ability for these parks to move forward? Because if nothing goes through right now, it will stay like it is until something changes. This is an attempt to start to change it. We may not have hit all the right points,but I'm trying to figure out if this is better than nothing. MS.HALMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.HALMAN: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll keep hearing--I'm sure there's other--there's going to be a lot of members of the public here tonight to speak, so we're going to keep working our way through this. Thank you very much. You want to--okay. MS. BETANCOURT: About a year ago Mr. Davenport provided me a draft,but I did ask Caroline. She said that's not--that's apples to oranges. It was totally different. And I did give it to my board just as a pass-out and communications folder. And other than that, we--Caroline said she would give us something as soon as she had it,which was our--on the 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would have to agree with Caroline's position on that. It has changed radically over a number of years,all trying to get to a better situation so that it could be handled specifically for Immokalee. There has been a--the code we have right now is more of an urban code. And when you try to apply our code across the board in Collier County, it does run into problems in the rural area,and that's what took so long to try to get this to a manner where it was something better than what we have. It still may not be perfect,and that's hopefully what we'll try to iron out tonight and as we go on in the future. So thank you. And next speaker,Mike. MR.BOSI: Mr. Robert Davenport. MR. DAVENPORT: Thank you. My name is Robert Davenport,and I've been working on this Page 8 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 actually seven years,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you beat me,of course. I've only been at it what,three or four years now, so... MR.DAVENPORT: We've been working on it since it expired. And it went through Code Enforcement,and there were so many stipulations it was going to put the mobile home park owners out of business,and it was going to displace a lot of people that owned their mobile homes. There's a serious issue. The one is cosmetics versus something that works. Every mobile home park in Immokalee is,most of them--I say anything over five units is inspected twice a year;not inside the unit, if the people own it. If the landlord rents to migrant labor, it's every three months,right,Max? MR.GRIFFIN: Six weeks-- MR.DAVENPORT: Every six weeks. MR.GRIFFIN: --those units are inspected. MR.DAVENPORT: But that's cosmetics,and some of the trailers just doesn't look good. In the last year and a half I replaced two units in my park out on Miraham Terrace. There was five units there,and they were all taken out by the previous owner,and I've replaced two of the units. So I'd like for you to consider passing the amendment as read last--two weeks ago,I believe it was, whenever we had it read. The other thing is,in Carrie's statement, support 93 plan process. That process did not work. And one of the main reasons it did not work is the county staff changed the rules,and they wanted to do inspections on the--inside the mobile homes;and inside the mobile homes,if you don't own it,you can't do it. And that comes right back to cosmetics. And a lot of them don't look good,but they're functional. And the health department's in the parks at least twice a year. So I see the--some of these mobile homes that are boarded up,but the majority of them are not boarded up. My people are all family parks. I don't rent to single men,don't do migrant labor.It's all--it's all families,and some of the units look good and some of them doesn't look good,but they're functional. They don't have water leaks,the windows are in them,and that type thing. So I would recommend that you pass it as was read last time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one question I've got to ask that came up and that is time frame on which we should consider these mobile home parks to comply with the new rules or then face whatever processes there are to make them comply. Have you given--I know the previous SDPI process had a certain number of year limitation on it, and if you didn't do it within a certain number of years you didn't get to do it. I'm not suggesting something like that. I'm just trying to figure out a way that we can make sure that everybody does something now,now that we've waited so long. MR. DAVENPORT: Well,the problem before is it was going to be all or nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DAVENPORT: And when it come to all or nothing,most--in fact,my sons,they spent 30-some thousand dollars for the engineering to redo theirs,and when they said they had to go in the units, they just dropped it like a hot potato. So the--they're right,a lot of them boarded up and a lot of them got windows boarded up,but the health department goes by there and that window's boarded up,we have to see that it gets taken out and the window goes back in. So I think you're going to see a big change if this goes to where we can change. It's not going to be drastic. It's not going to be 30 or 40 units a day. It's going to be a unit a week or a unit every two weeks. But it don't take long before those units starts to stack up and you have a cleaner park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Next speaker is Michelle Arnold. MS.ARNOLD: Thank you for hearing me. Page 9 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 Just to give the Planning Commission some information,I've recently been,I guess,given additional duties,and the CRAs and the MSTU,Immokalee and Bayshore,are both under my division now,and that's, hence,my involvement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- MS.ARNOLD: --with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You poor thing. MS.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will increase your workload. You've already had a pretty good size workload. MS.ARNOLD: Exactly. So that's why I'm here. And I'm trying to catch up with some of these things,but I wanted to express that the intent of the CRA within the Immokalee area as well as the MSTU is to try to,as pointed out by our members, improve the hnmokalee area. And I just want to make sure that when we are making modifications to the Land Development Code,that it is moving in that direction. And I think the fact that you guys--you opened up the ability for nonconforming property owners to replace with like or better is a good thing. It's an improvement. But I just needed further clarification on the requirement. How did they get there? If there is a park that exists,are they required to get a site improvement plan to get that replacement,or are we just going to do that with the building permit process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the purpose of this whole exercise has been is to find ways so the replacements can be done and they can be legalized,and that's what this whole thing is about. It established--it establishes the parks as properties that can exchange their units out and build out to the densities that they're allowed to build out to by our code. MS.ARNOLD: Within the provisions of,you know,fire codes and that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. And there's a minimum separation that will have to be modified and adhered to no matter what park comes in. So if a park comes in right now,the minimum separation is not what it's supposed to be for fire,they've still got to meet that. There are things like that that were mandatory that were considered life--health, safety,and welfare,and we can't accept those. But in other areas, like the number of trees in the landscaping hedge or how some of that stuff was laid out,those more urbanized elements were not as strictly addressed in this particular rendition of this code exercise, so... MS.ARNOLD: Okay. And I haven't had a chance to talk to the committees in more detail because, really,this amendment hadn't been discussed with them. But we don't want to--we want to relax some of those standards,but we don't want to get rid of those standards,because in order to improve the appearance of Immokalee,you've got to--I think you have to have some of those components there. So I think that that's something that we may want to come back and try to address later on.But, again,as I pointed out,I think the fact that we're allowing some flexibility to have property owners come in and change out nonconforming structures is a good thing. The one thing that I also wanted to point out is--and I'm not sure that this process could help it--is the point that was made by Ms.Williams about mobile homes that are owned by the person other than the landowner. There are some conditions out there,and I think Mr. Davenport's mobile home park's the exception because he takes good care of it and his property owners or his trailer owners are taking care of their properties as well,but there are some out there that it's more an issue of affordability. Even though this flexibility is there,they may not be able to afford to replace their units. So as I pointed out,I don't think this process is going to help it,but that is a scenario that we have to try to somehow--somehow try to help the community in there. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Michelle. Thank you.And congratulations on your new appointment. You have done a good job in all the departments that you headed in the county, so I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of positive effort come out. MS.ARNOLD: Oh,I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you do. You do;you've done a great job in the past. Page 10 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 MS.ARNOLD: If I can split myself in several different pieces,I guess,I'll figure it out,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. Thank you. Next speaker,Mike. MR.BOSI: And your final speaker is Steve Kirk. MR.KIRK: I have some written comments that I could submit,if possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many copies do you have? MR.KIRK: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's six of us,or five of us tonight,so--we'll need one for the court reporter,too. MR.KIRK: I have seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's six? Oh,I'm sorry. Stan was hiding behind--well,you can give her mine,because I do everything electronically,and I'll look over at somebody else's. MR.KIRK: I think I've got six left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We won't be able to read those. They'll be submitted for the record. And the court reporter has one,so that's how we'll handle it. MR.KIRK: Okay. Good evening. My name is Steven Kirk. I'm president of Rural Neighborhoods, and we are an affordable housing developer active in the Immokalee community. We have approximately 315 units in the Eden Park and Main Street area.Our neighbors are mobile home parks. Our goal in Immokalee is neighbor revitalization. We support a one-to-one replacement of dilapidated mobile homes,absolutely. Clearly,a mechanism to allow mobile home park owners to replace the trailers that are dilapidated is welcome. That's where the proposed ordinance should stop. We would recommend you table the issue in the interim because we don't think that the standard goes far enough. Let's have some straightforward talk about the real beneficiaries. The real beneficiaries, economically,are park owners. The staff comments that come along with the report say that the--this is to help mobile home owners and park operators as well. It's not park operators as well. It's park operators chiefly. If a mobile home owner replaces his mobile home,the park must go along with filing the plan,do the fire separation. And there's no prohibition about the lot lease then going up in price because of the improvements that the park owners made. I don't believe that we should look at mobile homes as an affordable housing strategy. It's not an affordable housing strategy. Units in Immokalee,mobile homes rent for 600 to$1,000 per month. For those housing unaccompanied workers,the rents are 35 to$50 a week. Those prices are comparable to code-compliant concrete block income-restricted units built under low-income housing tax credits and built under other funding scenarios. This is not an affordable housing strategy,and it certainly doesn't help us revitalize neighborhoods to have mobile park physical standards,not just the trailers,but the park standards themselves,not provide drainage and not provide dust free entry and exit in roadways. The economic benefits go to the park owners. When I read the narrative that accompanies the LDC publication that was given out at the CRA meeting,the comments are that this will solve numerous Collier County Code Enforcement issues on Page 5. In essence, if we lower the standards to the current proposal,we will no longer have any violations with codes because the code will be lowered in terms of what a mobile home has to provide. We say that it's required park owners in the past to hire engineers and attorneys and design professionals. Every one of us in Collier County who develop land incur those expenses. In Naples,in Immokalee and every point in between,this is a very difficult Land Development Code to comply with,and park owners who have a very successful business should meet those costs as well. And, lastly,in terms of the comments within the report,we talk about being able to sell the property, being able to sell property,being able to sell property. This is not about having completely--I mean,there's a tremendous amount of comment about a nonconforming use inhibiting sale. It's true;it does. It may even inhibit lending to be able to buy new trailers. We're open to making nonconforming uses conforming,but Page 11 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 there should be some cost associated with it. Prices of parks that sell are a function of cap rate,a function of cash flow. And a nonconforming park that meets a lower standard clearly has more cash flow than a park that has to meet standards or a new owner that has to invest in them. So this is an economic boon to the park owner who can now file nothing more than a fire separation plan,not replace a single trailer,and become a conforming use and sell it tomorrow as a conforming use. The only requirement is the fire separation plan. So we would not recommend that be the simple standard that you basically show that the units are 10 feet apart,which they probably are today,have the fire marshal certify that there's a fire hydrant within a near distance of the site,and be approved as a conforming use. We've negotiated a bad bargain in terms of improving Immokalee. We believe that the requirements that you're asking for increase density. A dumpster,very inexpensive request,and that there be dust free streets be the requirement for a conforming use rather than new density. It's a modest--it's not landscaping. It's not all the buffers. It's a modest investment that would be fair compensation for the ability to get--become a conforming use. So we would say move that section up. We would be then willing to support the parks becoming a conforming use for a very modest investment. Lastly,I'm not certain why we're talking about increased density. If we pass this LDC,we are picking winners and losers. An existing mobile home park can expand its density to its underlying land use; whereas,a new mobile home park or as I--new mobile home park developer,as I read this,would have to meet the current code that's countywide. If that's the case,we have advantaged the existing mobile home parks and disadvantaged someone trying to come in and build a new mobile home park. I don't think local government should pick winners and losers in terms of increased density. We are not talking about a housing crisis. We're not talking about a dire need for housing for workers in Immokalee. We have several hundred vacant units at the Collier County housing authority that are not restricted to farm workers,not even restricted to citizenship requirements as they once were. So there's not a crisis today that we're going to have homeless people if this solution takes a few more weeks to fmd the correct solution. So our concern is not to have a double standard for Immokalee that says that we can have a trailer park that can meet lower standards than we might in a different commission district. I don't think this would be acceptable in East Naples. I don't think it should be acceptable that we grandfather these in with no improvements. We want to see the one-to-one replacement. We want to see modest investment to make the neighborhood better,not just the mobile home unit better. So we would ask that there be some further consideration. Again,a solution for the nonconforming use would be to make them meet the proposed standards for increased density,and we don't see any need for increasing the density at all in order to enhance those businesses. Thank you. MR.GRIFFIN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. Hold on. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Caroline, it's my understanding in reading this,we're not really increasing density. The density is what the zoning is,and there's only a couple parks that had a--from what I recall,the 82 or 83 that I reviewed were involved in a density issue. What's your status--what's your take on that? MS.CILEK: I think it would be a good idea to walk through the language so that everyone understands the density provisions,and then everyone can be on the same page. I would really like to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we will,in just a minute. Let's just do it in a minute. I want to make sure--do we have any other speakers,Mike? MR.BOSI: No,Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who would like to speak who have not Page 12 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 spoken yet? Who have not spoken yet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know you would like to address something that you probably just heard,so why don't you come up here and re--state your name for the record again,and we'll be glad to listen to you. MR.GRIFFIN: My name is Max Griffin. I own three small mobile home parks. Jackie Williams,when he did my plans,the density was set. I can't add any more units than what the plan calls for. Starting from Immokalee Drive, it's 13 for 1410 Carson and 19 for the other park. I can't change it. I can't add any more units. As far as Farmworker's Village,there's a lot of empty units out there,but they're not ready for people to move into. It's not like it's ready to go. There's a lot--they need to do a lot of work,and they're still having--they're still doing it. They're not ready to move in yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I--my understanding of the language that Caroline's probably going to address is what you're reading it as. Basically the density is not an issue that we're deciding here tonight. The density is either what was grandfathered in or what could go there with new improvements. So why don't you have your seat,and we'll listen to what Caroline's going to talk about. MS.CILEK: Sure. If everyone could look at Page 42. It's within the LDC amendment text itself, and we're looking at G.6.G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,not 6,G. MS.CILEK: G.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bottom of Page 42 is what you're looking at,right? MS.CILEK: Yep,density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: So it says,once the existing conditions site improvement plan is approved,owners may replace mobile home units with an approved building permit at sites shown on the site plan. So that's the one-to-one replacement. Replacement units may be larger than the removed unit so long as the minimum separation standards established within the section above are met. Because the newer ones might be slightly larger. Okay. The next provision is G, little i. Where properties currently exceed the density allowed for by the zoning district,the approved existing conditions site plan shall establish the maximum density on the property which shall not exceed the density of the property as depicted by the property appraiser aerial maps dated before February 2016. So if there was a property appraisal map that showed X number of units in January of 2016,that would be the most recent density available for that park. It does say before February 2016. That also means that it could be years prior in aerials showing what the density was in years prior. We did hear from mobile home park owners that during a hurricane,mobile homes were damaged and had to be removed,and they would like to be able to replace those. So it does allow any density that had been on the unit--on the park up till February 2016. All lots and units shall be consistent with the approved existing condition site plan. Then we're going to go to double i where the zoning district allows for additional density. And what this section is referring to is where the density permitted by the zoning district is greater than what is there now. They can go up to that density,as can anyone else within a residential or mobile home zoning district. So that is your very traditional provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, in essence,you're not adding any density. MS.CILEK: You are allowing density that was previously on the site at any point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.CILEK: And can be verified that it was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the sites have changed their development--districts over time. What's a VR now,in the old days it might have been something different. But at one time or another the density that they had there was what we're grandfathering in. MS.CILEK: Correct. Page 13 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're not allowing them to increase it any. MS.CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only time they can increase is if they've got less now than the code allows. Then they can go up to what the code allows. MS.CILEK: Correct. And I will say,when they do go and establish a new lot,that if they're allowed for additional density,they do need to follow the new standards under 4.02.33. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Caroline. Sir,can you make it brief,please. Thank you. MR.KIRK: I'm in agreement with what she-- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MR.KIRK: Steven Kirk. I'm in agreement with what she said,but to allow a park to increase its units to the current land use, to the VR, is that not an increase or expansion of the park? That's what I'm saying is the expansion of the park requires only some additional issues,which is the dust and the dumpster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that--and,Caroline,can you address that? MS.CILEK: Sure,I believe so. So under 4.02.33,when you add a new lot, if you are able to increase your density because you have it by right then,yes,you are required to provide,on Page 44,both B and C,the dumpster and the,basically, more or less dust-free surfaces for roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Caroline. Okay. There are no other public speakers.Are there comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have been involved in this issue for a number of years,and I heard tonight,of course,others have been involved longer than I have. I remember it when it came around before I even started working at the county. It's been a difficult issue to address because of the standards we have that are homogenous across the board in Collier County. This is trying to seek a compromise to take a look at Immokalee differently,as so many civic leaders in Immokalee have argued that they should not be looked at in the same manner that the urban standards are. We have an interim set of deviations for Immokalee specifically because of issues like that. This is no different. It may have some problems with it. It may not get to a point where it's cured every problem that we've heard about tonight,but I think it's a better beginning than doing nothing at all at this point. And I'm suggesting that we pass this to go forward,and we always have the opportunity to review it as the future goes on and take a second look at it if things aren't working out like we thought they would. That's exactly why we're here today is because the first plan that happened several years ago to do SDPs didn't work out like they thought they would. So now we're coming up with a different plan. We could still do that again in the future based on what is needed to address where it--where the deficiencies are. So I would think that at this point we ought to move forward with it as a beginning to see some of the problems resolved and then take a look at it as time goes on. Heidi,did you have anything you wanted to add? I saw Scott coming up with a comment. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. He picked out a grammatical error,but I think Caroline is going to ask for direction to fix any grammatical errors that are found in any of the LDC amendments as we go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct? MS.CILEK: As always. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --anything else from the Planning Commission? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We thought we had this problem solved 20 or 25 years ago under Ron Nino. I'm glad to see it's back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but that's the--that's how the process works. If--and I've taken to heart what some of you have said,but I'm not sure this isn't going to give you some relief. And if it doesn't, Page 14 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 then we need to be back in here and talking about it again and modifying it again.It's been modified a number of times. I don't know a different way to do it at this point,so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm glad to see it going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Michelle. Michelle,when did you start doing this?Is this just something brand new for you,working with the people out-- MS.ARNOLD: With the CRA, it's only been two-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone,Michelle. Sorry. MS.ARNOLD: Just--it's only been two weeks,actually. Yeah. But I've been helping people all my career here,and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I know you have.I was just--because I'm watching people's faces as we were talking about it. I see the concern that you have out there. I think if there are suggestions,that they should be brought forward not a long time from now;maybe three months,maybe four months from now. I don't think this should linger on. If there is some other good suggestions,I would like to see that come sooner. MS.ARNOLD: Yeah. What I--I'll plan on doing is,you know,having this discussion with the CRA and the MSTU and invite Caroline and whomever so that they can explain exactly what it is they're concerned about,and she can hear it first hand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. I see heads shaking yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle,one problem that occurs is if there's--if there are changes needed,this could take the whole thing off the table,and everything would sit exactly as it is today with no improvements,no delapidated mobile homes being removed because everybody's going to be afraid to remove them. So what I'm suggesting, if there are--as ideas come forward,let's vet them out through the process, because you know an LDC process takes time. But in the meantime,I think this--the best thing we can do is put something in place to get as much improved as we possibly can,and this seemed to be the best fix we have available to us today. MS.ARNOLD: Yeah. As I pointed out,I think this is moving in the right direction. I think that there's more work to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have anything you wanted to add,Caroline? MS.CILEK: Sure. And just as a sidenote, in hearing some of the concerns today,there might be opportunities outside of the LDC to address some of these issues as well,different programs,different county initiatives that are apart from the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that,we will end the public discussion on this and move into a motion. This is--I'm looking for a motion for LDC sections--and I'll read it all off so the motion maker doesn't have to--2.03.07,4.02.33,and 10.02.05. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan, seconded by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. Page 15 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. And the next--this will be moved to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval,and that will probably happen before the end of July. Thank you-all for attending on this matter. And let's move into our next most hot topic.And I think we--let me move back to the beginning. The Main Street overlay. Are any of you here to talk about the Immokalee Main Street overlay? Okay. I think we'll get that one done next.That way if anybody that's here waiting for the Immokalee issues,that will resolve the remainder of the Immokalee issues. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They can get home before midnight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is item--that's Item 7 on our chart. It's LDC Section 2.03.07,and this is the one involving the changing of prohibited uses to conditional uses. And,Michelle,do you have anything you want to open with? Caroline? MS.CILEK: No. I spoke briefly with Michelle the other day,and I think she's going to relay her concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you tell us what page that's on? That's 49? Is that what it looks like? MS.ARNOLD: I don't have the same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean you. I'm sorry. I meant Caroline,yeah. Page 49? MS.CILEK: Yes. It's Page 49. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Michelle. MS.ARNOLD: I was in Immokalee the other day,and one of the contractors representing an existing gas station on Main Street came into the office and expressed some concerns about the fact that, similar to the mobile home issues that we just went through,existing nonconforming--because with these regulations,fuel pumps or gas stations on Main Street would be prohibited,so now that particular use is nonconforming. With it being nonconforming,they're not able to improve their facility. And there's an existing property owner that would like to improve the existing gas station and convenience store. And he's being told that he can't do that. I think Caroline was going to look into whether or not that was actually the case. But this particular property owner wants to expand the convenience side of it and wouldn't be able to with the prohibited restrictions,I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. I'm not sure.Well,first of all,someone had asked me about that the other day,and there's two uses on that property that I understand; a convenience store and fuel pumps. He doesn't want to expand the full pumps,but he wants to expand the convenience store; is that true? Is he adding more pumps? MS.ARNOLD: I don't think he's wanting to add more pumps. He's wanting to add the convenience store. But he went in and spoke to someone,and they advised that he would not be able to do anything on that particular property. So I'm needing clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think if he's expanding the convenience store--and I'll have to look and see if there's anything involving--I mean,the only--the items that are prohibited would be the repair services,parking,car washes,radio,television repair shops,outdoor storage area,drive-through areas, warehousing,automobile parking,communication towers,and other heavy commercial,automotive dealers, facilities with fuel pumps. If he's not expanding the fuel pumps,Mike,do you know why he would be told he can't expand his convenience store? MS.ARNOLD: And can he do anything to improve the existing fuel island? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we have a site plan with deviations process,plus he'd probably be grandfathered in under the old zoning codes for what he's already got there. So I would imagine Page 16 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 improvements that don't create more of an intensity of the use that's already there,like instead of 12 pumps, he puts in 14,that might be a problem. But if he's still retaining a number of pumps and he just wants to correct, like,the canopy or things like that,we've already done some of those as site plan with deviations. They still might be applicable. And,Mike,are you aware of anything that would stop this gentleman from expanding his convenience store as long as it's not the fuel pumps? MR.BOSI: Well,it's--the question would be a gas station with fuel pumps that has a convenience store. So it's two separate uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.BOSI: And as long as it's classified as two separate uses,as a convenience store and the gas pumps,there would--there would be an allowance to allow for it. But the problem is is the gas station that has a convenience store isn't two separate uses. It's one use. It's a gas station that has an indoor square footage that provides convenience commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if he's expanding the convenience commercial,which is a convenience store,and he's not expanding the gas portion of it,how would that be a problem? Maybe he ought to--you know, I think instead of trying to research and understand that at a public meeting, if he could come in and supply more details to--either he can contact myself or Ray Bellows or Mike Bosi,either through your office or call us direct,that might be a way to start looking at this a little differently. I don't know what to tell you as an answer to--sitting here today. MS.ARNOLD: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this isn't dealing--this is only allowing prohibited uses to actually be allowed. So the worst-case scenario is, if he feels he was prohibited before,he could at least apply as a conditional use now. MS.BETANCOURT: No,not in that area. MS.ARNOLD: No,this is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Oh,you're not in this area? MS.ARNOLD: No. This is on Main Street,which strictly prohibits the uses,and that's part of the problem. And so I guess why I'm wanting to get clarification is that if we allow nonconforming uses to at least improve themselves and not expand,that would be a provision,and it would still allow or would still limit the new,you know,fuel islands on Main Street. But this--this language,I think,prohibits any modifications for improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area that's now--on that map we're talking about,it's in the blue area; is that what they're saying? MS.CILEK: Yes. It's along Main Street. MS.ARNOLD: Yeah,between 1st and 9th. MS.CILEK: In the blue area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not changing anything in that area,are we? MS.CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not going to be something that's going to be resolved with this issue at all. MS. CILEK: Right. It really depends on what he wants to do and if he would fall into 9.03.02 and what the requirements are for nonconforming. So it's really specific to what he's looking to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'd be better off having a one-on-one with him-- MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and trying to find a solution. You will not find a solution at this meeting tonight. That's not what we're here about. MR.BOSI: Chair,you are correct. It's an existing nonconforming use by the current code, so this amendment doesn't have any effect one way or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any impact. MS.ARNOLD: But I thought a part of what was being--where did this amendment originate, Page 17 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 though? Was that a staff-initiated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It was a CRA-initiated.Your department. MS.ARNOLD: Yeah,I know. That's why-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're the one that's at fault,right? See,two weeks,and you get the blame. MS.ARNOLD: Right. And my understanding,or at least what I'm being told, is that we--initially was asking to make that modification but it didn't get modified,but-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could I ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not familiar with that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd like to know what language Michelle is concerned about. Michelle,could you-- MS.ARNOLD: It's under prohibited use,Paragraph C. The Item No. 3 says,facilities with fuel pumps is a prohibited use. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to read the definition of facility with fuel pump? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've all experienced that way far too many times. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,they might want to hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Any establishment that sells,distributes,or pumps fuels for motor vehicles whether or not such facility provides automotive repair services or includes a convenience store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And when was that--when was that definition established? This year,right? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: 2015,I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,when was this gas station built? MS.BETANCOURT: Way back when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So maybe we better looks at ways of making this gas station work within the time frame and confines in which it was built to and defined at the time. It's a little different than what it is today, so I would hope that we're not going to fall back on trying to say that they're meeting today's standards when they're a nonconforming use that has certain abilities to go forward based on that use, so--I don't know how to get there today,Michelle. MS.ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was something, if it had been brought up previously,we might have been able to fit it in,but right now it's hard for this board to do zoning on the fly, so... MS.ARNOLD: Well--and I guess part of my question is whether or not we originally were asking to remove that as a prohibited use,and that's why--that's a part of the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know in the Main Street section it was ever being asked to be removed as prohibited. I know there was an area that was being removed at the time. MS.ARNOLD: Oh,okay. So-- MS.BETANCOURT: We asked--Christy Betancourt again. I'm sorry. We asked--our advisory board came to us and said,we want to make it more business friendly down Main Street. So we asked--Mark Strain,you came to our meeting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BETANCOURT: --and you suggested--you know,we're not going to--we pretty much,you know,are going to allow you--not remove all the prohibited but allow you for conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was suggesting you'd be better off if you turned them-- MS.BETANCOURT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --from prohibited uses to uses by right to take a baby step. Take them from prohibited to conditional and then go forward. MS.BETANCOURT: So when Caroline and Richard did a presentation at our meeting,the Board agreed to leave that area from 1st to 9th as prohibited on Main Street. So they did originally want to change all of that area that's in black. I don't know if you can see it. Page 18 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in blue on ours,but-- MS.BETANCOURT: The whole area that's in black. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then they came back and modified it to only the yellow areas. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.BETANCOURT: And they left the blue alone.But we did have some community members as well as a couple advisory board members wanting to remove the prohibitive uses in that area. Because we currently have two gas stations there. We had a third gas station there that was not allowed to operate as a gas station again once it closed down. So right now if those two gas stations were to close down,they would not be able to operate,correct? MS.CILEK: Would you mind repeating the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think from-- MS.BETANCOURT: On--in Main Street. So that's where the Board decided to allow that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't believe that from this board's perspective--I mean,personally,I don't care whether you want the entire area in black to go from prohibited to conditional,but the way it's been presented it's two different pieces. MS.BETANCOURT: The advisory board-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it doesn't really matter to anybody unless you guys have a--if you--what does the Board want to do? MS.BETANCOURT: They wanted to prohibited(sic)that area,keep it prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then, let's leave it like that,and if this property owner wants to come in and pursue a way to expand or deal with this nonconforming use,let's look at that separately and not completely upset the apple cart for one particular piece of property. MS.BETANCOURT: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that will be a better way to approach it,and safer for the time-- MS.BETANCOURT: And we're in the works of having communication with Ray Bellows. He is working with Chris Scott on his property right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good move. MS.BETANCOURT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if I can be of any help,please contact my office. I'll do everything I can to help you, so... Okay. I think that gets us back to the balance of the language for this prohibited uses going to conditional uses. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public registered to speak on this? MR.BOSI: Other than Michelle,none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any members of the public here who would like to speak on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close that portion of the hearing and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. And I will read the sections like I did before so it will hopefully help focus on exactly the pieces that we're talking about. And this is easy. Is there a motion for LDC Section 2.03.07 for the overlay zoning districts for the Immokalee Main Street overlay? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. That was a motion to approve,right? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) Page 19 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. That gets us past the issues involving Immokalee tonight. So for anybody that's remaining here,I'd like to move to what the public's interests are by quantity of members of the public here. I think,Gary and Jeff,you're each here for one unit--one item apiece. Conservation Collier seems to be the next one. I think there's two--at least two for Conservation Collier. Go ahead,Mike. MR.BOSI: Chair,we have two for 3.05.07,preserve standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's--now,is that preserve standards involving the signage or preserve standards involving Conservation Collier? MS.CILEK: One for Conservation Collier and one for the identification of preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let's do those two next. Let's take--numerically the first one up would be what,No.9,identification of preserves? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is one that this board's reviewed before as the Planning Commission.We need to vote on it both tonight as the EAC and the Planning Commission after discussion. From last time around,I don't have any additional questions. That was one we had finished. Does anybody else on the Board have any additional? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline,do you have anything you want to add? MS.CILEK: I do not,but we do have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: --speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's call our speaker or speakers. MR. BOSI: Mr.Gary Beyrent. MR.BEYRENT: For the record,I'm Garrett Beyrent. What I planned to do was--I had no idea how much time I had to speak. It looks like three minutes now, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. For you,Gary, it's only a minute. MR.BEYRENT: I know. It should be,really.It makes up for all those hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not--we're pretty informal with the time,but just--please just get to your point,and we'll be fine. MR.BEYRENT: Okay. What it is is essentially I wanted to add language to this particular element of the Land Development Code,and I'll read you the language and explain to you why I wanted to add it. This has to do with a--it's actually a request to transfer required on-site preservation land to off site, and I knew there basically-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're on the wrong one. This is the signage. Do you have anything to comment on preservation signs? MR.BEYRENT: No. This was--this was actually preservation mitigation is what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the one-- MS.CILEK: Conservation Collier. MR.BEYRENT: Is it on the agenda at all tonight? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. MR.BEYRENT: Okay. Page 20 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that was the one I thought you were here for,but I think someone told me you were here for the other one,and now you-- MR.BEYRENT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you resume your seat for a minute,and we'll-- MR.BEYRENT: I will. I'll gladly sit down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll let you back up here in just a minute. MR.BEYRENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that takes us past--this is not No.9,then,Caroline. What I think-- MS. CILEK: Let's go to No. 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --he's for is No. 10,right? MS.CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let's look at 9 and--8 and 9 right now and get out of those since we're already in them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page--well,Nos. 8 and 9 on are on pages-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Fifty-nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --59 and 65. Those are ones we've heard before as the Planning Commission. We discussed them,and staff has provided them to us based on our previous review. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We need EAC review on these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we're going to have to vote twice. Make a motion two different times,but I want to make sure on those two items,LDC Sections 3.05.04 and 3.05.07,do any members of the Planning Commission have any additional comments from what we previously had reviewed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline,do you have anything you want to add? MS.CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,are there any public speakers? MR. BOSI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here that would like to speak on either of those two items? And these are preservation sign requirements and identification of preserves. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion for LDC Section,first,3.05.04 and 3.05.07 first as the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Charlette. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Same LDC sections as the-- sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council; is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. Page 23. of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Charlette, seconded by 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Okay. Number 9 is LDC Section 3.05.07 for identification of preserves. This is one,again,we previously reviewed. As the Planning Commission, is there a motion for that one? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make the motion; so moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Same LDC section for the Environmental Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette,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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay. That takes us down to--we're going with Gary,and I'm going to--Terri,would you like a break now or after this next one? THE COURT REPORTER: After is fine. Page 22 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move into No. 10,which is--we have at least two people here for that,because I know that's why we're here for Alex,too. So the LDC Section 3.05.07 is the one that's coming up,and it's concerning the monetary payment for land donations in reserve--in consideration to offsite preservation. There's been a lot of discussions with staff on this matter,especially after the Planning Commission's last position on it. Before I get into that,we'll entertain our public speaker and then we'll have Alex. Gary, if you want to come up,and we'll start you over again. Sony about that. MR.BEYRENT: Once again,I'm Garrett Beyrent.I'm not really positive how I'm supposed to approach this but,basically,what I intended to do was just request that language be added to the upland preserve requirements for particular PUDs. And what I wanted to do was I wanted to have offsite mitigation,okay,of required on-site preservation of native vegetation to be permitted at a ratio of 2-to-1 acres that would be if it's adjacent to other preservation areas in or out of the urban area. And what I was trying to do was I was trying to eliminate required on-site upland preservation that didn't function for any habitat benefit. And it was something I learned from--when they created the Eastern Collier plan,they came up with Transfer of Development Rights. They came up with sending areas and receiving areas and neutral areas,and they clustered the development in the form of villages so that,essentially,you'd have a tremendous amount of native vegetation remaining around. And I thought,that's a really great idea. Too bad we didn't think about that about 40 years ago. But what I was thinking--and this happened only recently. I walked out of a Walmart,and I saw an upland preserve in the parking lot. And I thought,well,that's interesting. Nice--it's all trees. And I walked into it,and as I walked in,I looked, it was just littered with garbage.It had,like,beer cans and wine bottles, and it turned into a homeless camp is what it was. I thought,that's a little odd to be in Walmart a parking lot. And then I went back several--about a month later and they had cleaned it up,because that's part of the requirement,apparently. But it didn't function at all for the benefit of the environment.And I'm talking specifically about animals. And I was somewhat shocked by the fact that Nancy Payton,two months ago,made a similar comment about how the upland preserves in the urban area didn't really benefit anybody,the people or the animals. And I had a PUD in particular that I've been reworking now that actually is directly on the interstate. It doesn't have a single bird on it. Twenty-four acres,there's not a single bird on it. And Commissioner Henning made a comment about a similar area. He said,there's no animals on that property. There's nothing there. And what it is is we forget that we start preserving areas that don't function for anything other than for us to look at them,you know. And the animals don't go there. They don't like to be around people in particular. And so my idea here was that I wanted to add language where I could provide an area adjacent to anywhere,whether it's in the urban area or out in the Eastern Collier County,where you could provide three times as much land in exchange for one piece of preserve area that you would right now have to have in a PUD,and that would be--right now the upland requirement ranges from 15 percent to 25 percent,and it doesn't really function for the benefit of anybody or anything. I'm mostly concerned mostly about the wildlife because I think that if we're going to start preserving areas,we ought to preserve functional habitat. So that's what I essentially was--would be a tradeoff where you can do offsite mitigation of your required upland preserve,but you'd have to do it at a ratio of--for every one acre you want to be able to use that would have been designated as an upland preserve in a PUD,you'd have to provide three acres of offsite upland preserve,and it could be in the urban area or out in Eastern Collier County. Wherever it was provided it was adjacent to an existing preservation area. And that's it. Basically,I wanted to put that language in. I just didn't know how to do it because I've never done it before. I've actually done it in the real world,but not through the process of a Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,this particular amendment is exactly about everything you just said. Page 23 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 MR.BEYRENT: Oh,wow. That's really good. I just--I read the 29 pages that Dwight Brock's office gave me. I said,this would take me about an hour to do a presentation on this,every other element of it. But,essentially,what I just stated was what I wanted to do is amend language so that required upland preserves in the--particularly in the urban area be transferred to a functional preservation area. That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What this amendment does is provide a means in which to use offsite preserves in lieu of on-site preserves. The problem is, it incentivizes things in the wrong direction,and there's going to be more discussion on that in a little while. MR.BEYRENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't get exactly to an exchange rate because that seems to be the problem right now,what is that exchange rate. You said 2 to 1. MR.BEYRENT: I said 3 to 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,3 to 1. What would you sell Magnolia Pond for per acre? MR.BEYRENT: Well,I have no idea because it was--originally I intended to develop it as multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then,say it's a hundred thousand an acre,because in a multifamily,what are you going to fit, 10 units per acre, 12 units per acre? MR.BEYRENT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to be at least a hundred thousand per acre. So you go out in the rural area and you buy 3 to 1,so you buy--you have one acre,and you're going to go out and buy three acres. You pay 4,000 an acre for the three acres. So you just made$88,000.Congratulations. And that's the issue that--that's the hole in-- MR.BEYRENT: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the hole in this program that is not fixed in what we have in front of us today. MR.BEYRENT: Oh,okay. I didn't realize that because,unfortunately,my--I'm redoing my Magnolia Pond,now that you mention it,and I've discovered that nobody over 55 years old in their right mind wants to be between a high school and an elementary school,and I learned from reading the paper about Bonita Springs. It's just--it's a thing. When we get old--I'm old. I'm 68 years old,and I can tell you something,I don't want to live right next to a high school or an elementary school, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to--we're going to take a break right now,but when we come back,we're going to resume this discussion on this particular item, so stay tuned. MR. BEYRENT: Okay. I don't have to talk anymore,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. MR.BEYRENT: Good,okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard your input and we thank you for it. And let's take a 10-minute break and come back at 6:35. MR.BEYRENT: Very good. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody,please take their seats. We'll move forward with the one we left off on. We left off on LDC preservation standards,Conservation Collier,for 3.05.07. And we have one other speaker,Mike. MR.BOSI: Marisa Carrozzo. MS.CARROZZO: Very close. Marisa Carrozzo with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about the amendment tonight. The original purpose of revisiting this LDC provision was to ensure that Conservation Collier was receiving an adequate management endowment for long-term maintenance when the offsite preservation option was utilized. And this amendment has expanded somewhat in discussions with the various committees including Conservation Collier and the Development Services Advisory Committee. So there was a lot of discussion on these options. And I did want to point out one of the Page 24 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 recommendations that came out of it that the Conservancy's very supportive of was wrapping the initial exotics removal cost into the management endowment in order to streamline long-term management instead of the current practice which allows--has the developer remove the exotics originally and then donate the parcel. Doing it this way reduces the risk of having re-establishment of those exotic invasives on the property. So in terms of the monetary contribution for this amendment,the Conservancy had recommended earlier in this process that if the payment in lieu option was going to be modified,that it should correlate a little bit more closely with the methodology that was used for the monetary contribution from the Landings at Bear's Paw. That approach had the per-acre monetary contribution prorated based on the actual cost of the acquisition of the land that was being developed. For example,to use the Landings as a further example here,the 10.75 acres cost 1.5 million to acquire,and the preserve was .74 acres,and that would--resulted in a prorated valuation of$103,255 per acre. So the Conservancy believes that this proration would more accurately capture the cost-benefit ratio which can be realized by developers who exercise the option to remove their on-site preserve from urban developments. And to kind of give an example,for both the CCLAC and the DSAC recommendations,using the Landings,we would look at probably$64,000 from the CCLAC option and from DSAC about 37,000. So with the addition of the exotics removal cost and an increased overall management endowment, the Conservancy would like to see this prorated method further explored for the payment in lieu option. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other speakers,Mike? MR.BOSI: No,Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is one that the Planning Commission did talk about at length last time it came before us. I've had subsequent discussions with Conservation Collier's representative,Alex Sulecki,and staff and,honestly,I think that we were approaching this completely wrong,and we have other methods--other issues that need to be resolved. An example is the exchange rate of the acreage to the acreage that's being moved off site. The example that I just provided when Mr.Beyrent came up and talked is a typical example. Developers--first of all, if this number was fairly pegged and,basically,your development--your development potential of the acreage being gained is equal to the property value,and if that was the monetary required contribution somewhere that produces an equivalent amount,they would join,they would say, simply,well,fine,we'll buy offsite land. We'll take that one acre,and we'll give you a 3-to-1 ratio or a 4-to-1 or a 2-to-1,or whatever,because--you know why? You can buy that offsite land in a rural area real cheap. It's vacant land. And it's wetland, so it's hard to develop,so they're selling it at a discount rate. So you pay 4-, 5-, 10,000 an acre. Your net gain is tremendous. That's not being addressed by this as it should be. It's going to force people-- it's going to incentivize people to buy environmentally sensitive land off site but not at a ratio that's equivalent to the land they're gaining. We should--and when Collier--Conservation Collier was voted in by the voters of Collier County; it was done twice. It wasn't a borderline vote; it was a big vote. It was popular. People in this county wanted the green space. They wanted the preservation space. And it's not just preservation space for species. It's green space for people. We have the healthiest, happiest,believe it or not,community in the state of Florida. It's--we're number--actually nation. We're number one in the nation,and we just got that rating in January/February. We didn't get there because we're solid asphalt and concrete like the other coast is. We got there because we have plenty of open space,green space,and call it what you want,preservation interspersed with the development.That brings higher prices for our development,higher prices for our land,and developers are able to make more money because they have a character in a community that's well sought out that people want. Page 25 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 This should be striving for that. This should be striving to dis-incentivize people moving preservation off site so our urban area has what little remnants of green space available to it,whether you call it for species,whether you call it for wetlands,whether you call it for whatever.We need to be keeping that. We should not be incentivizing it to be leaving our area. And then when we've got the rural areas,we've got four re-plannings going in process right now. We've got the RFMUD,we've got the Golden Gate Estates,we've got the RLSA,and then we've got Immokalee. Several of those could easily be beneficial unto themselves for creating more preservation without the little drops in the bucket that this program for offsite management would provide. So instead of taking it out of our urban area and pushing it all out where we're going to have plenty anyway, let's try to retain as much as we can by dis-incentivizing the program. And that would mean a complete rewrite of what's being proposed here today. And I'm not even suggesting this be passed. I think both--however you call it,CCLAC and DSAC, they approached it like they saw the prevalent attitude from their perspective. But,you know what, I bet you if you went and talked to people,we should be dis-incentivizing the removal of these properties out to the east and keeping more of it in the urban area so we keep our values up in the urban area and the character that we've got. And that's--I mean,I can't say it any differently than that. That's where I'm coming from on this. And I know Alex is here,but-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But I have a question,and that is--and I understand what you're saying, but that's more a function of how much green space do we want when things are being developed,right?I mean,this is preservation. And there's going to be situations where what would be preserved on site isn't--wouldn't really be a functional preservation area. It's not contiguous to another preservation area. I mean,there are valid reasons to have someone mitigate off site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's already allowed by our code for the situation up to one acre. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this board went so far,as the Board of County Commissioners did, is to say,well,we'll do it up to 1.39 acre. But this would be a wholesale change in that. The acreage could go to much greater than that,and we would then eliminate larger swaths of land that we may value as part of the urban area. I mean,New York City got so bad they had to have Central Park. And,Andy,we do currently allow offsite mitigation,but we limit the amount. This is not working in the direction I think that--I thought at least. I'm just one member on this board. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm with you 110 percent.No. I'm with you 110 percent because, you're right,there are things coming up that I know where they're just trying--oh,we'll just go off site.Well, yeah. And like your example of, sure,you just made$88,000. It is not right,because they make millions more for the land that they use close in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and,Caroline,this seems to address only the monetary exchange. It doesn't address the ratio of acreage to acreage; is that a true statement? MS.CILEK: Yes. So it does change the monetary 125 percent Provision A,and then B--the only part that's changing about B is the long-term maintenance cost of it,not the ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See,the problem there is by changing just one and not the other,we're going to force everybody into the other,because it's the simplest and least expensive way to go. So unless we look at them both at the same time and balance them together,I don't think this is the right program to go forward with. And I'm just wondering, is that something that you can rewrite quickly by our next meeting or-- MS.CILEK: No. That would need to be--we would need to work with staff,and then we would also need to vet it with CCLAC and DSAC. The Board did direct that they provide something to the Board. With the Planning Commission's recommendation,we can go back and try to do a third option to look at these and address both A and B. But we would need time to do that,and we would need to vet it with those stakeholder groups. Page 26 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alex is here,and I know she is in charge of Conservation Collier. Alex,can you weigh in on this in any manner,or based on your experience with your board? MS. SULECKI: Good evening. This is Alex Sulecki. I'm the coordinator for Conservation Collier. And I believe that a thoughtful suggestion for another way to handle this amendment would be well received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you like the idea of addressing both of the methodologies for offsite preserves both the quantity--the acreage ratio as well as the monetary? Because if you don't fix them both,one is then going to be utilized more than the other,and it's going to be--and if they're not comparable in value,I'm not sure we're gaining anything out of that. MS. SULECKI: My understanding was the amendment did address both the monetary-- MS. CILEK: Perhaps I'm mistaken. MS. SULECKI: --and the land donation with the endowment. There was a recommendation on both from the DSAC and CCLAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the endowment addressed both,but I wasn't sure that the ratio of acreage or value of the acreage acquired is equivalent to the offsetting number of the acreage gained. MS. SULECKI: Well,there was not an exchange rate discussed other than one-to-one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was my concern. That's exactly what I was worried about. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I think at our last meeting I mentioned that multiplier as one way to go at it,and that was captured in the staff notes that--Caroline, so that might be what you were thinking of. The other piece of this,to add to your comment,was the fact that if there was--if a developer decided to go off site,the amount of money that then would be required would be real money to actually,you know,complete some of these areas that we've already identified,and I think that would be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,see,if we looked at combining the monetary payment with an alternative for acreage and we hand picked the acreages that Conservation Collier's trying to acquire, such as Winchester Head,and stuff like that,and incentivized those pointed acreages by percentages of some way, that would not only give an alternative that's more viable to the development community but it would provide a ratio that's fair for what's gained,and it would focus and incentivize where Conservation Collier wants to pinpoint. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And it would complete some of those contiguous parcels that we've been working on,and I think that would be a benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to see this considered in that manner,but this is just--this is a--I mean, I don't--we've got--everybody's got to weigh in on it and see what we want to do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Alex,would you mind bringing this back the next cycle so this can be worked on a little more thoroughly? MS. SULECKI: I'm happy to do whatever is directed. If that's-- MS. CILEK: I'm happy to work with Alex and take it through the--perhaps not the 2016 cycle, because that's very short time frame. It may need more time than that,but we will make sure that it is worked on diligently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I would rather see that than try to proceed with this with so many questions left unanswered and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'm going to agree with you. I believe the same thing,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a pressing need to see this finished moving-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,but I'm agreeing with you and Diane. I just want to make a little comment. Something Gary said kind of piqued my interest. It's come up a lot,the question of how successful gopher tortoise preserves are. He was talking about you do a preserve and you preserve animals,and they're not there anymore. And the question has been asked a lot. We had a lot of gopher tortoise preserves for a long time that were held. And,you know,they're not talking about just preserving green space. It's a gopher tortoise preserve. I'm curious,does anybody know how successful they are after five years? Does anybody ever go Page 27 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 back and double-check them? Is there any program?I know it's kind of a little far afield from the subject,but is there a monitoring thing on that? MS. SULECKI: We do monitor our gopher tortoises on Conservation Collier land. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You do? MS. SULECKI: When we have them,yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How big are your parcels that you have them on? How do you fence the parcels in? MS. SULECKI: We don't fence it in. It's--in particular,I'm thinking of the Nancy Payton preserve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How big is it? MS. SULECKI: Seventy-six acres. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Yeah. But I'm talking about we have a lot of very--that would be a good upper limit. I'm talking about,does anybody know,you know,for a couple-acre preserve,a 10-acre preserve,a 50-acre preserve?I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I could make a comment, Stan. Gopher tortoises are living among the residents on Marco Island. I mean,they live on the vacant single-family lots in some areas. And it doesn't take a large area to sustain gopher tortoises,along with our burrowing owls that are also living on vacant single-family lots in residential neighborhoods on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have a different type of environment out there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A lot of these preserves I know were treed areas,and these things grow,and gopher tortoises need the occasional fire to give them an understory so they have stuff that they can eat. And if you don't allow the fire to come in every now and then,they just run out of food source. So I'm just--I'm just curious if anybody's going into some of these older preserves and seeing if there are still any gopher tortoises in there.And if it's not holding gopher tortoises,why call it a gopher tortoise preserve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To get us back on track,would you mind asking Summer to contact Stan and let him know what her department does to oversee this? MR.BOSI: Noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will get there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any other comments on this Conservation Collier one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is LDC Section 3.05.07,and it needs a recommendation,well,I would assume to proceed--do you need anything other than our discussion,Caroline,or what would you-- MS.CILEK: Recommendation to vet this and look at,you know,A and B again through a different alternative would be great,and then we will take it forward into a future cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.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 ROMAN: Aye. Page 28 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. So of the ones we've discussed so far, 10 is not going to happen. So that takes us to,I think,the next one,and I notice Jeff has been patiently waiting. You two ladies,are you here for anyone in particular? If you're not,that's fine. I just want to make sure we don't leave you stranded over there. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So,Jeff,we're going to move into the discussion on the electrical engineering one,and that is Item No. 11. It's LDC Section 6.06.03 and 10.02.11. The Planning Commission last time had a discussion about an electrical engineer versus a PE and then since then it's come to light there's been some other changes,and I asked Jack McKenna to attend because originally I had been very concerned about how this happened if it was an electrical engineer doing high-voltage electrical work with streetlights. Jack had spent some time going over the processes with different departments at the county to see how the planning for streetlights was actually submitted. And,Jack,would you mind coming up and explaining to us what you discovered from the aspect of the electrical engineering and when it's needed and how it happens? MR.McKENNA: Sure. For the record,Jack McKenna. Basically,the streetlight plans that are submitted with the SDPs or the PPLs are a--more of a planning concept. They're not the detailed engineering of the electrical voltage drops,the services,the phasing. That's reviewed at the building permit stage as is the structural integrity of the poles. And so it was staff's opinion that the need for someone with the specific electrical engineering background isn't so relevant at that submittal point for the PPL or the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I--at the time we discussed that,that wasn't relayed to us,and we were looking at just dropping the word"electrical"and leaving it as an engineer. And that raises some concerns over how dangerous this electricity is versus water,for example,and what some of the hydraulics and the loads are then how they differ. Since then I've been contacted by Jeff Curl,who's here today,he's a landscape architect,and he says that he has been doing electrical--or street-lighting plans in the county for quite a bit of time and that he offers that service to his clients,that surprised me. And he did mention that recently there's been a change in the submittal process at the county,which has caused some of this to come to light. And he--I think he asked to be able to continue his practice like he's always had it. And I'll let Jeff speak for himself in a minute,but that came into play. And I guess the question is,from Caroline's perspective,did we look at the logistics of adding other entities to do street-lighting plans,and how fine is that line,or how clear is that line between the submittals and what is accepted and what isn't,meaning do SDPs ever get approved for streetlights and end up never needing another plan and they go ahead and try and build from that plan,things like that. I don't know if your department's explored all those,and I certainly know you probably haven't vetted or talked about other entities besides PEs doing these plans. I'm not saying we'd even accept that or not,but our basis for understanding it would have to be your department's review of the qualifications of landscape architects as another type of professional who could do those plans and how critical that was in the stage in which they'd do them. Have you done any of that work? MS.CILEK: Those are all good questions. We have not looked into them through this amendment process,and we would like the opportunity to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So out of fairness to the landscape architects that have been doing this,I don't think it's something that we want to dismiss and rush to get this approved without knowing that. And I don't know if there's any harm done leaving the status quo like it is and then just dealing with this as another add-on for you to go back and research and come back to us with. Does anybody feel uncomfortable with that as an idea? Page 29 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I like it,because every once in a while you will see somebody put a lot of tree in front of a light. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All the time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All the time,yeah. Sorry,Jeff. Now,Jeff wouldn't do that,but an electrical engineer might. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then,I think--and I think--I think this one's gotten to a point where we probably need some more research done to make it,and however that would happen. So,Caroline,is this one that you would,again,ask us to ask you to do further research on as a motion and then that's how it will go forward? MS.CILEK: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there such a motion by anybody for-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --LDC Section 6.06.03 and 10.02.11? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,I'm sorry.Jeff,did you want to say anything,or are you content with the way we're heading? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Let him talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm sorry. I'll interrupt the motion. The motion's on the floor.It's been seconded. We'll--this is discussion. MR.CURL: Very quickly. Jeff Curl,for the record. No. I just want to compliment staff,quite honestly. I don't think they were even aware that we're out there. I'm sure there may be some architects that design lighting as well,not just landscape architects. Lighting designers also work for lighting distribution companies, so there are other entities out there as well that do lighting design in this capacity that we're talking about. Nothing to do with loading wire amperages connecting back to a house panel. So,again,just want to thank staff,and really appreciate the opportunity to move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS.CILEK: And we'll reach out to Jeff and to other landscape architects and--architects to provide input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we're going to fix it,let's just fix it once and be done with it. Okay. So we'll pull that from the LDC cycle at this point. And the motion's been made, seconded. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us down to No. 12. Well,first of all,let's look in our--is anybody in the audience here for a specific item that's on--that's remaining here tonight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to 12, 13,and 14, in that order,and then we'll go back up and vote on the ones that we've already finished earlier,prior to No. 6. Number 12 is amend the temporary use section to address community markets on private property. And whose is that? Jeremy's,okay. MR.FRANTZ: So there have been a couple of--sony,Jeremy Frantz,for the record. Page 30 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 There have been a couple of changes to this amendment since you saw it on--for the April 21st meeting. First was the removal of the termination of convenience provision. We found that that section was not really necessary,as Code of Laws Section 55-15 currently provides a set of standards for the revocation of permits. So there wasn't anything new needed in this amendment. We also made modifications to the sections regarding federal,state,and local licenses, insurance and/or permits. We--you can see that modification on Page--give me one second-- 89 in proposed Section A.2.0 where we have made the standard consistent with the way that temporary--with the standards for temporary markets on county property. So the change,essentially,requires market operators to verify that vendors obtain those licenses, permits,or whatever is required from federal, state,or local agencies. In speaking to one farmers market operator,we found that this kind of thing is already being done at some farmers markets through their application process for vendors. The final change to the amendment is the removal of any changes to the temporary sign section. So this means that temporary market events will simply comply with the existing standards for all other special events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've seen it before,so I didn't expect too much. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just one on the change that's on Page 89. So the intent is just to say that the market operators are going to comply with whatever other regulations they have to comply with,either federal or other state ones? MR.FRANTZ: Yeah. The market operators would verify that the individual vendors are obtaining those permits or licenses. So the market operator that we spoke to,you know, simply in their application process, includes a check box to,you know, identify that,yes,we're aware that we need a certification for this type of activity. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If they're cooking food or whatever. MR.FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Whatever they need to sell food or whatever,that they're going to have that,and they provide that,then,to the market operator,and then you'd just get it from one person,whoever's operating the market,in the application process. That makes sense. MR.FRANTZ: I don't know that the county would expect to see all of those licenses,simply to-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's just a verification. MR. FRANTZ: --see that the market operator is verifying that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you're going to change the spelling of vendors? MR. FRANTZ: Yes,we are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see,that's something Scott would have picked up. And I have one comment on 5.04.05.A.1.D--or C,maximum of 25 percent of the vehicle use area may be occupied or otherwise rendered unusable by the placement of temporary structures,equipment and merchandise associated with a special event,unless equivalent additional offsite parking is provided. I'd like to add the word--I think the word"equivalent"ought to be there;that way we get a one-to-one. MS. CILEK: We can do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You did see Terri smiling,didn't you,because you were reading so fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Terri likes to type fast, I can tell. Okay. I don't have anything else. I don't know if the rest of you do. I think we're all finished with this one. There's no registered or--are there any members--there's nobody. Gary,you don't want to address this one,do you? MR.BEYRENT: Me? Page 31 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Is there a recommendation-- MR.BEYRENT: I've got a question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --for LDC Section 5.04.05,temporary events? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR.FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Let's move to No. 13,which is the corrections that we had from last time for the schools,charter schools and the various zoning districts. Caroline made the corrections we asked about from last time. I don't know if anybody has any other things they want to ask. It looked as complete as I thought it needed to be. I don't know if anybody else had anything they wanted to say about it. If not-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just--what does that mean,this LDCA does not apply to the Collier County Public School district? Why is that there? MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. The Collier County School District has an existing interlocal agreement;therefore,they were exempt from the amendments that are being proposed. These were designed for public schools that have no interlocal agreement for compatibility review existing between the county and the school district. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not a private school,a public school? MR.BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,do we have a-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll go ahead and move to make the motion to move this forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the item that we're voting on is LDC Sections 2.03.01,2.03.02, 2.03.03,and 2.0--I mean,and 5.05.14. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion made by Charlette? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan, seconded. 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. Page 32 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to the last one that needs--scheduled for discussion,and that is the administrative minor after-the-fact encroachment provision. It's LDC Section 9.04.04. And that starts on Page 105. It's the last couple pages of the entire packet. This actually came about to clarify issues that the staff has been finding problematic in the way the language was previously written. MS.CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've already asked my questions of staff,so I don't have any I need to waste your time with,so--I understand it. So with that... MS.CILEK: I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Do you guys have anything to add,or are we fine? MS.CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion for section--LDC Section 9.04.04 for after-the-fact encroachments? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Now we have to go back up to the top and talk about--and vote on Items 1 through 5. These have been vetted already by us,the changes have been made by staff. They're noted on our sheets as ready for approval. And I'll read them off,and if someone wants to make a motion or have a discussion--there's no members of the public here,I believe,interested in Items 1 through 5. Is anybody in the public interested in those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. First LDC section is 3.02.10 and 5.03.06. Discussion? If not, is there-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Stan, seconded by Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 33 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Second LDC section is 4.05.10. It's the required parking for residential mail delivery locations. Is there any discussion on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And let Diane note that she said it was sad. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's sad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's sad. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can't have a mailbox in front of your house now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next section is LDC section-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wafaa isn't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --6.02.06 and 6.02.07. It's to replace the level of service language that cross-references to the GMP CIE. Any discussion on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Page 34 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 Just so everybody that might be watching or interested,these are all items that we finalized at previous meetings,and they were just held over for votes tonight,so we are familiar with the language. We're just not simply voting on it. Item No.4 is LDC Section 10.02.03. It's the architectural improvements through SDPI. Any discussion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Stan,seconded by Karen. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The last one up is LDC Section 1.08.02,2.03.03,2.03.06,2.03.08,3.05.10,4.06.02,4.06.05,and 5.06.00 to amend various LDC sections to correct scrivener's errors. Is there discussion from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Any further 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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Now,what else do you want to do tonight,Caroline? MS.CILEK: I have two additional things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: One,I do need to make the request that staff can address any spelling errors,typos, grammar issues that we fmd in the LDC amendment text or narratives before we head to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a consensus? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? Page 35 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 (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 ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS.CILEK: Thank you. And the last one is I just want to confirm that we have direction to pursue the affordable option for the FAR issue,for the assisted living facilities,nursing homes. It was mentioned earlier. I just want to make sure we have direction to pursue it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need a formal motion?Well, it won't hurt. Is there a motion to pursue the FAR? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette,seconded by Karen. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. And,Caroline,Rich,and Jeremy,thank you all for a job well done with these LDC amendments. You guys have laid them out better than any--and I've been doing this,what, 15 years now. You're about the best I've ever seen as a team. So thank you-all. MS.CILEK: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Easiest to read every time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. It's come along real well. I think the pattern you guys developed will be one I hope we follow in the future, so... MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,there's no old business listed. There's no new business listed. Anybody here from the public wish to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 36 of 37 "Special Session"LDC/CCPC May 25,2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If nobody's opposed,we're out of here. Thank you-all for your attendance and help. COMMISSIONER EBERT: See you next Thursday. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 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 37 of 37 June 2,2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,June 2,2016 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: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 71 June 2, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the June 2nd 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: If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 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: Okay. We have a long agenda today. Under the addenda to the agenda,I don't know of any further changes. Ray,do you have anything from staffs perspective? MR.BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move right into Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting is June 15th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on June 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. We'll have a quorum that day. Great. We received electronically,or I don't know if some of you may have got it hard copy,approval of minutes. There are two sets. We'll start with the first one,April 21,2016. Are there any changes?If not,is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette,seconded by 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. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0--7-0. Next one is May 5,2016,same action. Anybody wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Move to approve. Page 2 of 71 June 2,2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion maker and second. 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. Ray,BCC report and recaps? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. On May 24th,the Board of County Commissioners heard the Davis/Radio rezone.That was approved on their summary agenda subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Chairman's report;I've got nothing unusual to talk about today,so we'll move right into the other items. Consent agenda;there's no items carried over from the last meeting,which takes us to our first advertised public meeting. For the benefit of the public,we have three land use actions today,and the order in which they'll be taken is the order in which the agenda calls out. Highview is the first one;the Grace Romanian Church,also known as the RMC Enclave RPUD,is the second one;and then the Onyx RPUD is the third one. ***So we'll start with the first one,which is 9A. It's PUDZ-PL20140002809. It's the Highview Roost Road RPUD off of Manatee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to talk on this item,please stand up and be sworn in. This is for the Roost Road project. So if you're going to speak,you need to rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start way over with Tom Eastman. MR.EASTMAN: Several months back I did speak with a transportation engineer regarding this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself,I've had a lot of discussion with the applicant,applicant's representatives,and staff. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Just staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move right into the presentation. This is an item that's been continued a couple of times for some changes that were needed involving the lake and other Page 3 of 71 June 2,2016 issues. So,Patrick,I'll let you continue. MR.VANASSE: Okay. Good morning. My name is Patrick Vanasse. I'm a certified planner with RWA.It's my pleasure to be here this morning to discuss this Highview Roost Road rezoning petition. With me this morning I have our ecologist,Craig Smith,with us. I've got Norm Trebilcock for transportation;Mark Sunyak,our project engineer; and Ashley Caserta,also a planner with RWA;and I think our land use attorney should be coming shortly also. I believe we made some recent changes to the PUD exhibits. About a week ago you should have received a copy of that via email. We brought some hard copies with us if you need those. Should I hand those out or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're the same as what we received,I think we'll start with that first, and we'll see where it goes. MR.VANASSE: Yeah. You should have received it via email about a week ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy,what he's talking about, is that the one that was in our packet? MS.GUNDLACH: No. It's the one that was emailed. Could you hand them out,please,Patrick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was the one that was over 10 pages? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So,yes,you'll have to hand them out because,by the Planning Commission's previous policy, if it's over 10 pages it needs to be delivered to us in hard copy. We're not obligated to have to print those items out.None of us have printers supplied by the county. MR.VANASSE: Well,the changes were pretty minor details in working with staff that were changed kind of last minute;however,the request today before you is relatively simple. We are asking for rezone from mobile home to residential PUD. It's relatively simple in that it's a 22-acre,essentially, infill project,and we are asking for only single-family uses. Also,from a density standpoint,we are reducing the potential density on site. We are also reducing the potential traffic impacts,and we have no environmental issues of concern on this site. That being said,we've reviewed staffs report and their findings of consistency and compliance with the Land Development Code and with the Comp Plan. And unless the Board would like a more detailed presentation,we're ready to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean,there's going to be needed some corrections to the current plan that we have,and I haven't reviewed the one that was handed out now,obviously. I reviewed the one that was included in our packet. So I'm sure the questions will be from that one to start with, and I'll turn to my other Planning Commission members first for their comments. Anybody have any comments from the PUD application that's in front of us in our packet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick, let's turn to Development Standards Table on Page 3. MR.VANASSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the cross-section of the lake,which I believe is Page 15,you've got, instead of an LME,you've got an LSB,a lake setback instead of a lake maintenance easement.That lake was an old lake dug decades ago,and so I understand the reasoning for that. But your setbacks in your fifth line of your Development Standards Table reference seven-and-a-half feet rear yard for the principal structure from the perimeter buffer or LME. I think you need to include the lake setback easement in there as well because that's what you have on one lake out of three. MR.VANASSE: I'll direct you to the exhibit.And if we take a look at the lake setback easement, that terminates prior to the landscape buffer easement that goes further into the property, so the principal structure setback and the accessory structure setback would still be based on the landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why does it bother you that we include the lake setback--lake setback easement? MR.VANASSE: We can include it. That's not a problem. I'm just pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got a word"varies"in there,plus you know from my conversations with you the flattop on this easement isn't in the easement. So there is going to have to be Page 4 of 71 June 2,2016 some changes on this plan here. Did you bring any of those for discussion today,or did you resolve how to handle the planting area-- MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --of that 15-foot easement? MR.VANASSE: Yes,we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a detail on that? MR.VANASSE: We haven't modified the exhibit,but I can use this one and discuss this right now if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because what happens is with your flat area for planting,you end up being two feet outside the landscape buffer easement with your required landscaping. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think Patrick's point might be if you sum up the seven-and-a-half foot setback in the 15-foot landscape buffer easement, it's 22-and-a-half feet. Even if the "varies 7-foot minimum to 12-foot maximum"goes down to zero,the 20 is still less than the 22-and-a-half. So I got no problem with them putting that in there. It's redundant,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --engineers like redundancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute,though. If you've got the--if you've--if that"varies" goes down to zero-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's still 20 and less than 22-and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the point would be he needs to go--the rear setback would then need to be measured from the 20-foot lake setback,not the 15-foot landscape buffer easement,right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's the only point I'm making. In looking at the survey they supplied on Page 139 of the original document,the contours of the lake are very close to the property line. On this,they're saying they're going to be 7-foot and 12-foot maximum because they're going to reconfigure. They're going to actually fill in the lake and re-slope the lake to county standards,and that's fine,but it doesn't hurt to include the LBS(sic),the lake-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're right.There's no harm in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just in case something doesn't come out exactly,you've got another standard to have to adhere to for setback. I didn't see the problem with it,to be honest with you. MR.VANASSE: Understood. The clarification was just that let's say we--the reason why it varies is that the lake edge meanders,and in areas we're going to have to backfill,and what we're saying is we're going to provide the seven feet as a minimum from the property line of the water. So that would be where things are the tightest. In some areas it's going to be more generous than that. So looking at that cross-section--and this can be seen as a worst-case scenario,meaning the closest the homes will be to the water. So if you look at this and we make it to the lake setback,it actually benefits us from a development standpoint,meaning that we gain an extra two feet for our setback to the homes,but if we were to measure from the LBE(sic), it's actually inwards closer to the homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'd be looking at the most stringent,not the most flexible. Why would you--so you're saying--you're suggesting that you would pick the one--I would suggest that it would have to--you can't go in a separate tract.First of all,let's establish that. You're going to plat these separately,correct? MR.VANASSE: The buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.VANASSE: Not the lake setback. That won't be platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but you're going to separately plat the buffers. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can't go into another tract, so your measurement's going to Page 5 of 71 June 2,2016 be from that platted tract,the lot that you're on,is that correct,the rear lot line? MR.VANASSE: Right. And the only thing I was pointing out is that the landscape buffer is actually further landward side than the 20-foot setback. We can put"setback" in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you can tell me how you're going to clear up that 5-foot flattop on the easement and get it inside the easement,that might help resolve the concern that I have. MR.VANASSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how are you going to clear that up? MR.VANASSE: So I know this might be a little confusing,but like I said,the water's edge meanders,okay. So right now, if we were to just take the 15-foot buffer and move it towards the homes to include the 5-foot flattop,that means we would be moving it two feet,and instead of our landscaped buffer starting at the property line,we'd have a 2-foot gap,okay-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.VANASSE: --which is uncommon. We're fine with that. But if we--if we show a 2-foot gap, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be a 2-foot gap along the entire property line,because in some instances we can get to the top of berm and the flattop within 15 feet. So my thought was we could show that the landscape buffer could vary from 15 to 17 feet and show that as "varies,"but a minimum of 15-foot would be provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the problem is the way this detail's down, it would be a deviation to our code because you've got the flattop portion of the buffer that requires the buffer planting to be actually in the backyard portion of the ownership of the property you're selling to the property owner,and they could come in and take that out. That was my concern. So what you've got to do is take that 7.5 minimum line and move it closer to the house to pick up the entire five foot and then show the variable. This detail's not going to work because it changes the Land Development Code. And you've not asked for a deviation to do that. MR.VANASSE: So if we were to change this from 17-- 15 to 17 feet,we put"varies,"and we put "minimum 15,"would that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as--see that flattop where you're planting? MR.VANASSE: Yeah,in the line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's got to line up with the exterior edge of your LBE. MR.VANASSE: So the line would be shifted here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. And that works. MR.VANASSE: That works? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy,do you have any problem with that? MS.GUNDLACH: No,I don't. MR.VANASSE: We're going to make that change and bring it back at consent with that change made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,move your drawings so we can see the building's relationship to the setback. Now,it looks like the building has got--it looks like it's possibly a two-story building with a one-story lower side. That might be assumed to be an accessory structure,but here's the other problem. You're asking for the rear yards in that location--all locations to be zero feet. So you're going to go to--how do you go to zero feet and retain your swale,just out of curiosity? MR.VANASSE: We're asking--you're talking about accessory structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.VANASSE: We're not talking about the principal structure, so the principal structure would still be at seven-and-a-half feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.VANASSE: Accessory would possibly encroach within the swale. That swale configuration,I don't think,has been fully designed at this point. So,again,this would only apply to accessory structures,not the principal structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we--that's not something that's abnormal to ask for. We've had it on Page 6 of 71 June 2,2016 other projects,but because of your diagram,I couldn't figure out how you intended to use it,and that's what I was asking. MR.VANASSE: Okay. And going back to the table and identifying the lake setback,what I'd like to point out is,so with this edit,our landscape buffer's going to be shown as this line in blue,and our 20-foot setback terminates right here. So what I'm saying is no matter what we're going to be measuring from the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand now.We're fine. We've dropped the LSB reference. That's fine. On your Exhibit B,development standards notes-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Can I ask a quick question on the chart just to make sure I'm clear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The 7.5,that"minimum"that you've got on the cross-section,does that protrude into the 15-to 17-foot,or it's outside? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's outside. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to separately plat the LBEs,LMEs,and those kind of tracts, so,you know,they can't--they'd be in separate tracts. They can't go outside their lot line, so... MS.ASHTON-CICKO: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You have a seven-and-a-half foot setback between the principal structure and the property line? MR.VANASSE: No, in the buffer. The buffer's going to be platted separately. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Oh. Those units cannot have their own swimming pool or any sizable backyard? MR.VANASSE: It's a minimum. So it could be greater,but that's the minimum. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So let's talk about the minimum,because this is the standard that you included,right? MR.VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do you think seven-and-a-half feet backyard is adequate? MR.VANASSE: They haven't decided exactly what product they're going to put on there, so we've looked at large development envelopes versus something a little smaller. On these smaller development envelopes,there would be space for a pool. On the larger ones,as shown here,there wouldn't be. That's going to be a market decision and a decision by the builder. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I find--personally fmd the seven-and-a-half foot setback very little. In my view, it should be significantly more. I understand that you're talking about minimums and market conditions and individual houses or buildings but,nonetheless,as a minimum standard,I don't think this is adequate at all. MR.VANASSE: And the-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Is there any room to increase it? MR.VANASSE: No. From the standpoint of engineering this design and,also,we're dealing with a lake issue where we've got a lake setback and we have a buffer there. So when we--we're talking about a seven-and-a-half foot minimum setback,that's the smallest their backyard could be. But when you think about it,you're going to have 15-foot--feet of buffer,and the plantings are only a portion of that 15 feet,and then they're going to have a view onto the lake. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Can you put a swimming pool or a screened cage in the buffer? MR.VANASSE: Not in the buffer. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you're limited to seven-and-a-half feet? MR.VANASSE: But I don't think it's a necessity of all projects to provide the ability for a pool. I think that becomes a market decision. Not all owners want that. Plus,if we are going to have to provide pools on every project,we're just going to increase(sic)affordability and increase house prices throughout the county. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I understand. Page 7 of 71 June 2,2016 Did you start with a product that you wanted to put on the side,or how did you arrive at the building envelope? MR.VANASSE: We just looked at a building envelope with identifying the setbacks and what we could build on. We haven't worked with an architect yet to define an actual building footprint. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And in your front yard,minimum setbacks,you've identified 15 feet? MR.VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So do you have garages? MR.VANASSE: It's 15 feet for the principal structure,and the 23 feet from front of garage still applies. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Where do I find that? MR.VANASSE: That would be as part of the footnotes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Part of the footprint(sic)? MR.VANASSE: Footnote No. 1 to the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnotes,yeah. If they have a front-entry garage,they have to be 23 feet from the back side of sidewalk. And if they don't go to front entry,they do a side entry,then they can put their principal structure--their accessory garage up to the 15-foot. MR.VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as some point of clarification,we have had product come forward where they've had wraparounds for the pool,meaning the principal would be up--would be from the front to the back and there would be a courtyard in the middle with a pool in between some of the bedrooms and the more utilitarian uses up front or living rooms that are going to be overlooking the pool and all those enclosed and part of the structure more or less. So that still would be a product possibility which has been commonly used in a lot of projects we've seen. MR.VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How big is the recreation facility going to be? MR.VANASSE: It's going to be a relatively small rec area because right now we're not a very big project. We're looking at either 60 single-family detached homes or 86-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How big is the recreation facility going to be? MR.VANASSE: We've got about just over three acres for that area. We've got--actually,sorry. Just.19 acres, so about one percent of the site is allocated to that recreation area shown on the master plan. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Is it the land area of the recreation site-- MR.VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --or which part of the lake? MR.VANASSE: The land area only. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What facilities do you intend to put in it? MR.VANASSE: We're looking at a small clubhouse,and I use the term loosely. When I say "clubhouse," it could be just meeting rooms for residents,but something in keeping with the size of the project. It won't be very big. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Have you identified the price for this product? MR.VANASSE: No,we have not. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you haven't identified the price,you don't know what the market conditions are going to be,but yet you identified the building envelope? MR.VANASSE: We have identified-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think it's too crowded;that's what I'm trying to say. MR.VANASSE: We have identified a maximum building envelope,and I do not believe that going to price is a requirement of the LDC. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: There was a study done in Collier County a while ago that has to do with the recreation and outdoor spaces,and the essence of the study is that the big,big houses,you know,the 6,000 square feet or 4,000 and up,they usually have big yards,big swimming pools,big amenities on site,but those people can also afford to belong to a country club or have outside recreation facility to utilize. Page 8 of 71 June 2,2016 The smaller the unit,the more competitive the price. The smaller the lots and the lack of recreation, the redevelopments are crowded,and those people that live in those developments are very confined in a small house,a small yard with no adequate recreation. Seems to me like the opposite should be done. If you're looking at an economical development, if we call it that,a reasonably priced development,and you're putting so many units in it,there should be emphasis on the recreation away from your own lot. MR.VANASSE: Understood; however,just to clarify again,from a crowded standpoint, I just want to address that issue. Our density that we are requesting is less than four units per acre,which is a pretty low density overall, so I don't want people to think-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And with that density you included the lake. MR.VANASSE: But I don't want people to think this is a high-density project where things are crowded. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Believe me,I understand. MR.VANASSE: And we're over-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: In calculating your density,you included the lake area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When--for the court reporter's sake,when you ask a question,let him finish first so she can type it,because she can't type both of you talking at the same time. MR.VANASSE: Yes,we included the lake area.That's standard practice in Collier County. Density is based on the gross acreage. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit B,footnotes to the table,we need to add a footnote back in like you had originally saying that the LBE and the LMEs will be separately platted. MR.VANASSE: We'll add that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the master plan that is on Page 5 of 14,a couple of issues here. You call out the 15-foot Type B buffer on the north lake,but you don't show how that--you don't show the 20-foot land--lake setback buffer applying to that area. I think somehow we need to know where that's located. I see you've got a plan in front of us that seems to locate it. The one that's in our packet does not. MR.VANASSE: Yes,correct. That's the one that was emailed out about a week ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.VANASSE: And in the hard copies we handed out today, it does include it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the southern property line you have a 15-foot Type B buffer.Are you intending to put a wall in that buffer where there aren't water management lakes,or is it just going to be landscaping? MR.VANASSE: At this point the decision hasn't been made. We do have the option of putting a wall/berm combination in the buffer. But we--so far we just have the code requirement of 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the landscaping? MR.VANASSE: Type B,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only reason I ask is during the NIM I know there are people commenting about things. Did--any of the neighbors from that southern project,do you know if any of them were at that NIM? I know--I think there were from the northern project,but I don't remember if there were any from the southern. MR.VANASSE: I believe we had a few people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.VANASSE: And we did receive one comment that was directed at the environmental staff with regards to some existing trees in that area. Steve Lenberger developed a condition that is under the environmental section that was acceptable to the lady that provided that comment,and it was acceptable to us also. Page 9 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll wait and see what our public speakers have to say. On the next item,it's on Page 6 of 14,this is a--part of the PUD,but it's not a master plan. It's more of a location plan with some notes. Under your open space notes,the first--there's two sentences: One says 60 percent open space requirement will be met through buffers,water management,common areas,and open space on individual lots. And then the second sentence says, 60 percent,and then parenthetical, 12.95 acres minimum open space required,and then it says that much is provided. I can see the need for the second sentence,but the first sentence is an item that's already in the LDC, and I'm concerned that when you restate something in the LDC, if it isn't stated verbatim,we could end up having multiple definitions,and there's no need for that since the LDC defines what open space is. So I would suggest that that needs to be struck. MR.VANASSE: And we're fine with that. I think the verbiage kind of came from the back-and-forth with staff. But if staff is correct(sic)with us eliminating the first portion... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,see,if that's here,then--if it's different than the LDC, it would need a deviation. If it's not different from the LDC,there's no reason for it to be here;otherwise,we shouldn't be picking pieces of the LDC as the most notable. If you want to include stuff,we include the entire 400-page LDC as part of each PUD,and I think that would be rather awkward. If we move on to the cross-section of your streets,I know this isn't a requirement. It was just suggested to you that you may want to modify the 5-foot sidewalk location by indicating from one side to the other that it can vary only because you might want to use the street area between the sidewalk and the curb for your street tree program,which is encouraged. And it provides shade for your sidewalks,and it's something that is allowed to offset the canopy tree required on the lots,especially when you have lots that are pretty well built on. MR.VANASSE: We think that's a great suggestion. It does provide flexibility for us moving forward,so we're agreeable to put"varies" in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we get into the issue on Page 11 of 14,it's the detail on where you're going to have the parking spaces alongside the roadway. The previous plan had a 19-foot depth space but did not have the 4-foot apron. In this plan,you've got the 16-foot space with a 4-foot apron. I understand the need for the apron and how it still gives you plenty of room. But in talking with either you or Ashley or both of you yesterday on the phone,you had a thickened edge on the sidewalk up on the north end to more or less act as the stop. And I'm a little concerned because the sidewalk represents an area where people can safely walk. And so if someone's walking along the south edge of that sidewalk and you back your car in or drive your car in,you're going to have a 2-or 3-foot overhang. You just kind of knock them off the sidewalk. It's probably not the safest way to go. MR.VANASSE: Point well taken. What we've done is we've looked at our configuration. What we'll do is we'll revise that and show wheel stops within the parking area and then revise our sidewalk. Instead of being seven feet,we'll make it five feet,and there will be a 2-foot gap in between. So we'll bring that back at consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question on the--on the road. You're asking for a deviation from 60 to 50 feet and yet when you--you're putting the 10-foot utilities on the people's property so it ends up being 70;I've never seen it this way before,shown that way. And do the people--you don't know this,but do the people realize they cannot do any plantings in a utility easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before you go too far,the 10-foot PUE are required on each side of all the right-of-way, so this is the detail that is prevalent across the board in Collier County. And,yes, everybody has--that is a private utility. It's not--I mean, it's a public utility,but it's for private-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Private use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- like FP&L,Comcast, Sprint,people like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that 10 feet is part of what they own. It's an easement over their Page 10 of 71 June 2, 2016 property. It's outside the right-of-way. That is a--that's a common detail. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I know,but I've just never seen it worded this way before where it shows,you know,the 70 thing. If they're asking for a deviation,they normally just do that and then just put the--on the other side. The other thing,on your--I notice you have all hammerhead turns. MR.VANASSE: On the master plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In this--on the master plan. MR.VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And on the spaces,you're planning on what, 10 spaces for the exercise room or conference room,whatever you're going to do?And is there handicap there? MR.VANASSE: We will meet code requirements.This exhibit was meant to be an illustrative in nature to show the configuration,but we'll meet the requirement for any kind of handicap spaces. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure;absolutely. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why is that,the utility easement,not included in the road right-of-way or the single-family lot? You have 50 feet for the road right-of-way on your road cross-section. MR.VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And then you have 10-foot-- MR.VANASSE: PUEs each side. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --the easement,and then you have the beginning of the single-family lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. I just circled that. And you're right,that's the way it reads,and I was going to point that out to you,Patrick.That's an error on your detail. The single-family lot should include the PUE. MR.VANASSE: Yes,it should. We'll correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if you leave it like it is,you could be caught up in a review that requires you to start the lot at the outside of the PUE. Those are technically part of all the lots in Collier County. That's a good catch. That's exactly what they-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So the lot line now moves 10 feet closer? MR.VANASSE: Yeah. We--our exhibit doesn't show a property line,but I can see how this is confusing, so we'll definitely correct it. And the property line will go clearly where the right-of-way ends, and the PUE will be on the lots. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Would that mean that you have 10 extra feet now that you gain that you can put towards the backyard? MR.VANASSE: No,we don't. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why not? MR.VANASSE: Like I said,the exhibit--we weren't clear on the exhibit,but it was always intended to have the PUE on the lots. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. MR.VANASSE: We'll clarify that exhibit and bring it back. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we move down to Page 12 of the PUD under public utilities,Item B refers to a master metered system. This is a single-family product. I'm not sure how you would do a master metered system and then end up trying to rebill and collect from each individual owner. I even think the county utility department doesn't--that's a practice that's frowned upon or not allowed. So do you need this master metered reference here? MR.VANASSE: No. You're perfectly correct.We looked at that yesterday when you mentioned that issue. And I'm not exactly sure how it got in there. I think it could have been the back and forth,but we can certainly cross that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under Exhibit F,your language under miscellaneous C,it talks Page 11 of 71 June 2, 2016 about the problem that caused this to be continued so many times,and this is that lake reconfiguration. Since we talked about this last,you have verified the lake depth is approximately five feet. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You applied the detail that shows that there is going to be built into the lake a slope of 4-to-1 going down to the water's edge,and from the water's edge down to the 5-foot depth you're going to have another 4-to-1 slope. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All that's going to be completed and inspected and cross-sectioned consistent with Section 22-112 of our Code of Laws. MR.VANASSE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So final approval of that lake will be done by our Engineering Department like they cross-section and look at all lakes,but it will just be that southern side of the lake from your property boundaries around both sides to wherever they stop. MR.VANASSE: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The two things that we need to clarify on this. First of all,I want,at some point when we get done discussing these lake modifications,Jack McKenna,who's our county engineer,acknowledge that this is going to work for his department because he's--his department's the one that's going to have to inspect this and sign off on it. You need authorization to fill this lake and create those slopes. The previous authorization I saw only provided for expansion of the lake. I'm wondering how have you proceeded to obtain that authorization. What's your--where are you at with that? What are your time frames to get that authorization? MR.VANASSE: To answer that question,I'll turn things over to Doug Lewis,our attorney. He's been working with the seller and the adjacent mobile home park. And my understanding is they have an agreement,and it's going to have to be ratified by their board at their next meeting. But it seems like everybody has worked together and come to an agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not the agreement that was attached to the zoning verification letter that was previously supplied to the county? MR.VANASSE: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Doug,it's been a while. Nice to see you again. MR.LEWIS: Good afternoon--actually,good morning. For the record,Doug Lewis,Thompson Lewis law firm. To your point I wanted to first acknowledge this is a development commitment,so as a requisite to proceeding forward,these conditions,per the cross-section,will need to be completed. So it's a development commitment. I also want to report that in response to the development agreement,there is a development agreement between both my client and the--and the mobile home park,the cooperative owners. In that agreement there are--there are certainly provisions and rights to go in and expand the lake,utilize the lake. Our seller has taken the position that that development agreement also permits reconfiguring/remodeling that lake. We've reached out and made contact with the attorney for the condo co-op. There is a board meeting later this month,and this item will be addressed. But I do want to reaffirm that these are development commitments. My client understands in proceeding forward that this cross-section is a development commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. Time frame on that,Doug? I'd like to put a--first of all, the reconfiguration of the lake from the county attorney's perspective. I had talked to Heidi Ashton prior to the meeting to consider some kind of time frame that that should be tied to.That work should be well ahead of any occupancy of the project and,you know,people being on the property because until then the lake is problematic. MR. LEWIS: I would agree with that and could stipulate to that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you would stipulate that no lake--lake modifications must be completed prior to the uplands development orders being issued? Page 12 of 71 June 2,2016 MR.LEWIS: You mentioned the certificate of occupancy or the building permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before people are utilizing the lake. You're going to have construction workers and people-- MR.LEWIS: PPL approval,we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to PPL approval,okay. MR. LEWIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi,does that work for you? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that,Jack,would you mind coming up and acknowledging that the discussion you just heard is going to be workable from the county's perspective for your inspections and other sign-offs,especially up to the PPL point? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'm going to include plat or SDP approval, since it could be multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it can't be multifamily.I think they've only got single-family uses allowed in this site. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Oh,okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So go ahead,Jack. MR.McKENNA: For the record,Jack McKenna. Yes,as we had discussed,I think that this can work. This is an unusual situation,and so we have to do stuff a little bit out of the ordinary,I guess. But I think that this is a good solution,what we've come up to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir. The fact that there's no LME because it's an old lake and they're going to do a lake setback of the same equivalent standards,do you have a problem with that? MR.McKENNA: I think it's the best solution that we could have at this time. It's not ideal,but the way the property was divided off, it's what we have there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,for the county to issue a permit to modify the lake,would they need an excavation permit or--because they're not excavating. They're actually filling it. They may be cutting slopes. How do you see that evolving? MR.McKENNA: I would imagine that would be--that they're going to have some excavation as well as filling and that that would be an excavation permit for the modification of those slopes,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'd be looking for a modification of the South Florida Water Management district permit? MR.McKENNA: They'll have a district permit on their site. They'll need some sign-off from the district. And I know I spoke to their engineer,and they were working,talking to the district already. They will need a sign-off from the district for the modification. So that lake,which is off their site,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. So they'll need cooperation from the owner of the lake. In addition to allowing to modify the lake,they need cooperation to obtain the permits, I would assume,too. MR.McKENNA: I would agreed with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir.Appreciate it. Go ahead,Wafaa. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That will not require any blasting? MR.McKENNA: I wouldn't anticipate it would.I think that the original lake probably went down to rock,and that's why they stopped digging when they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Did you have something, Stan? You're reaching for your mike. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to see if there's anything else that I have before I-- MR.LEWIS: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. LEWIS: I just want to confirm with respect to the PPL,the typical process is that we would come in for subdivision. There would be certain development conditions,the roadway improvements,other plat-related improvements,correct? And this would be part of those plat conditions,correct? Page 13 of 71 June 2, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the way the-- MR.LEWIS: With respect to the offsite lake work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --from County Attorney's Office was indicating this needs to be done before the work goes. And,Heidi,can you explain,because you said SDP and other actions. Let's forget those as far as applicable here,because it would--I believe it would be PPL. Ray,do you see any reason it wouldn't be? MR.BELLOWS: I don't see any reason it wouldn't be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's a PPL,at what stage would they have to have this work completed before they could start with specific uplands development? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,we were going to write it as PPL approval. So as soon as the plat is approved,then they can start the work on the other part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're anticipating,though,that the lake work,the excavation permit for the lake,would be issued and completed,cross-sections approved before the PPL could be issued. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's what you previously discussed,but we can write it differently if you'd like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's why I'm trying to make sure we write it appropriately so it's done and you don't have to come back in and try to figure out how to modify it. And noticed your developer's doing this waiving thing, so they want to talk,too. MR.VANASSE: The concern is we're going to have to modify the ERP to get this done,and we understand that that would have to be done prior to final approval of the plat,so we're fine by stating that; however,the construction--we don't want the construction to have been completed prior to the plat being issued. We'd like to be able to move forward with an approved plat and if the construction occurs afterwards and just stipulating that you can't have occupancy until all the final grading is done and the lake embankment is taken care of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's more of an issue with the Code of Laws. And,I mean,if there's no problem from the Code of Laws perspective and when the lakes have to be acknowledged as being completed--because typically on a development project,you could be underway with your lakes while upland construction is going on,so that's not unusual. I don't have a problem with it,Heidi,unless your department has an issue with it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,it's going to be a policy decision whether you want it tied to issuance of the first CO or whether you want it tied to building permit issuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from your perspective,you've got an SDP and infrastructure--not an SDP;a PPL and all the infrastructure to complete before you really go in and do your building permits. MR.VANASSE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you anticipate doing this lake at the same time your PPL work is going on and prior to your issuance of building permits,or are you suggesting it's simultaneous? MR.VANASSE: I think it will be simultaneous,but we want to be able to obtain our permit,our PPL,do the work. And then before any residences are built, it would be in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So before you get issuance of building permits,you'll have the work on the lake done. Your client's nodding his head yes, so... MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that works. It's typical. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,I have one thing,but it's not related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: On Page 13,Miscellaneous B,all other applicable state and federal permits must be obtained. We go over this all the time. It's redundant. They have to do it anyway. I'm just curious if anybody at the county makes a list of those permits and sees that they're obtained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's language required by the County Attorney's Office,so maybe Heidi Page 14 of 71 June 2,2016 can explain. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I was writing down the commitments,so I didn't hear the question,the complete question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Miscellaneous B, all other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. They have to do that anyway. Does anybody at the county list all the permits that must be obtained and sign off that they have been obtained? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The Miscellaneous A and B is statutorily required, so that's why we include it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does anybody at the county list the permits-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Check them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --and check them? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I believe that during the construction meeting that they discuss the permits that are required. I don't know if you want our engineer to comment on it,but that's my understanding. I can't really speak for anyone else,but I do know that that is-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because I know there's a lot of different permits that can be obtained. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I can't really say what the staff is doing,but I do know that there is some discussion at the construction stage. COMMISSIONER CI-IRZANOWSKI: Hi,Jack. Oh,I can't say that. MR.McKENNA: For the record,Jack McKenna,county engineer. The way that it works,after the Senate Bill that said that we could not hold up the issuance of a permit pending state and federal permits, is the county will issue the SDP,PPL,or whatever,but construction can't start until all the permits are obtained. And it's up to the engineer of record to certify that he has all the required permits. For example, staff may not at that point know if there's red-cockaded woodpecker or there's other issues. It's up to the applicant to verify that he has obtained the permits,and he supplies those permits at the preconstruction meeting or prior to it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So it's nobody at the county. It's the engineer of record for the developer? MR.McKENNA: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If the county issues a list,would that be binding? Does this mean that they cannot ask for another permit later on at the point? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I don't believe the county issues any formal lists. If there is a list that's discussed and the list does not include everything, it would still be the developer's responsibility to obtain all the permits. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah,that's what I'm saying. I think--I've never seen the county issue a list of permits that you need to have.They leave it up to the point when you get to apply for the permits,and then--you may be surprised then,but that's-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Jack. Okay. That's the questions I had of the applicant. Does anybody else have any others before we go to staff and then the public? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I have questions when we get to deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're there now. If you have questions of the applicant,now's the time to ask them. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Deviation No.2 that you've requested--I think Deviation No. 1 is widely accepted,you know,particularly if the roads are going to be private. Page 15 of 71 June 2,2016 Deviation No.2,you stated in your rationale that this deviation is typical of many of the master plan development throughout the county. Are you stating--are you trying to imply that because this deviation was granted to others,I should get it,too? MR.VANASSE: No. I think the deviation justification has multiple points. The--that clause is one of several;however,we address health and safety issues. We also say from a flexibility and functionality standpoint,it works well within our project,and it's also not going to affect any line-of-sight issues for drivers in the community. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You said health and safety. What health and safety issues are going to be enhanced or jeopardized by reducing the setbacks from 10 feet to five? MR.VANASSE: I think the idea is we--in our justification we say that there will not be any hinderance on health and safety. We're talking about,you know,stop sign,that type of thing. It's still going to be outside of the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I guess the question is,where are you asking for it? MR.VANASSE: Because it does provide some flexibility of design as to where we locate those. Obviously,with our right-of-way justification being 50 feet instead of 60 feet and being able to bring things a little closer to the road we think works well,it works with our design,and I think it's consistent with the overall look of the community. I don't think there's any benefit by putting it at 10 feet,so it does provide that flexibility as to where we locate it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I appreciate that you're advocating for the deviation,this particular one,but I don't see any design flexibility in relocating it five feet closer to the road than 10.And then my next question is, if you go to your typical road section,there is a gap between the valley gutter and the sidewalk. I'm assuming that this would be grass. MR.VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How wide is that grass strip? MR.VANASSE: One of the things that we talked about,we're going to change this,and it's going to show"varies." Usually the minimum is two to three feet;however,with"varies,"we're going to have the opportunity of making that wider and possibly be able to put street trees there. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So if it's typical two or three feet and you're measuring the setback from the outside of the valley gutter,the 5-foot setback deviation that you're looking for would fall in the middle of the sidewalk. Do you agree? MR.VANASSE: I'm taking a look here at the way this-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You have two or three feet of grass next to the valley gutter,and then you have a 5-foot sidewalk,and you're asking for the sign to be five feet from the outside of the valley gutter, then this sign could possibly be located in the middle of the sidewalk. I think the point I'm trying to make is that-- MR.VANASSE: We're saying minimum five feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That doesn't--in my view, it's not necessary for the well-being of your development. There is no impact that I can identify or flexibility or benefit to you. And I just hate to the see deviations granted or even asked for just because,you know,they've been had before or they are commonly(sic). I don't think there is--what do you call it?Because we gave it to others,then you should have it,too. Each case is individual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called consistency. That's the term I've used before. MR.VANASSE: And I don't think we're asking because it's been approved elsewhere before. We have run into some issues,for example. So if we take this cross-section where we're providing two or three feet of grass after the curb,5-foot sidewalk,you could put--you could put your sign at eight or nine feet. So it's within the--it's less than 10 feet. And we've had some instances,for example,that we have a light pole that's close by and we want to provide a certain separation between the sign and the light pole,and the 10 feet just makes it a little difficult for us. Page 16 of 71 June 2,2016 So we've been through this before,and we've had to go back administratively and try to work that out with staff; so this is the perfect opportunity through the deviation process to address that right now so we don't have to run into this problem later. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Deviation number-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave that one,could I ask a question? Patrick,you have a 50-foot right-of-way. Of that you're going to have 24 feet involved in the travel area,and that's going to leave you 26 feet. Divide that by two,you've got 12 feet on each side. You take out five,you're going to end up with your sidewalk on--26 would be 13 feet on each side. You're going to take out your sidewalk,which is five feet. So you've got about eight feet on each side in which you're going to be flexible with that sidewalk. So the signs,I'm assuming,would be on the drive side of the sidewalk,not on the outside of the sidewalk,which is where you're trying to put them,the same place you'd be putting your trees. MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what a--from a--so from a safety perspective,a sign is no different than a tree in regards to safety. In fact, it's probably more safe than hitting a tree. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Deviation No.4,where you're seeking the height variance for the wall. MR.VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why are you asking for that? MR.VANASSE: The reason we're asking is along the right-of-way to Roost Road and we're--we've experienced through the years that sometimes the residents like to have a higher wall, especially when they're close to a roadway,and that provides the opportunity to provide that higher wall and provide extra shielding for the residents. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you consider dropping Deviations No.2 and 4 from your request? MR.VANASSE: I'd have to discuss that with my client. At this point I think we feel that we have strong justifications for those. I'll certainly discuss it with my client,and we can come back to you on that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question,Mr.Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Charlette. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. Patrick,on Deviation 3,during our discussion we looked at Exhibit E,and there were-- MR.VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --some comments that Commissioner Strain made regarding looking at that diagram. My question is,how does that affect your request for Deviation No. 3? MR.VANASSE: The changes we made to the diagram with regards to the wheel stop and the sidewalk does not change our deviation. Our deviation is to be allowed to have that off-street parking within a portion of the right-of-way. So that ability is what we're asking for. The actual design details really doesn't affect us. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick,when you do those details on that particular issue,make sure you leave enough clear space past the bumper and still have enough space to keep them inside the parking space so that that clear space doesn't jut into that sidewalk. That was the whole issue to begin with from a safety perspective. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go to staff report? (No response.) Page 17 of 71 June 2, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy? MS.GUNDLACH: Good morning,Commissioners. Staff is recommending approval of this petition subject to three conditions that are listed on Page 18 of your staff report,and the three conditions are related to interconnections. And if you would like for me to restate those conditions,I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need you to read--I don't think we need you to read your staff report to us. We've already read it,but thank you. Did you have anything else? MS. GUNDLACH: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,Ray,do we have any--oh,go ahead,Charlene. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have one question,Nancy,just for clarification. On the replacement of the trees and also the trees that have been designated to be retained on the site,will you be more intimately involved with that when it comes before the Site Development Plan? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I can ask appropriate staff to respond,and that would be in the environmental staff. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. Thank you. I've got the code from the staff,and I understand the placement process. I just am interested in the oversight. It's good to see Summer. MS.ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque,environmental planning supervisor,for the record. Technically,we will not because we actually have two separate sections. Environmental review under development review would review that;however,we do coordinate with them. So when I see that project in the queue,I will make sure to kind of say,hey,we'll take a look at that and do a group review, which we do quite often. So I look at that report every week. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Because I want to make sure--you know,we went through a lot of trouble identifying trees to be retained on the site. And I'm just wondering how that's followed through throughout the process. MS.ARAQUE: Okay. We'll flag this one,and I'll actually send an email right now to the environmental review staff to make sure when this comes in. Okay? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. MS.ARNOLD: Okay. Ray,do we have any registered public speakers first? MR.BELLOWS: Yes,we have two. William Jones to be followed by Germaine Dufour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those of you that are going to speak on this,just use either one of the mikes and please identify yourself for the record. And I know this lady was sworn in. I don't believe the gentleman was. So when he comes up,we'll have to swear him in. MS.DUFOUR: Well,I'm Germaine Dufour. I live at 43 Queen Palm Drive. And I will be directly affected by any zoning change. Now,when we bought our park,the area was zoned for mobile homes and manufactured homes. Now,if there's a change, it's going to affect us in a great way. First of all,manufactured homes that are built today are much better built. They're less impact on the whole economy because there are no children. I'm talking about 55 plus. There's no impact on the schools. People that usually buy these places are here part of the year, so they're paying taxes. They're also spending a lot more money when they're here. So as far as the economy is concerned, status quo is much better. We are having construction by Manatee school,I think quite a few homes that are going in there. So why change the system? It's not very good for us. We paid a fortune for our section of the area and the lake, and we don't feel that things should be changed. We'd like to keep it as it is. And it should be considered because of all the other construction around us on on-site homes. That's it. Oh,and everybody in the park is against the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,there's a couple points that might help explain some of your concerns. First of all,there's nothing in this project's application-- MS.DUFOUR: I'm sorry? Page 18 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I was just going to try to explain some of your concerns. I was just going to comment on some of your concerns. MS.DUFOUR: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing in this application that says they could not utilize the product they're going to build there in the same manner you're utilizing your mobile home. They won't have to be year-round residents. In fact,when a lot of people buy these smaller homes,they generally buy them as second homes, so that would still potentially apply.These smaller homes may not have families in them.I--you know,that's the same option that we--that you'd have if it was a mobile home park. Also,your mobile home park,as well as this location is in what's called a Coastal High Hazard Area for Collier County. That's a line that says if there's a storm,you're in real danger. And so we've been told by the state to discourage mobile homes in the Coastal High Hazard Area. So when a project like this comes along and wants to put stick built or,you know,more solid built facilities there, it's not dis-- it's not necessarily bad. It's probably a good thing compared to a less solid mobile home. So we're looking at--this is not maybe a bad project for your area is what I'm suggesting. It may not be as bad as you think it is. MS.DUFOUR: Well,we can't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you talk to the mike--use the mike,please. MS. DUFOUR: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.DUFOUR: We had Hurricane Andrew and several other hurricanes. We're still standing.And my home is 27 years old. And,you know,no more damage than on-site houses. Mostly roofs, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.DUFOUR: Unless you have a Category 5 or 6. That's something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. MS. DUFOUR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR.BELLOWS: William L.Jones. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: He's here to speak on the 9C Onyx project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. Is there anybody else here that would like to speak on the project that we're talking about here off of Roost Road?It's called the Highview project. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will go back to the applicant. Any fmal statements you want to make before we-- MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --consider this for voting? MR.VANASSE: Yes. If I could clarify a few things. I did talk to my client with regards to the deviations. With regards to the reduction of the separation,the five feet versus the 10 feet for the signs,what we'd like to point out is that if we don't get the deviation,essentially,this will mandate that we put all the signs on the other side of the sidewalk further away from the road. And we think that the ability to locate them between that--the sidewalk and the curb is a benefit. Essentially,if we agreed to not ask for that deviation and discard that deviation,that pushes it back. We don't think that's a benefit,but we're not tied to that deviation. We'd be okay with removing it. With regards to the deviation associated with the 10-foot wall,we think that's a benefit to the community and a benefit to the residents,and we'd like to keep that. Also,just to clarify two others points. The density we're requesting--because there was question with regards to how density is determined.I just want to clarify that. There's been discussion of this offsite lake,and we just want to clarify that we're not calculating that offsite lake as part of your project area when defining our density. Page 19 of 71 June 2, 2016 The last point is,with regards to rear yards and the setback,I just want to clarify also we did the quick math,and people would,essentially,have 22.5 feet in their rear yard as a minimum. We have a seven-and-a-half foot setback from the buffer.You add the buffer to the property line, it gives you at least 22.5 feet. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Patrick. Anybody else have any other questions before we close the public meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing on this item,and we'll have discussion and then a motion. I have taken notes. I'll--if you guys--I'll read them all like I usually do,and if you want to supplement them,just speak up after I finish. There are 10 items I made notes on that need to be considered. One is that they will--for the landscape buffer easement along the north lake,they'll add a variable to show it's between 15 and 17 feet. Two,we accept staff recommendations. Three,the lake modifications will be consistent with the PUD cross-section and approved pursuant to the Code of Laws as a normal development lake is. Four,they'll separately plat the landscape buffer easement and the landscape maintenance easements. Five,the modification of the parking area at the recreation center will be made as we discussed here at the meeting and will be ready for--reviewed on consent. The sidewalk locations within the 50-foot right-of-way will be modified to show their variable from the back of curb. Hopefully that will allow for a street tree program,which we strongly encourage. Seven or six,whatever it is,the lake's cross-section must be completed prior to the building permits being issued. Eight,the use of the master plan--the master plan that we use for the PUD will be the one that was handed out today that has a couple changes to it,one of which is the 20-foot lake setback. And then--they'll remove the open space sentence on the master plan that references the same argument,the same definitive terms that are in the LDC. And with that,I don't have any others.Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with all the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --stipulations you just read,changes you just read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the changes. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Andy. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those 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-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I would like to add to my support of the motion that I'm still concerned about the deviations. And the small size of the size of the backyard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll ask--I'll ask just for final vote again. All those in Page 20 of 71 June 2,2016 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. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this coming back on consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I'm sorry. We'll do the consent vote. We have to vote on consent. I think the applicant has agreed to come back on consent. We talked about it in the motion,but we'll just have a separate motion on that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll move to bring it back on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --by 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. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Gentlemen,thank you. We'll see you at the next meeting. You'll be first up on consent. ***Okay. The next item up is 9B. It's PUDZ-PL20150001613. It's known as the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples,which is a CFPUD,and it's going to be requested to be turned into an RPUD with the RMC Enclave,which is an adjoining PUD already in existence on the Livingston Road north of Immokalee Road. 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. Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission;we'll start with Tom Eastman. MR.EASTMAN: I attended the neighborhood information meeting,and I've spoken with county staff as well as the developer's attorney and planner,Bruce Anderson and Wayne Arnold,and several residents from the Camden Lakes community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I talked to Wayne Arnold,and I received a bunch of emails from Camden Lakes. And I had no idea there was such strong feelings about senior citizens, so I should tell them that I'm approaching 70. My wife is older than me. I'm the secretary of the ROA,and I'm the secretary because I'm one of the youngest members,Reserve Officers Association. But being a sensitive kind of guy,because I was born and raised in New Jersey,I won't let any of that interfere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Andy? Page 21 of 71 June 2, 2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: God,that's hard to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was supposed to be simple,you know. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I received lots of emails from residents in Camden Lake. I've also spoken with Wayne Arnold and Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr.Anderson yesterday,and tons of emails on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr.Anderson and Mr.Arnold and staff at various times,and I received most of the mails,and I forwarded them all on to Eric who I believe forwarded them on to all of you. So we've all got the same ones. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We got them, like,three times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Anderson and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I read the emails that I received over my computer. I didn't talk to anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,the emails from the Camden Lakes residents and also I talked with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr.Anderson, it's yours. MR.ANDERSON: Good morning,Mr. Chairman,Planning Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm with the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo,and with me today I have property owners Randy Kurtz and Mitch Melheim. As part of our project team,we have planner Wayne Arnold;and Jim Banks,the transportation engineer;Frank Feeney from Grady Minor,the project engineer;and Bethany Brosious,an ecologist with Passarella&Associates. This application is to amend the Enclave PUD which already allows residential and group housing for seniors as permitted uses. You can see the relationship between the two properties on the overhead projector. This amendment would add 12 acres to the Enclave PUD and allow these same two uses and the same development standards that already exist in the Enclave PUD. The 12 acres being added are presently zoned for the Romanian Baptist Church which allows a 500-seat church and daycare pre-school for 150 students. Instead of that,this proposed amendment would be for approval of 48 residential dwelling units or 150 senior living units. The PUD--the PUD would be developed as either residential or senior group housing but not both. Also,with respect to the project having access to Learning Lane,the school district,which owns the road,will not allow the Enclave to have access to Learning Lane. I've spoken with Mr. Eastman about the access issue,and I would ask him to please confirm that for the record. MR. EASTMAN: That's correct,Mr.Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to finish your presentation before he confirms it? He jumped faster than I could. Go ahead. MR.ANDERSON: Accordingly,we withdraw our request for access to Learning Lane,and the reference to it in the PUD should be deleted. I believe Mr.Arnold has some amendatory language that he'll share with you. On the PUD master plan where it shows and labels a potential interconnect to Learning Lane,that would be amended to read, "potential pedestrian interconnection" in case the property's developed with residential uses. That would allow any children who live in the community to be able to get on the sidewalk directly. And at this point I will ask Wayne Arnold to come forward and to discuss with you some of the development standards that are contained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 22 of 71 June 2,2016 MR.ARNOLD: Thanks,Bruce. Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,before you get started,Wayne,we normally break after an hour and a half for the court reporter whose fingers are typing as fast as I try to talk,and we'll break for 15 minutes,and that will occur at 10:30, so... MR.ARNOLD: I'll try to wrap up in 15 minutes or less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. MR.ARNOLD: For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor,professional planner,and we're here representing,obviously,the Enclave PUD. I had the pleasure of working on the original Grace Romanian project,the Enclave PUD. I did the original zoning for the Royal Palm Academy,which is where Camden Lake is now located, so I'm really familiar with the area and have good knowledge of what's been approved and what's permitted to be developed in the area. The interconnection that Bruce discussed--and those of you who were on the Planning Commission a few years ago when this came through originally,there was a debate. We didn't have access to Learning Lane shown on our plan,and staff pushed for us to add a condition that said we had to go to the school district and attempt to get this access point in addition to our access on Livingston Road. So in speaking with the residents at the neighborhood information meeting,it(sic)was very,very vocal about having access to Learning Lane so,Mr.Anderson,as indicated,followed up with Mr. Eastman to talk about gaining that access or not,and I know that there was also a conversation with Camden Lakes folks, and they had formally rejected our request for the access,which means that master plan,as Bruce mentioned-- I kept an access there,but it's--you can see it's labeled"potential pedestrian interconnection." We think that,obviously,makes sense. I've configured the internal road a little differently just because it no longer is going to connect from Livingston down to Learning Lane. And I think--can you pull back out on that just a little bit,Eric, so you can see all of it. Just to go through the master plan with you briefly,those of you who may not be familiar with it, primary access point has always been designed to be at Livingston Road on the northern end of the project immediately adjacent and across from the new fire station. We worked with the fire station during the original approval process to negotiate and reconfigure some other median openings to accommodate a left-turn movement into our property from Livingston Road,so northbound left into our project,right out. And that's why we have the divided access point on Livingston Road. We show a secondary access now to Livingston Road on the south end where the Grace Romanian Church property was going to connect to Livingston Road,and there is a condition that was added in your transportation section of the PUD that says our primary access is the northernmost access and will determine whether or not we need and will gain access at the secondary location during the site plan or plat review, whichever it becomes. So I just wanted to clarify that. That's one of the few changes. The other changes that you see,Bruce referenced the 150 new senior housing units that we're adding, so we go from 350 to 500,and then we go up to 162 of conventional residential units, and that's at your standard four dwelling units per acre. There is one previous deviation that was approved for the original 28-acre Enclave project,and that was for the senior housing option,and that allowed for a floor area ratio of a.6. We're modifying our request with the addition of the new 12 acres to go down to a.55. We did sort of an average blended number of the standard .45 that the LDC grants us and the .6 that was previously approved. And it comes out really to.555. We're rounding it down to .55 for our overall FAR for the project. So those are really the changes we're proposing to make. I know that I saw the same emails that you did,and I was a little surprised at the opposition to the senior housing option because I think--you can hear testimony from Mr. Banks if you'd like,but the senior housing option actually generates less traffic than any other option of development for the property. I think we've documented--I've worked on a number of senior housing projects in Collier County, in Bonita and Lee County,and most are deemed to be compatible with nearby residential development. And I would only say to the Camden Lakes people,their PUD--the developer is developing it with an option of single family,but their PUD also makes provisions for multiple development and also, Page 23 of 71 June 2,2016 obviously,the school campus. So,I mean,they are a multiuse PUD. They happen to live on a single-family only component,but here we're looking at having an option for senior housing. And I think if you look at the original conditions of approval,the senior housing option has to be those that you've seen elsewhere which mandates that we have on-site management,on-site transportation,recreation,dining options for our residents,et cetera. Those all further reduce the traffic impact of any community like that. And I think,more importantly, some of the issues--you know, it was called out that these were high-rise buildings. Well,previously we were approved for the senior housing option to have 65-foot-tall buildings as the zoned height,75 feet as the actual height,but we also had a development requirement that those had to be at least 200 feet from the Learning Lane or from Livingston Road and a minimum of 50 feet from any permit or PUD,which would mean adjacent to the school or the diocese property,and those standards were accepted back in the day. And I think when you look at your master plan,we have--almost have the ERP approval through the water management district. There's some incidental signatures and things that have to be taken care of, but the preserve area,at its point near the interconnection, is a little over 200 feet wide,and the area that's on the Grace Romanian piece that we're adding is approximately 50 feet in width. So I think we've--we've ended up with a very natural buffer,and that makes us even more compatible given our setback and the buffer and the preserve where we have it. I'm happy to answer any questions if--I can show you the language that I was striking, if you'd like to see that. It's in red and blue, so hopefully you can see it. It's not the most legible. But the prior commitment for us to go and try to negotiate the access point with the school district is being eliminated,and you'll see the new language that discusses our secondary access point on Livingston Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with questions of the applicant. Does anybody have any questions of Mr.Arnold or Mr.Anderson at this time? Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: On Exhibit B for the development standards and setbacks and all of that,are those the same that exist in the present PUD,or have you added something to it? MR.ARNOLD: No. That's the same development standards. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. How much are the setbacks from Learning Lane? MR.ARNOLD: A minimum of 200 feet for the senior housing option. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That-- MR.ARNOLD: Or I should say for any building over 50 feet is the way it's expressed. So any building over 50 feet has to be minimum of 200 feet from Learning Lane. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What is the height maximum allowed under the existing PUD? MR.ARNOLD: The same as we're proposing today,65 feet zoned height for senior housing, 75 feet maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think also,when you answer,you ought to answer for both PUDs,because it will be clearer. Mr.Assaad may be looking at the other Grace Romanian,and I believe that's 60 and 72 or something like that,so... MR.ARNOLD: I think it was 50 plus. And I can find it. I've got the ordinance here. Just let me pull that up. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: While he's looking on the master plan,I'd suggest that the southerly two-way arrow that's on the map be removed,because that will likely be construed in the future by staff as an access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,when we get to that,there's probably a better change to make to that, so we'll hold that comment until we further discuss that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure Charlette's going to comment that probably the best way is to join those preserves and allow a passive elevated boardwalk if someone wants access to Learning Lane;that way the preserves all one continuous one. So I knew she was going to say that,and I figured that. I'll hold the comment that you just made till Page 24 of 71 June 2, 2016 she gets to speak. MR.ARNOLD: Mr.Assaad and Mr. Strain,I pulled ordinance 11-18,which was the original approval for the Grace Romanian,and the community facility tract,which housed the church and the daycare center,allowed the maximum zoned height of 50 feet,and then the actual height was 60 feet to the top of roof with a maximum additional 12 feet for cupola. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr.Assaad,did you finish,or did have you more? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlene? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. On Attachment 3,Wayne,where we've got the area density map on your particular two parcels,your density wasn't reflected. MR.ARNOLD: This was created by staff,but our density is proposed at four units an acre for standard conventional residential and,of course,we're governed by the FAR,but we limited the number of senior housing units to 500 because there's no other way to really look at traffic other than per unit or per bed, however you do those, so... COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But you're asking for an increased FAR,if I understood you correctly. MR.ARNOLD: For the floor area ratio? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. MR.ARNOLD: We're actually asking for a slight reduction from.6 to .55. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And you mentioned the LDC is .45? MR.ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception of the Planning Commission's review just recently of the changes to the LDC to allow it to go to.6 in some sections of the county and types of zoning that they have. So we have had that flexibility provided before,and currently we codified that with our just recent approvals last Wednesday night,so... COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. But there is a difference as of today on those two floor area ratios that he's speaking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. As of today,the Grace Romanian Church site would be .45 if applied strictly,and the other site--because they have a.60,would be .60. And what they've done is blend them together as a.55. MR.ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne,I have a question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The fire station-- MR.ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --across Livingston,do you know how tall that is? MR.ARNOLD: I know approximately how tall it is. It's approximately 45 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Forty-five feet,okay. I just--I think that is so people can see the heights on this. Being it has to be back so far,I don't think the additional height is that bad. And I'm looking at this,and it looks like the Camden Lakes people,is their only entrance on Learning Tree(sic)? MR.ARNOLD: Let's go back to the aerial.Yes,their access point-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,you're getting a little far from the mike. There you go. MR.ARNOLD: Is this on? The accessory--thank you. The access point for Camden Lakes is actually here. It's closer to Livingston Road,and it is their only access to the property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that's why they were having such a fit with if somebody else would be able to go on there; is that the problem? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I can't speak for them,but I know they were concerned about the congestion Page 25 of 71 June 2, 2016 that they face given bus traffic and things of that nature. And,obviously,we're sensitive to that,and I think the school district took care of that issue, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,just so they know that that is the school's road and not their private road. I remember doing both of these. I was on the Board when these both came up. I'm sorry that the Roman(sic)Church pulled out,but they were going to also have a daycare there. I guess I don't see any problem with this. MR.ARNOLD: Well,we obviously think it's a compatible use. We think it's--we think it's a responsible request. And,you know, I'm happy to hear what the residents say,but I think we probably took care of the largest issue,and I think maybe a lot of them--it was a timing issue. And we discussed this at the neighborhood information meeting. The amendments to the Royal Palm Academy PUD were in progress. Camden Lakes hadn't really been envisioned yet by Pulte Homes. We obtained zoning. So when they started building Camden Lakes,we were just a nice green spot across the street,and so was the church property. And I think it was unbeknownst to them that maybe our project was sitting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Wayne-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --a quick question. On the--or the original Romanian Baptist Church PUD,what did the master plan provide for as far as a preserve along Learning Lane or--and was there any? I wasn't here at that time. MR.ARNOLD: There actually was a master plan amendment. I'm going to show you both of them. I've got both master plans. I just need to locate the original. I'll just speak from--that's the approved master plan for the Grace Romanian Church, and it also shows preserve along the southern boundary.When I rezoned it the first time, staff pushed for us to preserve a small upland area at the very northern end of the site. When the church started really going through their permitting,they realized that they were going to be impacting some wetland,and to avoid wetland impacts, it made sense for them to want to eliminate their access to Learning Lane,which this master plan reflects, and to put their preserve along Learning Lane where there were wetlands,and we've carried on with that preserve area. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And am I correct in--well,you're--I guess it's hard to tell because the new master plan contains both properties,but--so there still is the preserve along Learning Lane,essentially, that was going to be there,except for maybe right where it meets Livingston Road. MR.ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes,we were sensitive to that. It made sense. Those are wetlands. Obviously,the less impact we have to wetland,the less we have to pay for mitigation costs. So it made sense for us to--it was a factor of acreage in part. The acreage for preservation actually went up when this property was acquired because of the size difference. The 12-acre piece qualified for a lesser--the community facility was considered nonresidential,had a different preservation area,so the preservation requirement actually went up when we became a residential and group housing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That was essentially my question was whether or not the preservation area actually went up-- MR.ARNOLD: It did overall. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --because of this,okay.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a 15-minute break and come back at 10:45. Can it wait,or have you got to ask it now? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,I was just going to ask him,but it can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's going to be back at 10:45 because I've not even started on mine yet. Thank you. MR.ARNOLD: I can't wait. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody would please take their seats,we'll resume the meeting where Page 26 of 71 June 2,2016 we left off. And Stan was about to ask a question when we stopped. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I got my answer. You can just move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go on,okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah. On the site plan exhibit that shows the preserve areas-- MR.ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --what is the minimum width--what is the width of the preserve area fronting on Learning Road(sic)? MR.ARNOLD: Well,obviously it varies,but the minimum's around 50 feet,and at the point where we showed the interconnection it's about 200 feet. I mean,this is conceptual,but we have a 10-acre minimum requirement for preservation areas on site. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: But regardless of the minimum width of that preserve area fronting on Learning Road,you still have the 200-foot setback? MR.ARNOLD: For any senior housing building over 50 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. Thank you. MR.ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How tall are the trees in the preserve;do you know? MR.ARNOLD: No,I don't know. Bethany Brosious is here from Passarella. She may have a better idea of some of the heights of those pine trees,et cetera. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,because a lot of times those trees,like the ones where I am,they're, like, 50,60 feet tall. MR.ARNOLD: I'm sure some of them do approach that height. But Bethany's here,and if you'd like,I can have her try to tell you how tall those trees are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. MS.BROSIOUS: Hi. For the record,Bethany Brosious with Passarella&Associates. The habitats within the proposed preserve area consist mainly of hydric pine and pine cypress areas, and those trees,while we haven't measured them,there's documented growth rates of pines measuring up to between 100 and 150 feet tall and up to about 100 feet for Cypress trees as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?Charlette. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I had a question. Wayne,in light of information this morning about the school board not wanting to permit the road on Learning Lane and in light of the fact that that won't be a road as shown on your master plan,as I understand it,based upon also the chairman's comment about completing that preserve,would that be an option that you'd consider and,also,would you look at putting maybe a pervious paver walkway there for the pedestrians or a boardwalk? MR.ARNOLD: I don't think I have an objection. I was just looking to preserve my ability to connect with pedestrians to the sidewalk system that's there, so if I can deal with it from a notation standpoint on the master plan and remove the arrow, it doesn't really matter to us,honestly. I just wanted to make sure it was understood that we wanted pedestrian access to that sidewalk. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And then we could close up those preserves where that road was going to go? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,I guess this is a combination request of Ray as well. In the Grace Romanian PUD,which is the one you're blending with,it had four principal uses,and one of them,the second principal use,was listed as pre-school childcare not to exceed 150 students; is that correct? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. Page 27 of 71 June 2, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a listed principal use. And,Ray,from zoning's perspective,because it's a separately listed principal use,not an accessory to a church,my inclination would be that could be a stand-alone use on that property; is that correct? MR.BELLOWS: That's my understanding as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Grace Romanian Church PUD doesn't have to be the Grace Romanian Church. It could be 150-student daycare with the outdoor recreational facilities,multi-purpose buildings,and ballfields--I mean,playfields,playgrounds,and similar facilities. That's the accessories to the principal uses in the existing PUD. So I know there's been a lot of concern about the senior living,but when you've got a daycare with the potential for a lot of outdoor playfields and playgrounds,that in itself is pretty intense and can be pretty noisy. That's an already allowed use by right on the Grace Romanian Church PUD. The Enclave around it already has a use by right,which is what they're asking to spread over the current one. I wanted to make that clarification because a lot of the emails didn't seem to realize some of the uses besides a church that could be here. Wayne,do you know what the Grace Romanian Church's PUD had for a setback from Learning Lane? MR.ARNOLD: I can take a look at it. I've got the ordinance here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you consider it a front yard,I believe it would be 50 feet,but I didn't see where it specified anything else. MR.ARNOLD: Yeah. Minimum front yard is 50 feet. I don't see where there's a minimum setback for PUD boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,of course, if you use the Livingston Road as a front yard,this being--Learning Lane,is that a public road?That's a private road, isn't it? I don't know if you'd have a-- MR.ARNOLD: Well,I would think it's semipublic. I mean,the school district owns it,which is a public entity,but it's not a Collier County public road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure how it would look,but it would be anywhere between a side yard and a front yard, so it could either be 25 or 50 feet,and the building that would go there could be 50 feet high. So you'd be 50 feet high at 50 feet off Learning Lane at the best scenario. MR.ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So your point is that setbacks from Learning Lane should be the same as the setbacks from Livingston Road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. My point is that they're going to do a slightly higher building.They're going to go from 50 feet to 65 feet,and they're going to be 200 feet back. That's a vast intensity improvement and compatibility element over what is already allowed on the site. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially when you take into consideration 150-student daycare facility with outside playing fields. That is a disruptive issue to a lot of neighborhoods,and we have a lot of opposition to those when they're brought in depending on where they're at and how they come about. But it wasn't clear in the emails that I saw that people understood those uses could be there,and they could be stand-alone. So in lieu of the 150-student daycare,you're looking at adding up to 150 units to your maximum allowed for the senior living that would be further back than the daycare would have to be and/or the church would have had to have been. MR.ARNOLD: I think that's a fair statement,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the traffic generated by it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that was my next question. Mr.Banks,I hear he's here today as a traffic engineer,which is rare for him. So,Jim,if you could talk to us a little bit about the difference between the traffic intensity and the timing of a daycare traffic versus potentially the senior housing. Page 28 of 71 June 2, 2016 MR.BANKS: I will. For the record,Jim Banks,traffic engineer,part-time marketing expert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And civic leader. MR.BANKS: This table,what it shows is--the land uses that have the arrow designation next to them,those are the uses that if the church property was added to Enclave project,that is the type of uses that might be constructed on the--for the project,those additional units. And what that shows is for the first--first row is 48 single-family units,or senior housing would be the second row at 150 units,or an ALF assisted living facility at 150 units,or a CCR community,which is very unlikely that it would be developed with that,but it would be 150 dwelling units,and then the last two rows would be the church and the daycare center which actually can occupy the site together. They don't have to be one or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.BANKS: Next to that is the columns that shows the trips that would be generated by those various uses and how they compare. So if you go back up to the single-family dwelling units and you look at that far right-hand column, 54 trips is how many the--how many trips that the 48 single-family units would generate during the p.m. peak hour. And then if you go down to the bottom of that column,the bottom row,you see a daycare center would generate 108 trips. So basically double the amount of trips generated by the daycare center versus the 48 single-family. You can also do that same analysis using the--for the senior housing,which is 38 trips during the p.m.peak hour,and ALF which would generate 44 trips during the p.m.peak hour,and then a CCR,which is 79 trips during the p.m. peak hour. So you can see that the uses that would be created by this amendment generate substantially less traffic than what the daycare center would generate. And then,of course,on Sundays a 500-seat church,again,that could occupy the site at the same time,would generate 305 trips during the morning peak hours. So that's a fairly dis--and that's actually more intense than what it reflects because typically a church,we say it occurs within an hour,but typically the church trips occur within about a 20-to 25-minute period. So it's more intense than what--if you just claim just 305 trips during an hour,it's not really over an hour. It's about a 20,25 minute period that that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The daycare you have on here,I notice you didn't put the word"Sunday," and I think that's correct because you were calculating that as--that could go on seven days a week. It was a principal use allowed by right, so it wouldn't have to necessarily be tied to church's operations; is that how you looked at it? MR.BANKS: Yes. So if the daycare center was a stand-alone,which it can be,that's the type of trips it would generate five days a week or seven days a week,depending on whether it functions on Saturday and Sunday. But my point is is that the church and the daycare center could actually occupy the site together, which that is commonplace,and then you would actually have trips associated with the daycare for at least Monday through Friday, if not Saturday and Sunday. In addition to that,you would also have the trips generated by the church on Sunday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any questions of Jim while he's up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Jim. Appreciate it. Since you have removed off Learning Lane,a lot of the questions I have are gone. I'm not going to criticize Tom Eastman's school board,but that's okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just--Learning Lane is an odd--is an odd situation. We don't have that too often where the school controls the road like that,and other projects have the ability or not to tie into it, so it's just an odd animal.We don't come across it that often. MR.EASTMAN: It is fairly rare,but we also have that with Pine Ridge Middle School. We have it Page 29 of 71 June 2, 2016 with Manatee. Those are two other instances that come to mind. But you're correct 100 percent,it's very rare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm glad that it's resolved in as far as access goes, so that seems to work out well for this project and the neighbors across the way. So I guess we'll have to see what other issues there are when we ask the public to speak. I have no other questions of the applicant. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll move on to staff report. MR.JOHNSON: For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner. Staff reviewed the proposed project. Staff acknowledges that no new uses are being proposed to the RMC Enclave RPUD. There is one deviation that staff evaluated,recommending approval of that.And staff also acknowledges that the group housing that's in the RPUD is restricted to seniors. So staff is recommending approval of the project as it was submitted in your packet. With respect to any changes that were made post submittal, I can't really comment on that. Obviously, it is the Board--or commissioner's prerogative to take action on anything that was given today, but I cannot opine on anything that was submitted after the packets were given out.And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's an interesting statement. You can't comment on anything submitted after the packets were out. So what do you think of the suggested clarifications that the applicant has today? It didn't--I'd like to--the reduction or the loss of Learning Lane,do you see a problem there? MR.JOHNSON: I would have to defer that to our transportation planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not used to staff not taking a position on things. MR. SAWYER: Good morning,Commissioners. For the record,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. We have no problems now that we have confirmation from the school board that Learning Lane is not available for this community,and we will proceed with the other access points as we've pointed out in the PUD for the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. Appreciate it. Okay. I didn't have any questions of comprehensive planning,but I guess David might want to say something. Go ahead,David. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. Commissioners,as you'll note in the--I believe it's in the staff report or,if not,then it's included in the comprehensive planning's section attached memo. We've asked for a vehicular interconnection to the property to the north. And as we noted in the memo,we understood that the property was owned by the Diocese of Venice, but our position was just because it's owned by that entity does not necessarily mean that the property will be developed with a church.Point being that maybe a residential project could go here in the future and so that we believe that an interconnection will be appropriate regardless of ownership. And I just checked last night and found that the Diocese of Venice no longer owns that property. It has been sold. Staff still doesn't know what's going to go there. I mean, somebody else could come in and request a church or any other allowable use on the property under its existing ag zoning,a conditional use,or seek a zoning change. But from our perspective,we still think it's appropriate to consider that the project to the north could be developed residentially and that an interconnection to that property could be appropriate,at least identified as a potential interconnection or future interconnection. As is typical when the project for the subject site actually comes in to develop,at that time there is the ability to determine whether or not it's appropriate to have the interconnection. At that time the use to the north might be something that's considered not appropriate to have an interconnection or for whatever reason might exist. The decision could be made at that time not to have the interconnection. But it's far less likely to get that interconnection if you don't have it identified in the PUD. So,most particularly,what I'm telling you today that you don't already know if you've read the staff Page 30 of 71 June 2, 2016 report is that the ownership to the property to the north has changed,and so we think it's,I'll say,less likely, though certainly still possible,but less likely that a church would go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to public speakers. Ray,do we have any registered public speakers to start with? MR.BELLOWS: Yes,we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those wishing to speak,when your name's called,just come up to one of the mikes,and we'll be glad to hear you. MR.JOHNSON: The first person is Greg Bosco,Greg Bosco. After Greg will be Karen Paul. MR.BOSCO: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I represent the board of directors for the Camden Lakes Homeowners Association. Needless to say, we are here because we are adamantly opposed to any senior facility going in where--for the proposed Enclave development. We have 140 signatures from residents with their opposition to such development there. The main reason is that section of North Naples,as everyone knows,is primarily families.It's mostly single-family homes. A senior development would not fit in the area. We feel it could negatively impact our home values,certainly our sight lines,because in our opinion a 65-foot building can't be landscaped.We'll be able to see that throughout our entire community. In addition,we are abundantly confused,when we reviewed the traffic study,how there's less of an impact when you're putting 500 units for a senior living versus single-family homes. When you count all the residents,the staff that would be in and out of there all day long,potential emergency vehicles that would be coming in and out all day long. It would be,we feel,a total hazard to the residents and also the kids in the community that walk Livingston back and forth to Veterans Memorial and the kids that travel to North Naples Middle School. We--again,we adamantly disagree that a senior facility go in there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your petition,you flashed it,but could you put the first page,the written part of it,the typed part of it on the overhead so we can read what it said. MR.BOSCO: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We residents of Camden Lakes community of North Naples oppose any access to Learning Lane by the developer of future Enclave project. In addition,we oppose the development of a senior living facility adjacent to North Naples Middle School. And someone--it looks like they tried to cross out the reference to Learning Lane. Was that done before or after these people signed it? MR.BOSCO: That was done--was it done--it was done after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So after everybody signed it opposing the access to Learning Lane,you guys crossed out that on here,and then now that's not an issue,but you're falling back on the second sentence; is that-- MR.BOSCO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --what you're saying? MR.BOSCO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Mr.Assaad. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think this issue for the Camden community is very emotional,and I think your concern is about traffic. Now that the connection to Learning Lane is eliminated and you do have that preservation area between the two developments--and the traffic engineer is telling us that a development like the one proposed will generate less traffic. I can see the emotion behind it,but I cannot see the logic for objecting to it. Would you care to respond? MR.BOSCO: Sure. For us,they're two separate issues: The Learning Lane access and Page 31 of 71 June 2, 2016 the--actually what's being built on the property to us are two separate issues. While we're very happy there will no longer be access on Learning Lane,again,the other issue is what is being built on the property. I don't--we don't,as a community,understand how there will be less traffic and less interference. That part of where we are now,Learning Lane and north of Immokalee,the traffic already is unbearable most mornings, so adding 500 senior units to the mix plus,again,all the service vehicles,we feel it would be a big detriment to everyone living in our community. The traffic would be terrible. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do you understand that if they do residential community,you will have more traffic? MR.BOSCO: We don't feel that's the case.And,quite frankly,we feel a residential community fits in better with the area. There's no senior living facilities anywhere in the area. It is all--mostly single-family units, some townhouses,but it's primarily families. And,quite frankly,I mean,if they put in a daycare center,great.There's kids everywhere. I mean,we have--Camden Lakes is a primarily children-friendly area. We have kids and kids playing outside. We love kids. So having,you know,kids across the street playing in a daycare center was not going to be an issue for us. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. MR.BOSCO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please,Ray? MR.JOHNSON: Karen Paul. After Karen will be Barry Weissman. MS. PAUL: Hello,everybody. My name's Karen Paul,and I'm a resident of Camden Lakes. Yes,this is an emotional issue,and I'll address,perhaps,the reason why that is. Although we had a list of 140 people who signed our petition,you can see we are only about 18 strong here today. The reason we got for that was,well,they're just going to do what they want to do anyway. Our voice doesn't matter. And for those of us that are here today,we don't subscribe to that line of thinking. We know that there's a human element when you guys cast your vote. I was pleased in listening to your first proposal that you were discussing that many of you took into account how it was going to affect the residents,the size of the backyards,et cetera. So we know that there is a human element associated with this and it's not just a computer program or an app that spits out an answer to this question. So before you make your decision,we appeal to you to put yourself in our shoes or imagine that you have a family member or a child or a grandchild that owns a house in Camden Lakes and what you would want for them or what you would want for yourself if you lived in Camden Lakes. So some of the points that I wanted to make is we are not your typical multi-million-dollar, millionaire Naples residents. We live here year-round. In fact,only a small handful of our community residents live here part time. For us--for most of us,this is our largest investment that we have is our home in Camden Lakes. What we thought we were buying was a house next to a church,and this is where the emotional issue comes in,and it may be up for debate down the road. Pulte provided us with a plat that showed that this was a church next door to us. At the first meeting we requested information about the notification process. Ironically,although requesting that information two to three months ago,we received that information late last night. We do not feel that we were appropriately notified,and many of us might not have purchased our home in Camden Lakes if we knew that a senior tower was going to be erected next door. And I also want to say for the record that none of us have any issue with seniors. Many of us are seniors. It is not that at all. It is the traffic and the view that we feel will not be able to be landscaped away. There will be lights shining on that building,the exotics will have to be removed,and we believe we will have to see that tower every day while we and our families are out walking and playing. So you can imagine our surprise when this Enclave development was brought to our attention.And I think if you put yourself in our shoes,you would feel the same way. While we don't fault Kurtz builders--in fact,we have heard from many people that they are an Page 32 of 71 June 2,2016 excellent builder and that they do excellent work,that they focus on low density and quality,and we appreciate that--we do feel that there are other more appropriate areas in Naples for senior living around like-kind and facilities. So,lastly,before you vote again,we'd just ask that you put yourself in the shoes of a Camden Lakes' resident. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead,Mr.Assaad. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Ma'am,I have a question for you. MS.PAUL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're aware that maybe around two-thirds of the frontage on Learning Lane front on the Grace Romanian Baptist Church PUD,and under the existing zoning with no additional approvals from the county,they can go ahead and do a retirement community and daycare? MS.PAUL: We are aware. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're still going to be subject to that. MS.PAUL: We are aware of that. And,unfortunately,when they put the notification sign out of the request of the Enclave,because they did not own--or they had something to do with the church property, they had to put the notification sign further down on Learning Lane after our entrance into Camden Lakes. So we drove into Camden Lakes and never saw the sign,and we were never allowed a chance to come and speak and even know anything about this. But,yes,we were aware there was a church. With regards to these numbers,I did some quick math. On the senior housing they're talking about 150 units on this sheet,but what the developer is talking about is 500. If you do that math,it comes to 1,720. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,but 350 units of the 500 are already approved for that location. That has no bearing on the issue in front of that chart for you here. This isn't--they're asking for an additional 150. They're comparing that additional to what was on the site and what they--what it would mean to their project. So you're right,350, it's a greater number,but it's already approved. So it's not a factor to consider in regards to the intensity. It's already allowed. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They were--I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If they did not combine the two properties together,if they came in with an application for the additional land by itself,it would probably be viewed as very compatible with the existing zoning on the church property because it mirrors the same uses. It's right next door.It's in the same vicinity. So like--I appreciate the emotions behind it,but when you look at the facts,the zoning,the calculation,the traffic experts,they just don't support the emotional feelings that you-all have behind your objection. That's what I want to say. MS.PAUL: And I guess what we're saying is that we're a little concerned about this. And we're not traffic experts,I understand that,but we also know that a senior living facility,there's going to be a lot more cars associated with it than just the people that live there. There's going to be nursing aides that will come in, there's going to be family members of those people,the staff that's required to man a 500-unit facility. And we just know that there's already a traffic issue in and around our area already,so... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,are you aware that the project you're living in,Camden Lakes,has the right to do 45 feet high? It's me. Yeah,you have a right to go 45 feet high 30 feet off Learning Lane. This project is asking to go--on a piece of it that they don't currently own,they're under--they're purchasing--to go 20 feet higher but 200 feet back from Learning Lane. I mean,I--I share with Mr.Assaad. This--when I started getting your emails,I understood your argument about Learning Lane,and that was taken off the books. And I still got emails,and I can't--I mean, I would love to be in a community that had a nursing home like this or a senior living facility next to it. They're quiet.They're not heavy generators. This is not a tower. Sixty-five feet is nothing. That's a very shallow building set back 200 feet from the road. You're far better off with this than some of the other things that could go there. Page 33 of 71 June 2,2016 I don't understand your community's concerns.I'm puzzled by it. And even the testimony I've heard from you and the gentleman before you,you're making assumptions that aren't supported by any of the historical zoning and evidence that we have and that has proven to be correct. And senior facilities across the county are something we need,and they do a good job. They're good neighbors. If I were to pick an ideal location for such a facility in Collier County with compatibility standards,they've met everything I could figure out how to do. That's why I don't understand your concerns. MS.PAUL: Do you feel that the ambulances--the noise from the ambulances that will be coming in and out of that facility daily will disrupt not only the students that are trying to learn right next door,as well as us as a community next door-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They won't--first of all,they're going to come off Livingston Road. They're going to go in that north entry that's being shown on the plan. They're not going to go down the road next to you. If they're coming down Livingston Road going to another call,they would disrupt you more than this facility's going to. As far as when they come on the site,I,unfortunately,had to spend a lot of time in a couple of these facilities that exist in the county right now. Not for myself;for somebody else. I was there when the ambulances were called. They cut their sirens off before they enter the property. So the closest they would get to having sirens on this property is that north entrance. It's no less or more than you would hear every time a fire truck leaves for anything from the fire station that's up there. And I really think you need to consider this as a better neighbor than some of the alternatives that are facing you for that property.I'm still pu77led by it,but I appreciate your comments,and I thank you for commenting. And if there's something that's provided to us that seems to make,I guess, scientific sense,I would certainly want further comments from the applicant. But right now,the traffic studies by the ITE and all the engineers that have done that work have taken into consideration all the elements you're concerned about,the workers that are going to be there,the caterers that would come in or the food vendors,however that's done. All that's been already been taken into consideration in that traffic study. So I'm-- I don't mean to go against a neighborhood. I try always to listen to neighbors,but on this one,with your separation plus the 200 feet you've got the width of Learning Lane and your own internal setbacks,you guys have got a really good situation compared to a lot of growth areas in our county, so... MS.PAUL: I understand. I think we're just saying that there are--you know,that part of your job is to keep Naples beautiful,and there are other areas in Naples that already have this type of facility,and why not keep those together and keep our residential corridor intact? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, if I may? MS.PAUL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live in Lakeside.That's near the Greek church by Airport and Vanderbilt. Across the street is HarborChase,a senior living facility. My wife had to spend a week there recently after a hospital stay. It's a great facility but,you're right,the people,they're out there carousing in their wheelchairs until two,maybe three in the afternoon. Other than that,they have been a great neighbor for the 12 years I've been there and for a long time before that. We have the Carlisle on the corner of Orange Blossom and Airport. We never have any problems with traffic. The only sirens I ever hear are people going by Airport Road past the Carlisle,past HarborChase. You may think you have a problem. We're looking at having a senior-care facility built on Orange Blossom against our south property line.We're waiting for it to happen because the other two are such nice neighbors,who wants some other kind of residential? You never know what you're going to get. Every one of these facilities I've dealt with,they're fantastic. I think you're blowing it out of proportion. And I asked how tall the trees were,because if you've got a 65-foot building behind a 50-foot tree and you're standing on the road,you're not going to see that 200 feet back. I'm--I don't know how much exotics they're going to make you pull out of there. MS.PAUL: Could we add a stipulation in or something that says that we will not see the tower; is that what you're telling us? If we can add something into their development plan that assures us that we won't Page 34 of 71 June 2,2016 see the tower,then I think that would ease a lot of our--I mean, it sounds like you-all think we're not going to see it. So if we're not going to see it,then maybe-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But even if--I see HarborChase. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's no tower. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I see the top of HarborChase from my cul-de-sac. So what? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're talking about three stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 65 feet. I mean,that's not a tower,ma'am. A tower's 200 feet. I've built some of those. They are--you can see those from a long distance. Sixty-five feet with 50-foot pine trees, 200 feet back behind a preserve across Learning Lane,you stand in your backyard,I don't know how you're going to see them. But I'm not going to provide you any guarantee,because it's not a requirement of our code to provide that kind of guarantee. The compatibility standards are the ones I just articulated. They're already in place. This is more than most communities have. His community going--Erickson Communities is building a lifestyle facility down on the south end. It's going to be pretty close to their property line;600 units,but it's a beautifully designed facility. I don't think it's going to disrupt them at all. And his experiences,as he just said,haven't with the ones across the street,and the ones I've been in they haven't. MS.PAUL: It sound like there's a lot of these senior facilities being built. Have there been any studies that have shown that we actually need more? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we need more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,yes. And-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm looking forward to it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll be honest with you,when you moved in,I'm sure you didn't read all your whole pamphlets you got,but a lot of the PUDs,planned unit developments,in Collier County, along with homes,also have senior living in them.There are several of them that have it. So you could have moved into another one that already has it in. It is a huge request in Collier County. And the Arlington is--it's absolutely gorgeous, if you want to go see another one. They have single homes in there,and then they take you all the way through the lifecare system. It's gorgeous. And that was just done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I don't want to sound old and crotchety,but,you know, you say I should put myself in your shoes;I've been living in your shoes for a long time,and it's not a problem. And, like I said,I'm from New Jersey, so I'm a little more tolerant of everything. MS.PAUL: I just feel that we are going to see a major traffic issue that's not necessarily being--I just think it's going to be bigger than you-all think,and we'll--I guess we'll see down the road,but it's already a very difficult situation turning off of Livingston at the various lights. I guess we'll just see,but thank you for listening to our comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker,Ray,or Eric. MR.JOHNSON: Barry Weissman. After Barry is Fred Smith. MR.WEISSMAN: Good morning. My name is Barry Weissman,and I'm older than you know, Stan,and I live in Camden Lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you're in a lot better shape. Why? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You don't look a day older. MR. WEISSMAN: I just wanted to say I've been a resident of Collier County for and paying taxes for 16 years. And I'm a realtor,so I recognize the fine work that you're doing. I've been here a couple times, and I'm just--I'm just amazed at how much detail--you guys really work hard,and I appreciate that,and it helps me in my job a lot. I just wanted to say that we are concerned specifically not about the seniors themselves,but we were Page 35 of 71 June 2, 2016 hoping that it would be a single-family development rather than--even if it was a 55-and-older development or a--or transition development,we would have been quite happy. But it was just a surprise to us that the church property came around. And I think that the major concern we were having was the safety our children that--we don't have any there. We have grandchildren. But they do walk up Livingston to go to Veterans,and they bike into the middle school. So our concern was the additional traffic. And if you have that--you have that traffic going especially to Veterans and you're going by the entry to the new development,you're going to now have to bus those kids because they can't walk that--walk that traffic across that entry without being concerned about the--about the traffic coming in and out. So that would be my main concern. If it was a single-family development and it was seniors,being one,we don't take that many trips that we're in and out going to--going to take the kids to school and all that stuff in the morning. So that would be my only concern,and we were hoping not to have towers. And to me a tower is anything over three stories in this town. But we're not at the beach,so I don't have to worry about that. But I'm--that was my main concern. So you've addressed a lot of it,and I understand that you've already preapproved much of this development,two-thirds of it or three-quarters of it, so really it's maybe moot,but we were hoping to get some address to see our point of view. And I thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Fred Smith,and after Fred there is no one else signed up. MR. SMITH: Good morning,Commissioners. I want to start out by saying that most of my concerns or thoughts here have already been covered,so I'm going to try to cut to the chase and not take any more time than I need to. I also want to advise the Board that I'm from Philadelphia, so I understand that relaxed,tolerant view that those from New Jersey have as well. I'm also two days past the very happy receipt of my Medicare card. I have nothing against seniors. I'm now officially one of you. In any event,our--my basic concern with the--with this suggested senior living project is that it strikes me as a commercial project. The entire area is residential,mostly single families.There are a couple of condo developments in there as well. You're talking about a facility that's going to have a restaurant. It's going to have--according to an article that we downloaded from the newspaper, it's going to have a spa and a beauty salon,a restaurant,even a charging station for electric cars. These all sound to me and to us in Camden Lakes like commercial enterprises. That's not the same as a single-family residential development. It's not the same as a residential development,whether it be multifamily or single-family. In effect,this is a business that has all of the staffing that will be coming in and out,the traffic associated with that staffing,the ambulance and rescue vehicles as we've already mentioned. The real problem that I see is the developer doesn't have to do this. It's not a need-based request. I'm sure that they can earn a handsome profit by putting in single-family homes and retain the nature of that area of North Naples rather than irrevocably change the nature by putting what amounts to a commercial enterprise into the middle of an entirely residential area. That's my main argument,my main point,and I think it's one that I would appreciate the commissioners take into account. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,have you ever been in a senior living facility such as this? MR. WEISSMAN: Yes. My mother's lived in one for quite a number of years up in Philadelphia. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so was mine,and I spent a lot of time there. And I know how the beauty salons operate and how the restaurants operate,because I ate there with my mother periodically. They're all internal. They bring the food into a small area where the people gather and they eat together at tables. They have a certain number of medical personnel per facility. I think it's one per nine or some ratio like that. The beauty salon is really just a small cubicle--not a cubicle,bigger than that,but it's like a room within the core of the facility. But all those facilities are only for the people that live there and their guests like you and I were. It's not like a restaurant where you bring in people in off the street or a beauty salon where you're advertising and Page 36 of 71 June 2,2016 everybody shows up. It creates no more traffic than the people that go there to visit or to live. And the difference between a senior housing facility like a single-family restricted to 55,those people still drive cars. Most of the people in these facilities don't drive cars. The traffic is severely less than what you're used to with a single-family. So for children walking along Livingston,this facility will generate less traffic and be less of a problem to them than if it developed as you had hoped it would as a single-family facility. I don't know how to explain it any differently to your community,but that's the facts. That's what we deal with every day in zoning in Collier County. And I'm sorry that you guys don't see that,but that is the way the calculations come out.That's the way it's worked and historically been proven,so--but I thank you for your input,and I'm hopefully trying to set your mind at ease with it. I may not be succeeding,but it's worth a try. MR.WEISSMAN: We thought coming here today,too,was worth a try,and we appreciate the attention that you've given to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Congratulations on your Medicare card. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric,do we have any other-- MR.JOHNSON: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody who--anybody here who wished to speak on this item who has not already spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have something I'd like to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The lady mentioned traffic on Livingston. You ought to live on Immokalee or Pine Ridge. You really don't have that much traffic yet. Veterans Parkway was going to go across the I-75. You would have had a ton more. That has been nixed. So as far as traffic,I go Livingston as far as I can because there is no traffic on Livingston,per se. And as far as the senior living,I'm being very honest with you when I tell you a lot of these planned unit developments have a mixture of both in the same area, so it's not taking all of senior living or these homes and putting them in one section of town. They are dispersed all over town,and it's much more pleasant to see different areas have these places because it's closer to different families. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll--Wayne or Bruce,do you guys want any time for rebuttal? MR.ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Mr.Assaad. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I want to thank you for not asking for deviations. MR.ANDERSON: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Have you determined--you haven't worked on the site plan or anything yet to determine where you were going to site--if you're going to do senior housing and then where you're going to site it; is that correct? MR.ANDERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So I think part of the issues that I can certainly relate to from the community's perspective of Camden Lakes is the unknown of being told in general in a conceptual plan that you have the rights to do these things and,as the site plan goes forward,you may choose to locate the group housing,even if you choose to do it, somewhere else on the site than against Learning Lane. Is that a possibility? MR.ANDERSON: Certainly,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. Page 37 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing. And let me start out with discussion. There's only a couple notes on this one,and the first is that they're going to amend the PUD to not--provide no access to Learning Lane,and that in doing so,they'll recalculate the preserves and then take a look at their preserve language and,if needed,add some language there that would allow them to use either elevated boardwalks or pervious pathways to access Learning Lane through the preserve,but at least the preserve calculation will be modified to include all of the area that currently is a driveway,or potentially a driveway to Learning Lane. So with that--those are the only notes I've made that change anything. Is there a motion on the part of-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What about the potential interconnect to the north? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's--that's something that isn't required. It's an encouragement, not a requirement. If it's a senior living facility to the north as a corner parcel,why would we want to have the potential of seniors having--especially if it's dementia or anything like that--access to a commercial facility or vice versa? If it's not and it's a residential,why would the residential need to be connected? I don't understand the need for the connection,especially if you want to have a privacy and gated either community or senior housing facility. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But,Mr. Chair,isn't it in accordance with our code? I mean,David was mentioning the potential interconnect be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not required. It's an encouragement,not a requirement. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But what's the-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It could be commercial. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What's the problem with just drawing it in as a potential interconnect and then evaluating it when the other petitions come through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,do you want to respond? MR.ARNOLD: I can. For the record, Wayne Arnold. We had this debate when the project came through as the 28-acre,and it may have been owned by the Diocese of Venice at the time,but the unknown,that parcel has access to Veterans Memorial which does directly access a signal. I don't think they're going to be choosing to access Livingston Road. So their need to interconnect through us,I don't know that there would be one. We've got the access that's directional left and a right-in,right-out. We think it's satisfactory. And connecting potentially a senior project to the unknown,we don't think necessarily makes sense. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But can that be decided when another project comes up? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I guess the question would be,who gets to decide? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're planning a gated community? MR.ARNOLD: I suspect that it would be. I mean,consistent with almost everything else we've seen in North Naples,I would expect it to be-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Then the interconnection to the properties to the north will be problematic because of the maintenance obligation,the trespassing. The gated community would lose its security function. So I don't see the benefit of the connection myself. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'm looking at the aerial photograph. I don't see the benefit either because it seems--if you have--like Wayne said,they'll probably enter off Veterans Memorial,and who would want to go through that to get to the senior living? And on the way out,the seniors,I doubt if they're going to want to go to a--through this project--well,to Veterans Memorial. You know, looking at the aerial photo, it just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,it just carries weight when a member of our staff,senior member of our staff,David,comes up and requests that,and so maybe he'd like to comment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,it's a county policy that we encourage interconnection. MR.ARNOLD: And,Ms.Roman,I would only say that we had this discussion for the 28-acre project. I don't have an interconnection shown on that plan. Page 38 of 71 June 2,2016 And could I raise one other point,Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.ARNOLD: You made a comment severing the connection and then changing the preserve acreage. I would prefer not to change the preserve acreage. We express on our master plan the minimum preserve acreage based on the 25 percent calculation. It remains the same whether I sever the connection or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,can you at least,on your master plan,show the preserve continuous in that area but provide language to provide the boardwalk or non-pervious surface to connect to Learning Lane? MR.ARNOLD: I don't if I'm headed toward coming back on a consent or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so if we keep it simple,but that's-- MR.ARNOLD: Here's what I would suggest,then,on the master plan change. If I close the gap between the preserves and connect them and keep the language with an arrow that simply says "potential pedestrian interconnection." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That works. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the idea of continuous preserves carries weight, so... MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Just one gives him credit and one doesn't, so that's something that will have to be calculated by staff. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Would the school board have to approve the pedestrian connection? MR.EASTMAN: We would so far as how it connects to our land,and we can do an easement agreement,or we could even work with the developer to meet them there. But the school district has a real strong interest in seeing that if it is developed as residential single-family,that there is a pedestrian interconnection there as a requirement;not really a potential but a requirement,because that would save a lot of--it would make it a really efficient way to get to school. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And this still could be the single-family home. They have a choice of going either way. This could be,what, 164 homes on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: A hundred and sixty-seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember what--48 on the one piece that's being brought into the PUD. I can't remember right offhand what the current PUD's total is. David,did you want to respond to something? MR. WEEKS: I did. I felt like I had an invitation. Commissioners,I'll be brief. The purpose for vehicular interconnections is to lessen trips on the adjacent roadways,and that could be accomplished in one of two ways or a combination. One would be functioning as a roadway so that residents of one location,one project,can get through another project to get to another roadway.The other benefit is strictly internal,and I think that's the case that we would see here. Because I agree with Wayne's comment and some of your comments from the dais as far as property to the north abuts Veterans Memorial Boulevard which connects to Livingston Road at a traffic-signalized intersection and, similarly,Learning Lane,I believe,has a traffic signal as well. Well,that's off the table. The benefit of interconnections between two projects even if there are no additional connections to roadways is the lessening of trips on the adjacent roadway just because of that internal connection. If I live in one project and I want to visit my neighboring project and there's not an interconnection,I have to go out. I have no option. I have to drive out onto the external roadway to get to my neighbor. And,you know,we come across this situation that,in my view,is ludicrous where I literally may live across the wall or across a property line from my neighbor's house,but to visit them I have to get in my car and drive or if there's other means,bicycle,sidewalk,I have to do that. But either way,to visit my neighbor I have to go outside of my project and inside to theirs.That's it. Page 39 of 71 June 2, 2016 It's just that simple. And though--Commissioner Strain is absolutely correct,the policy in the Future Land Use Element is not mandatory. It does use the word"encourage"which clearly to me says,case-by-case basis. In some cases it is not going to be appropriate. And,as you know,you do not always get a recommendation from comprehensive planning staff asking for an interconnection because, in our view,there are times when it's not appropriate or not feasible,at least. But we generally start from the perspective that we should have an interconnection unless there's a reason not to as opposed to the opposite perspective,we shouldn't have an interconnection unless we specifically see that there's some absolute benefit here. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So how do you address security and maintenance obligations? I mean,if I find--if I live in the next development and I find a shortcut,I'll be constantly using it. That will violate their security, and then they will be paying maintenance for the road segment that I--that I don't contribute to. So I understand your point about not taking traffic to outside roads,but there are other considerations about communities being independently controlled and maintained. Every--all the facilities are private, so... MR.WEEKS: Right. I understand that,and absolutely there is some cost and there has to be--it's an easement agreement or some other legal mechanism that allows that to occur. It's a--my perspective, it's a policy decision because not providing that interconnection at some small or not-so-small increment has an impact on the public at large,because we are all paying for the roadways. We're all paying for the transportation network. And if there's a way to lessen that--so to me that's the policy decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. Evaluating whether it's appropriate or not to have that interconnection,understanding that there'll be some cost to those developments but there is the potential for some public benefit. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you,David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we had discussion. We have a couple of changes that were suggested. Does anybody have anything they want to add to those? The two changes we previously talked about were clarifying the PUD,take out the references to access on Learning Lane,and then to show the preserve as continuous with an arrow allowing the interconnection by pedestrian traffic as an option for the future to Learning Lane. Anybody have anything they want to add to that,or is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve PUDZ-PL20150001613 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With those-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --RMC Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church RPUD,CC--CFPUD,with the stipulations you just listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 all for attending. It's now about quarter of 12. Rather than start a new project--and we have several other items to Page 40 of 71 June 2, 2016 discuss today--let's take a lunch break from 11:40--till 12:45 and resume the meeting at 12:45. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Meeting is adjourned till then. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats,we'll resume the meeting from your lunchtime break. ***The next item up is PUDZ-PL20140000890.It's the Onyx RPUD located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. 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 at the end with Tom again. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking him something or... COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Bruce,I spoke with Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce Anderson. Okay. I talked with staff. I also met with Bruce Anderson and Tim Hancock. Go ahead,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know what,I have to correct myself. I think Bruce told me that this items was going to be on the agenda today,but that was about it. So we didn't actually speak about anything,but I did talk to Mr.Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get by with such short conversations with Mr.Anderson? Okay. Tim? MR.HANCOCK: I thought for sure you were going to say short conversations with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he didn't mention you, so I would know better than that. MR.HANCOCK: Good afternoon,Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Stantec and here representing Polly Avenue,LLC,the property owner and petitioner on this item. Also Mr.Anderson,legal counsel,is here as well. If it's to the interest of the commission,there are,from what I can see,only three folks from the neighborhood that are here today to speak.What I propose is to really focus on some of the changes that we have tried to address in this,and then if it's your desire,Mr. Chair,to hear from the public and kind of avoid the whole, long laundry list introduction,where the project is located stuff until--unless it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't need that part of it,but you need--I mean,you can approach this anyway you want,Tim. You know I'm going to have questions based on our previous discussion. So all the issues have to be cleaned up that we talked about. And I'm assuming,then,you're going to walk through those as a cleanup process. MR.HANCOCK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I didn't see any members of the public stand up to get sworn Page 41 of 71 June 2,2016 in.Are you guys going to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't either, Stan. I was going to wait until this got done. If people want to speak,they can get sworn in at this point. So that's how I was going to handle it. MR.HANCOCK: Before you is--on your monitor is the project aerial. The site is 8.76 acres in total size. It's approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock located immediately--I'm sorry. I'll slow down--immediately east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The property is pretty much bordered on all four sides by either right-of-way or vacant right-of-way. As I mentioned,to the west is Santa Barbara Boulevard,a six-lane collector,to the south is Polly Avenue,to the east is Sunset Boulevard,and to the north is an undeveloped right-of-way called Adkins Avenue. This is an element within your packet,but I just put it on the visualizer to show that there is zoning surrounding the project that has residential densities in anywhere from the three to five units per acre. Primarily those are to the south along Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three to five units per acre? MR.HANCOCK: Some have three, some have five,and they range in between. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three to five units per acre? You mean one unit per three to five acres, don't you? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. The purpose of the zoning map is the property immediately adjacent to the east and to the south is zoned agricultural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.HANCOCK: One unit per five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.HANCOCK: I'm saying a little further south of that as you continue along Santa-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,none contiguous to it,though? MR.HANCOCK: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was--I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought you were--it's all ag zoning around there,and their homesites are larger than one unit per three to five--I mean, three units per acre,so... MR.HANCOCK: Many are five acres and more-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.HANCOCK: --and a great neighborhood,avid use of golf carts. Good people to spend some time with. But--so immediately surrounding the property to the east and south,yes, sir,those are the conditions,agriculture zoning,one unit per five acres. As you go a little further south on Santa Barbara,you get into projects that have a little higher density,and that's where I was saying the range is anywhere from three to five units per acre as you go down to Rattlesnake Hammock. Quick background. In 2006,this property was rezoned to a configuration you see before you here today. And this configuration,which is the current zoning,was based on 27 single-family lots. To the left is Santa Barbara Boulevard,to the bottom is Polly Avenue,and to the right is Sunset. One of the reasons this configuration came about is because at the time Santa Barbara Boulevard was not completed. As a matter of fact,this project donated,at no cost to the county, 67 feet of right-of-way along the western edge,did not receive impact fee credits for it,but did retain the ability to count that acreage towards the project density. So a donation of right-of-way occurred which was a part of the Santa Barbara widening. And so at that time the only opportunity for access was via Polly Avenue and Sunset. For this project,one of the main concerns of the neighborhood was traffic,the number of vehicles that would now be using Sunset going north and south because at that time you would go north to Whitaker to come out to what would be a median opening on Santa Barbara. So in addition to a physical fit and single-family being a--what we thought was an appropriate use at the time,we also were constrained by how many trips were going to be put on these local roads,not all of which are public roadways. So those were the factors that went into the approval in 2006. And,by the way,my client purchased Page 42 of 71 June 2,2016 the property in 2005,the peak of,some would way,the real estate boom. Rezoned in 2006,then the recession hit. Unlike most properties that may have had bank financing, this one did not. There was no one to give the keys to,so my client has held that property for the last 11 years waiting for the market to slowly,ever so slowly,return. Now that it has come back,we--they needed to do,really,a reassessment to determine if this was an appropriate use still at this time. The other thing that has changed is because Santa Barbara is now built,we have the ability to access Santa Barbara instead of going through the neighborhood streets to the rear. The third item that has changed for us is that the county has a floodplain compensation ordinance that,over the last 10 years,has affected the way in which we design water management. For most purposes, basically what you see here had as a very minimal amount of dry detention as a part of it.The new ordinance requires significantly more storage and treatment than what you see here. So as all those factors came together,what we saw was we saw the available land for development shrinking,we saw the market moving more to a multifamily development in this area,but yet we also saw, with access to Santa Barbara, significant additional costs in the design permitting construction of a turn lane and a portion of the Adkins right-of-way. I show this exhibit as something that we shared with the neighbors very early on. And,again,a little bit of background. Another firm brought this project forward at one point proposing 60 units and 50-foot-tall buildings,and I probably could have saved them a lot of time with my work I've done with the neighbors in the past and told them that would probably not go over well,and it didn't. The property owner then contracted with Stantec,and we went into kind of a redesign/replanning mode. And I don't think it was so much the unit count,because one of the first things I did is I went out and met with three or four of the neighbors on site,and we just had a conversation. And the real concern at that point was these large,massive 50-foot-tall buildings right across the street from single-family homes in an agriculturally zoned area. And I'd already somewhat anticipated that, and I created this layout to show basically what a 48-unit development could look like if we basically scrunched it over to Santa Barbara as best we could,to the north as best we could,to create additional separation to allow for the preserve to be located to the east and south;therefore,buffering the neighboring community,and also to provide the largest setback possible versus what was previously proposed.Again, looking at the old plan. We were going to have homes 20 feet off of the right-of-way on Sunset and on Polly. Here the setbacks are 150 feet from the Sunset right-of-way,which is the one to the east,and at least 70 feet from the Polly Avenue right-of-way to the south. Obviously,with the additional cost of the turn lane and whatnot,we have determined that we can make the project work at a 48-unit number but,quite honestly,the economics of the project require that number of units,and it's pretty much the maximum you can fit in what would be a townhouse or a condominium project without going over two stories. That was the other commitment: 50 feet,certainly not acceptable. What we've proposed here is two stories and 35 feet. The master concept plan in your package looks like this,and black-and-white line drawings don't always do a project justice. But what we basically have here are three north/south development tracts.And one of those tracts actually has a roadway that borders both the front and the rear of the unit, and that's driving one of our deviations,what I'll get into in just a moment. But the key elements of the rezone before you are this: Building heights are limited to 35 feet and two stories. That's the same height as the current RMF6 zoning district. Required setbacks,as discussed, 150 feet from Polly Avenue, 70 feet--I'm sorry-- 150 from Sunset,70 feet from Polly. That's a range of three to six times greater than what the RMF6 zoning requires. As mentioned,the preserve has been located to help shield the project from the view of neighboring properties. The water management area has been increased significantly,and we also located it between the development and the preserve,again,filling that setback space with the water management area. Page 43 of 71 June 2,2016 All project access will be directly from Santa Barbara Boulevard;basically 100 percent reduction in traffic on these local roads. And to help ensure a higher value of development,all residential units will require an enclosed attached garage,no carports or at-grade parking lots with the exception of what may be required for the amenity center. Where you have a small pool and clubhouse,you're going to have to have a few parking spaces there. The community was also concerned about noise associated with dumpsters which may be typical of multifamily development. We have been able to confirm that because you have an attached garage and a driveway,Collier County has indicated that we could go to a typical residential service where we would have the trash bins at each driveway instead of a dumpster. So we have actually included that in our PUD that it will be served by a residential waste pickup service as opposed to a dumpster. And, lastly,the units are limited to a maximum of 48. That is a gross density of 5.5 units per acre. The application before you also seeks two deviations,Mr.Assaad's favorite thing to talk about. I, you know,didn't want your afternoon to pass without some challenges,sir. But I think you'll see one of these as being extremely necessary and one as being a financial-based approach. The first deviation is a request to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street where development fronts on both sides of the street,but in the case of the middle development tract where the units will front on either one side of the street or other but certainly not on both,we're asking that we not have to place a sidewalk in the rear yard of those units. And that same exhibit--with a little highlighting on it,I think,clears that up just a little bit. It's hard to see--is in this scenario where the units would front on the main entry road on both sides,you would have sidewalks on both sides. But as you round the corner,I think it's better for the project and better for the community,instead of having a sidewalk in the rear yard,that that money be spent on landscaping to create a buffer between the rear lanais and the homes across the street. So our deviation is only for those areas where development fronts only on one side of the street, meaning your garage or front door,that we not have to put sidewalks in the rear yards. The second deviation we are seeking is there is a requirement for this project,because it is using the residential infill bonus which allows you to request up to seven units an acre, one of those bonus units must be derived from a TDR or transfer of development right. In this case,we have 35 units that could be assigned as of right and,therefore,the additional units--I said 35. The additional TDRs required,which in this case are nine,have to be purchased. Now,the code reads that if we filed an SDP for the entire project,we would have to produce all nine of those TDRs on the front end of the project,not an inexpensive option. What we're suggesting is that we not be required to purchase those TDRs until we get to that--the last nine units. It's just simply a deferred or delayed purchase of the TDRs. This is not critical to the project. It's really just trying to kind of spread the cost out. You have so much upfront cost with infrastructure, particularly for a small project like this. It's a matter of cash flow and convenience,and it's something that does have a history of being approved by the Board of Commissioners as recently--I think it's in the last year and half on a large-large project. It's even more important on a small-scale project that we try and put those costs back a little bit if we can. The last item I have for you is we have continued to take input from the neighbors,the East Naples Civic Association weighed in fairly late in the process,and we continue to get questions and things as we go along. And so what we have prepared,or I have prepared,is a list of additional commitments that we're asking this body to consider for inclusion in our PUD. And there's seven of them. I'd like to go through them with you. And I think most of them are fairly straightforward. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Do you have a copy for me? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could we focus that,please? MR.HANCOCK: I'll ask one of the experts to come in on that a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,if you just increase the magnification, it will probably be all we need. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,that's good. Page 44 of 71 June 2, 2016 MR.HANCOCK: So based on the input we've received as recently as our neighborhood information on May 12th--and that was the second NIM for this project because it started back last year, so we had to do a second neighborhood information meeting. Number one,the first floor of each unit would utilize primarily concrete block construction. This is in response to one of the neighbor's requests about not wanting a completely stick-built community. Usually hesitant to put construction methods in the zoning document,but since it is our intent to construct in that fashion anyway,we see no damage in doing so. Number two,the minimum unit size shall be 1,400 square feet. Currently the RMF6 zoning is 750. Three,asphalt shingles shall be prohibited as a roofing material. Again,not our intent, so we see no problem with that. Number four,the community may be gated subject to changes to the MCP allowing for the movement of the amenity center as shown. I will get to that drawing as a last item, if you will. I just want to show you what that looks like on the plan. But in order to gate the community,we have to move the activity center for reasons I'll share with you in just a moment. Number five,to ensure adequate visual screening,after clearing and removal of exotics from the preserve,the developer shall either,A,construct a six-foot privacy wall along the east and southern property lines adjacent to the preserve--and I recognize there are accessory structure setbacks to deal with there--or, B, supplemental planting of wax myrtle,buttonwood,green buttonwood, sabal palms,and/or live oaks will be utilized to achieve 80 percent opacity at eight-foot height within one year of planting. And this language has been taken from a PUD that was approved in the--not too far back as a--and is actually created by the community that was adjacent to it. I think there was a landscape architect in the community of helped create that. Number six,the developer shall include a disclosure in the sales materials that there are agricultural zoned properties with farm animals in proximity to the project which may make noise audible to homeowners in the project. We are in a unique area. And I wanted to thank Commissioner Homiak. I believe she passed this item on to us from concerns she heard from the residents,and I believe there's even a property owner with a donkey. And their concern was that,you know,people move in,next thing you know they're getting calls and complaints about noise of animals that have been there for a long time. And,Ms.Homiak,I wrote this up as"in sales materials,"but the thought occurred to me as I was discussing it with Mr.Anderson that maybe the best way to do that is to put it in the covenant and restrictions for the product. That way it would carry from owner to owner in the future;whereas, sales materials could be a one-time deal. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,that would be--yeah,that's-- MR.HANCOCK: And you read the covenant restrictions before you sign--before you,you know, close on your unit. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're supposed to anyway. MR.HANCOCK: Yeah,supposed to is a good--but at least at that point there's something to fall back on five years from now if someone had a complaint. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. That's a good idea. MR.HANCOCK: Okay. So if you will accept that,I would propose that as a modification to that item. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yep. MR.HANCOCK: And Item 7 is street lighting for the project will utilize flat panel or similar fixtures and cutoff shields where appropriate to avoid light spill onto adjacent properties and reduce light pollution. This is a long way of kind of saying Dark Sky's without using the phrase "Dark Sky's"because Dark Sky's by itself is, in essence,a brand that carries with it a whole host of things that don't address just light fixtures. The point is to have downward lights that do not cause light spill upward into the atmosphere because,again,a lot of folks who live there have lived there for a long time. I'm sure the streetlights on Santa Page 45 of 71 June 2,2016 Barbara don't help. But we don't want to make that worse, so we're happy to agree with that as well. And those last two items came via Commissioner Homiak,and I hope I've captured them-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. MR.HANCOCK: --in an acceptable format. Now, going back to Item No.4. This probably looks very,very similar to the site plan in your package. And I can tell you there's really only been one primary change. In order--when we were at the neighborhood information meeting,the residents has asked if it's going to be gated or not,and I wasn't sure that--because the county requires that a gate have at least 100 feet of stacking between any public right-of-way and the gate itself. Even though we only have 48 units,I thought,well,let's at least make sure we can meet the LDC requirement. We don't want another deviation on that gate, so--but I was running into problems with making it all fit and still getting to the 48 units which,honestly,is just an absolute number to make this project work. So what I've done here is the amenities center,which used to be located down here,has been moved up here. What that does is it allows us to have a pool and clubhouse in this area with a parking area to the rear inside the gate. Previously these were units that had driveways accessing the roadway,so they would have been outside the gate. So I moved the amenities center up here,and that would put one building down here to the south where you see the developable envelope here. So we're still honoring the 70-foot setback. We are no closer than 70 feet,but previously we had all the buildings oriented in a north/south orientation. What this also does is it gives it a little more of a circuitous feel and I think will let us break up the buildings a little bit better than the previous approach had. And,again,these buildings haven't been designed by the architect yet,but we're using footprints that get us to a square footage we think is viable in the marketplace,which is probably going to be well in excess of 1,400 square feet. But this puts a building to the south,so you might have two over here,one here,two smaller ones here,and two here. So,really,the water management area has remained the same in size.We've just reshaped it. We've shifted the buildings. And the reason we did this was at the neighborhood information meeting,I asked for input from the residents about whether this community being gated was important to them or not. And the answer was really that the perception that it's tied to value. So if it's gated,maybe the home values will be a little bit higher. Whether that's real or perceived,I think we can understand that. And since I've figured out how to physically make it work,I'm requesting your consideration of this master concept plan as well today. Those are the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "As well,"meaning in lieu of or in addition to? MR.HANCOCK: In lieu of, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.HANCOCK: This would be the master concept plan. With those final points,I'll address any questions you may have. And,of course,we certainly respectfully request that we have the opportunity to address any comments made by the public if that should be the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,boy. Well, let's start at the beginning,and I've got quite a few questions. Let's go back to your presentation comments;two of them that you made I need clarification on. You said that based on the multifamily projects now moving into the area,your applicant realizes that multi--wanted to go multifamily for this one. What multifamily units have moved into that area? Can you show me that aerial that you had--or that have happened since the last approval of this PUD? MR.HANCOCK: No, sir. I'm sorry. If that's what I said,I misspoke. There's a multi--there are multifamily developments in the general area right across the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 46 of 71 June 2,2016 MR.HANCOCK: What I'm saying is,the market has changed to where we think multifamily is a more appropriate use in this location,not that it's being driven by the developments around us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's--that's an anomaly,because right now single-family's dominating. Most everything we see is single-family because they want to avoid the state and federal rules regarding condominiums. So you're doing the opposite of what the market's generally been going towards. But that's fine. I just wanted to understand. If you thought there were other multifamily in this area that occurred that would have spawned this change,I wanted to know it because I didn't--I wasn't aware of. But you've answered that question. MR. HANCOCK: The reduction in the buildable envelope also has made those same lot sizes you saw on the 27-lot plan no longer feasible. So we would see a sharp reduction in the number of single-family if we were to try and keep those lot sizes. So when I talk about the economics of the project,it's a comparison of one versus the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just wanted clarification on the reasoning. I don't necessarily agree that it's the right product for today's market. But if your applicant thinks it is,great. You said there was no--there was direct access from Santa Barbara Boulevard,but you're coming in off Adkins,aren't you? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,we are-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have direct access off Santa Barbara for this project. You're coming in off Adkins? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,when we get down to Page 2 of the PUD,under accessory uses and structures,under C we have seven types of uses.Two,4,and 5 are repeated under the amenity center,A,under principal uses down below,and I'm sure that you don't want the amenity center anywhere in the R category since you're specifically telling us on the MP you want them over in that new location. Is that--so we can strike 2,4,and 5? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 3 on that same accessory uses for the residential are garages,but in the NIM you indicated the garages would--in lieu of at-grade parking. So would you have any objection to saying--and that's another thing--enclosed garages. No at-grade parking except for rec center? MR.HANCOCK: That's fine, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that gets you what you needed for the rec center,and it also prevents the parking lots that you,at the NIM,said you weren't going to have. So--and Bruce is looking kind of puzzled. Bruce, if you see anything wrong with what I'm suggesting, get up here and clean it up before I go too far,if you don't mind. So if you don't-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Uh-oh. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here he comes. MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner Strain, if I could clarify, a car in a driveway does not constitute at-grade parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We talked about that. MR. HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. MR.HANCOCK: And we're fine with that change as well,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your development standards table,it's laid out a little differently than what we're used to seeing,but I understand it,and you don't have any lakes,and you do have preserve. So I would assume that where--the 20 feet for the setback for accessory structures and principal structures is from where in regards to the LBEs and/or--if you're going to have lakes,LMEs,but I'm not sure how you're going to designate that floodway compensation area. MR.HANCOCK: It's just going to be detention. So it will be a water management area. But your point is well taken,without a lake,having setbacks to lakes is probably not relevant. Page 47 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.HANCOCK: However,do recognize,and also from our discussion,Commissioner Strain,that it has become more important that landscape buffer easements and lake easements be either platted or at least recorded and that measurements be taken from those instead of the property line. I recognize that we need to have an LME and LBE setback here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,an LME is the lake maintenance easement. But in lieu of that you mean that water management detention area,right? MR.HANCOCK: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to sell that as part of the lot,are you? MR.HANCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be the rear lot line,then, in that case,right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. And if these are townhomes,they may not be lots for sale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SDP--yeah,the SDP or tract boundary,yeah. I keep forgetting. That's right,they are multifamily. MR.HANCOCK: So--yeah,I don't see a reason for LME requirement at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to do LBEs. You're going to separately plat those. How are you handling the dry detention? Are you going to separately plat that? What do you plan to do with that? MR.HANCOCK: Well, it's not our intent if we go with townhomes to actually go through a platting process. So,you know,if it's a simple process to plat landscape buffer easements,that's fine.Typically we would record the dry detention area just as a water management easement and record that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't--as long as it's separated out from the actual application of where the units are going to go in the SDP,I don't have a problem with that. That's--as long as it's a separate tract. MR.HANCOCK: Is it acceptable to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's just like a road tract. It would be a common area that would be maintained by the COA or--yeah. MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that development standard tables,you need to change the lake line on that to reflect LBEs,but then--well, if you're not going to LBEs,but wherever your--yeah, landscape buffer easements. They'll still be easements of some kind. MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And from the landscape buffer easements,we have a very tight site here. And I would--due to the 2006 right-of-way donation for Santa Barbara and the fact that we're trying to create as much distance from Sunset and Polly as possible,I would like to see the setback from landscape buffer easements at--for principal structures at 10 feet instead of 20 feet just to recognize how limited and tight the site is,granted it's by design to create more distance from the agriculturally zoned lands,but I would certainly ask that that be considered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we talked about that.And I noticed on this plan,and the other one,that you indicated the width of the right-of-way. I would suggest you not do that and also strike the asterisk reference to the LDC,which was already a given,so that you could justify and come in with a reduced right-of-way and hopefully gain some distance from the LBEs that are causing you the problem on that front tract. MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir,I agree,I don't think those two notations need to be on the master concept plan. We have not final designed the right-of-way width. We can get narrower,maybe a little bit narrower than even a 50-footer,but you start getting much below that,it can get difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're showing 60 now. MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go to 50,you've picked up 10 feet. So the 20 feet that you've got in this chart would work because the only place you need 10 feet is that buffer along Santa Barbara, is that correct,or is all these--because that appears to be the narrowest. MR.HANCOCK: The buffer along Santa Barbara and the buffer along Adkins as well. We have a landscape buffer easement. Page 48 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's a side setback there,right? MR.HANCOCK: Yes. I just want to--and there we would have, in essence,20 feet from the property line as a side yard setback,but I just want to be clear that 10 feet from those two landscape buffer easements would be an acceptable setback for principal structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think you've got side yard 10 feet. So when you rework this to write up for the LBE setback along Santa Barbara and you reduce the right-of-way width to 50 feet,which you have to do by 6.06.01.N or a deviation,which you're not here prepared to ask for today-- MR. HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I'm just wondering how to accomplish this. MR. HANCOCK: I think we can simply craft in the table,where"lakes" is,we can put,you know, landscape buffer easement along Santa Barbara,a 10-foot setback,and then the balance of the setbacks,as you mentioned,the side yard setback for the buildings from the buffer along Adkins would be 10 feet already as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then you wouldn't--if you're going to go to 10 feet along Santa Barbara,you wouldn't need the reduction in right-of-way width,then would you? MR.HANCOCK: I don't know yet, sir,because we haven't designed the units. Obviously,we want to get.as--you know, larger units,not smaller units,on the site. So I would rather just rely on the LDC for potential reduction in the right-of-way width"if necessary." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't do that if you show 60 on the PUD. Well,you can with the asterisk. I see what you--so you'd just leave that the way it is then. MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's an odd way to go,but that's fine. The opacity of the preserve area, I see in your notes you--because it's changed a little differently than what I saw this morning in your email to the residents. It's 80 percent at eight feet;is that right? MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman,can I go back to the right-of-way width? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.HANCOCK: I would suggest that we just remove"60 feet,"remove the notation,and let the LDC govern,and we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that was on the premise that you would--you could keep--see, right now the way it's shown at 60,you're saying you've got to--you're going to be--you need to be 10 feet off the LBE on Santa Barbara,okay. Well,if you want to go to 50,which I was suggesting, so we could get the 20 feet off the LBE at Santa Barbara, it would be more effective. But now you're saying you don't want to do it that way and you still want the 10 feet because you want to make a bigger unit then. Is that-- MR. HANCOCK: Well,the reason I'm asking for the flexibility in--and one's not flexibility because it would be in the PUD,but leaving that right-of-way width variable is after meeting with you,I went back and began reworking the site plan,because originally,we had counted setbacks from the property line, not from the landscape buffer easement. So everywhere where there's a landscape buffer easement now when I thought I had 20 feet,you know,or was right up against--particularly the one on Santa Barbara I was right up against it with a unit,and we discussed having separation there,effectively my developable tract got smaller for the purposes of measuring setbacks. So I had already calculated in the ability to have 50-foot rights-of-way to leave approximately 100 feet of development tract depth so that we aren't pinching these units down because,since we have to have garages,which are going to be 20-to 22-feet deep,if I only have 60 feet of development depth,that first floor starts getting pretty tough. So that's why I'm asking for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think you then need to drop that 60-foot notation and drop the note that's the asterisk attached. You drop them both,and then you're just subject to the LDC. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. We would be comfortable with that. Thank you. Page 49 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I have to agree with you,Tim. That would work. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question on the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And,Mark,you might have covered this,and I might have missed it. But if you've already made the recommendation with this new Exhibit C to move the amenities center to the northwest corner of the property,is it necessary to have the amenity center set back from Polly Avenue in the table? Wouldn't that be,then,from Adkins? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am, it would. And,thank you. I did not catch that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go further down in the PUD,you've got a page that I can't understand why it's there. It follows the master plan. And it's called the utility and surroundings land uses. That isn't a needed plan for a PUD,so I think that should be removed unless--do you have a reason to leave it there? MR.HANCOCK: I agree entirely with you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your deviations,under Deviation 1,your justification for it was that in the back of those lots where there would have been a double-loaded sidewalk since it's the rear of the building and you want the ability to put landscaping in,you want to take the sidewalk out, so what kind of landscaping are you putting in? MR. HANCOCK: It would be minimum Type B 10-foot buffer in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum Type B 10-foot buffer? MR.HANCOCK: You know,I just caught myself,because if I put--if I call it a buffer and have to record it as a buffer easement, it's now affecting my setback on that lot,which-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I would just as soon as we don't do it as an easement but you just simply tell us what kind of landscaping you're putting there,and when you come in that--it will be just noted on this plan,Type B landscaping and not call it a buffer,that would be fine. But your justification for the removal was you want to landscape it. So just landscape it is all I'm asking. MR.HANCOCK: Ten-foot Type D,Delta. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Type D,okay. So it would be a 10-foot Type D landscaping? MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.JOHNSON: Question: Are we talking about Exhibit E deviations? And if so, is it Deviation No. I or Deviation No.2 that we're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about Master Plan Exhibit C. MR.JOHNSON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said that the deviation he's asking for in the back of the units where he didn't want the sidewalk to go was based on the fact he wanted to have the room to put landscaping. So I'm just saying tell us what landscaping you're going to put there. And he's now saying he's going to put a 10-foot Type D landscaping element back there. Not an easement,but a landscaping pallet. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Where exactly is that?Can you point to where we're talking about on this plan to make sure I'm with everybody? Thank you. MR.HANCOCK: In this plan,that middle tract,front side flipped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.HANCOCK: So that's where--that's the area that will be subject to a 10-foot,Type D landscape treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Good. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Exhibit F,under attached garage,each dwelling shall have a garage attached to the principal structure. I'd suggest add the word,have an"enclosed" garage attached. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under public utilities,that statement's not needed. It's a given. It's Page 50 of 71 June 2,2016 required. So I would suggest that one be dropped. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under--the next page,which is Page 10 under landscaping,that's a part of the LDC currently. I'm not sure why we need it in here,unless you have a need for it. If you're not--if this isn't part of the LDC,then I want to know why then it should be listed as a deviation. If it is,we don't need it. MR.HANCOCK: I agree with you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let me see if there's anything else,Tim. Nope. That's--the rest of the stuff is just items I picked up to match up that you said at the NIM, and they do, so we're good. MR.HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff--or of the applicant,I'm sorry? We're still going to get to staff. Okay. Oh,Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If you started your multifamily development and you're producing your TDRs as you go along,what happens midway if you cannot produce or don't want to produce any more TDRs? What happens? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get the number of units you can have without TDRs,right? MR.HANCOCK: Yes. The way it's structured is the base density of four units per acre times 8.72 gets us to 35 units. If for some reason the applicant chose not to purchase TDRs,they would be limited to those 35 units. So,for example, if they switched to single-family and decided to do a 22-lot single-family development--I'm sure we'd have to come back for a master concept plan change--they wouldn't need to go buy the TDRs. So it really caps the development at 35. And if you want to go past that,you have to purchase the TDRs. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I have no problems with your postponing the TDRs till the time they are needed. But my question is, if you start--if you start your multifamily development and you're doing it in phases--so let's say your Phase 1 is--or you get to Phase 3 where you've constructed 30 of them and you cannot produce enough TDRs for the balance of the units,you will have a vacant piece of land at the end? You cannot go back and redo what you constructed already. MR.HANCOCK: Correct. There-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So what do you do then? MR.HANCOCK: In that case,there would be a vacant piece of land. But as far as the availability of TDRs,I don't think finding nine TDRs is going to be a challenge,at least over the next five-plus years. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're willing to take that risk? MR.HANCOCK: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact,we've already,you know,had conversations with folks who control TDRs,and we'll be looking,assuming we get an approval to go forward and get something under contract,but we may be able to push the final down the road. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Tim. Staff report,Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Yes,thank you. Eric Johnson,principal planner. Staff reviewed the project and acknowledges that the intensity of the project is more oriented towards the northwest corner of the property. Staff evaluated the two requested deviations;recommends approval of those deviations. Staff also,among other things,evaluated the proposed uses,the development standards and such,and is recommending approval of the project as submitted in your packet. Heidi,the County Attorney's Office,does have something that she wants to read into the record. I'll Page 51 of 71 June 2,2016 let her speak right now. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I have some changes that I'd like you to consider,and the first one is on the master plan on the left-hand side where it says"67-foot easement." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us the page that you're on. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,the master plan. On the new one or the old one? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Either one,but whichever one you adopt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Instead of 67-foot easement,it should say"67-foot public road easement." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The second one is on Page 9. I'm on the wrong document. Page 9 of Exhibit F under Transportation Commitment No.2,the second line that reads, "site's access point on Santa Barbara," I'm recommending inserted language that says, "at the future Adkins Road intersection." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.HANCOCK: If I may,I'm sorry.Ms.Ashton,could you repeat that again,please. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. The second line of Commitment No.2 after the word"Santa Barbara"would read, "at the future Adkins Road intersection." MR.HANCOCK: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Then there's some--the statutory language that's required is omitted, so I'm going to ask that that also be included,and I'll get with the applicant to make sure they have that language. And then I don't know if you want me to go over my changes on the--sorry for hitting the microphone--changes to the revised commitments that they're proposing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we should get them all,certainly. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Under the first one that reads, "the first floor of each unit will utilize primarily concrete block construction," I don't know what"primarily"would mean, so I don't know how the county would enforce that,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there will probably be some elements that they can't do in masonry that have to tie into the masonry system;I'm assuming that's what it means. You're going to have lintels,you're going to have wall openings,you're going to have door frames that are going to be metal,possibly wood.You're going to have a whole series of construction elements that won't necessarily all be solid block. So I would think that's what you mean,Tim. MR.HANCOCK: It is,exactly. For example,you know,you may have a door opening,and you may punch out with alternative materials to block in that section. I just didn't want to say first floor will all be concrete block and then someone sees a wood section attached to block and we somehow find ourselves in a zoning violation. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR.HANCOCK: So I'm open to suggestions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your interior walls will be framed,I would assume? MR.HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why is that part of the commitments? I mean-- MR. HANCOCK: Because one of our neighbors was concerned about the quality of the construction,and it was of his opinion that block over stick built would have a higher value. Whether I agree or disagree with that is not as important as it is--our commitment to work with the neighbors was if we were going to do it anyway, go ahead and put it in there. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why don't you say that it's--it's taken for granted that you will comply with the building code at the time of construction, so... MR.HANCOCK: That was my first answer,but the gentleman was insistent. And,again,we're going to do it anyway, so... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're going to do it to please-- MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That's fine. Page 52 of 71 June 2,2016 MR.HANCOCK: We can't always make everybody happy,but in this case we could. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So then No.2,I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're requesting. You're requesting that on Page 4 of 10,Exhibit B,that under the categories minimum floor area of building under multifamily townhouse and single-family zero lot line,that those be changed to 1,400 square feet? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Number 3 is fine. Number 4,the language you're proposing is the community may be gated,and I'd like to add that no gate--there will be no gates within Adkins Road easements. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And then for 5 and 6,to change"developer"to"owner,"and under 5B, which is your landscaping,I wasn't clear if you were talking about the east and southern property lines adjacent to the preserve or if there was another location you were talking about for the second option. MR.HANCOCK: No,ma'am. It's strictly within the preserve,which is only shown on the eastern and southern property lines. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So then we could add that language,then,to clarify the location of Option No.B. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. So it could say supplemental plantings within the preserve may consist of--we'll figure that out,certainly. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I just need to know where that's going to be. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: May I finish with the staff report or with my analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. So the way I understand it,the project is going to be at most in two phases, because I know that we discussed the phasing of the project; is that correct? MR.HANCOCK: I don't see a reason to commit to a limited number of phases here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a small enough project. Does it matter? MR.JOHNSON: Well,it was just a statement that Mr.Hancock made,I believe,at the NIM that said it was going to be a two-phased project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you get one building permit,you start one building,you start the second one,you've got two phases. But,I mean,it's almost automatic. MR.HANCOCK: I'll be happy to review it,but I don't believe it was a commitment, Mr.Johnson. I believe I said it may be a two-phase project. I'll be happy to go back and pull that exact verbiage out,though, to make sure that I'm being consistent. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. Either way,I mean,I don't think the phasing really has--we don't have that much opinion about the phasing. I just wanted to have some sort of a discussion about that and make sure that the record was clear as to how many phases, if there were going to be multiple phases. Now,we were looking at the proposed ordinance,and we were making--there were some changes that were being proposed. Under Exhibit A of the PUD document,under C,Charlie,accessory uses and structures,the idea was that we were going to strike out No.2,No.4,and No. 5,and with respect to No. 5, I'm not sure if that should be struck out in its entirety,because if I interpret this correctly,that means that no swimming pools would be allowed for any of the residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is a swimming pool a typical accessory use to a residential unit? MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code allows for those types of accessory uses for single-family. Unless it's specifically prohibited in a PUD,then it would be deemed a common accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the answer is yes.Thank you. MR.JOHNSON: So that means it would be allowed,then,a common accessory. Sorry. So never mind about that. Page 53 of 71 June 2,2016 We talked about the deviation or,rather,in the--or developer commitment,Exhibit F as in foxtrot, landscaping,and the question was asked, is this a deviation? And,you know,I had spoken with our landscape staff,Dan Smith,and he may have something to say if this is struck out of the PUD document. I would really want to just defer to him. MR. SMITH: I'm right here. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith,principal planner. The reason that was put in is when we had some of the--some of these lots, due to deviations for right-of-ways, size of the building,the footprint,that was put in because we were getting some of the typicals back that there was no room for the required canopy tree. So that was more--earlier I asked that they put in so that the Planning Commission could see that those are issues that we have in front of us,and those issues may have to be resolved one way or the other. Does it need to be put in there,no,but it was more or less a sticking point or talking point that these are issues we need to resolve one way or the other. So it really doesn't need to be in there,but it's just something that you have to be aware of,when they do these projects,to make sure that we have the appropriate size for the required canopy tree. That's on that issue. There's another issue regarding the wall. I did read--this new came in front of me regarding the construction of a privacy wall along the east and southernly property lines. When you build a wall,a shrub hedge is required toward the roadside, so between that and the setback that's going to be required for the preserve,you're going to need a minimum of a 10-foot area between the wall,the setback,and the shrubs that have to go in front of the wall. So I just want to make the Planning Commission aware that that's going to have to be part of any approval today with that wall. And then there was an issue regarding the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you get off-- MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you get off that one-- MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --can I get some clarification? MR. SMITH: Sure,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they decide to put a wall in,or anybody in the county puts a wall in, they've got to put a shrub row on the other side of it? MR. SMITH: That's correct. That's part of a--when it faces a right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is facing a preserve. MR. SMITH: I believe the preserve,and then the road's on the other side,isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. What they're doing is the wall--if I remember what Mr. Hancock said,the wall's going to go on the--between the preserve and the dry detention,and so you've got a 40-foot preserve between the wall and the road;you don't need to have a shrub--a hedge there. MR. SMITH: I hadn't seen where-- I just saw this recently, so I just wanted to make sure that there's enough room for the--I was thinking that-- like I said,I just saw this at the last minute. This is new. So I haven't reviewed it. So if it--if a road abutted it,then there would be a shrub hedge that would be required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That I understand,right. I didn't realize you hadn't understood the location. And maybe,Tim,when you come back for consent and you come back with the cleaned up master plan and everything,you kind of note that if a wall is to go in,this is where it will be,and that way we know it. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks. MR. SMITH: Cleared that up,thank you. And then regarding the buffer that we're looking at in lieu of the sidewalks, it was talked about,I think,a D buffer. You were talking about a D buffer has shrubs a maximum of 30 inches. I didn't know if that's what you had in mind,because usually in the backs of--they kind of look more like a fence hedge, which is really the B buffer which is the 5-foot shrubs. So I didn't know what you--what kind of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't--all I wanted to make sure is the justification is that they Page 54 of 71 June 2,2016 want to put landscape there,they put landscape there. If he says he wants to put two trees in that space per lot,I'd be fine with it.If he's going to say it,he has to do it. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was getting at,and he said,fine,we'll just put the landscape--we'll put a buffer material into the palette equal to a Type D and a 10-foot. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that gets us to where we need to go. MR. SMITH: Very good. MR.JOHNSON: And I think Mr. Hancock said it was a Type D landscape treatment,and he wasn't necessarily saying buffer; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We know it's not going to be a LBE. I understand that,Tim. MR.HANCOCK: The intent there was exactly as you surmised,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when you detail out the stuff we've talked about,all that will be fleshed out new language in the completed master plan. MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Dan-- MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the issue about the landscaping,I would rather not see that paragraph after doing some thought on it. I understand your intent,but it's in the code. So when you review or the landscape reviewers review SDP,those trees have got to be where they've got to be or they're not going to pass. So whether we say it here now or they're told at SDP they've got to have them,they've got to have them. And the reason--I would like to retain that flexibility for staff to have some flexibility as well as applicant if there's some problems that come up,and that language may be harder to deal with if it's in the PUD. MR. SMITH: I understand. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR.JOHNSON: And then there was--I have Summer here who can speak about the updated and revised commitments that Mr. Hancock is proposing with respect to, let's see, 5B,I think it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Summer? MS.ARAQUE: Summer Araque,environmental planning,for the record. I just wanted to point out in regards to the wall,which I didn't realize the location either,so--but either way,there is a requirement for a 5-foot setback from the preserve if there is to be a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ARAQUE: Any trenching would actually need to be 10 feet. And then plantings,I would request that the verbiage would say"as allowed by the LDC,"because the plantings,we want to make sure, are consistent with that habitat type. We wouldn't want those plantings to actually become, like,a landscape buffer because that's not what a preserve is. So they could do supplemental plantings. So I think if we just add"as allowed by the LDC,"then that would go with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,would any of these not be allowed by the LDC? MS.ARAQUE: Where do you have that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the reason Tim chose these is because this was the landscape palette used to enhance the opacity of a buffer that was on Immokalee Road between Autumn and Immokalee for a PUD that went there with two medical buildings on it. And the neighborhood had a landscape person--landscape professional involved in the neighborhood,and he came up with this list,and it met the criteria for them to have a quick and high-in-opacity capability. So it was approved for that project, if I'm not mistaken. That's where I suggested Tim grab the material from, is use what they used there because it went over so well. But are you telling us that's now not used on--can't be used on this project? Page 55 of 71 June 2,2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. She's saying that she needs to evaluate. That's what I'm hearing, that she needs to make sure that it matches the habitat that's there. MS.ARAQUE: Correct. First of all,I was not the reviewer on this project. In reading the report, this is a pine flatwood area. It looks like sabal palms, spelled incorrectly. MR.HANCOCK: We're going to remove B. We'll do the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that takes care of it. MR.JOHNSON: All right,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.ARAQUE: Did you want me to--I'm happy to answer your question another-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any anymore. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,I think hers is on supplemental plantings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't have to do any.Now they'll do them per whatever the code says because they're going to remove that language. So it's going to be a wall. Then if they clear the exotics out of preserves and there needs any supplement planting,they'll do them pursuant to the code because there will be no other language to contradict the code. MS.ARAQUE: Did you want me to answer your question just for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. No sense wasting time. I'm fine. MS.ARAQUE: Okay. I believe that that's all that I have on that. Did you-all have anything else or, Eric,any further clarification? MR.JOHNSON: No. I have more discussion on the proposed master plan. Thank you, Summer. And,really,this is--I don't think staff has an issue with it being a gated community.County Attorney's Office has weighed in on where the gate would be. I just want to make sure that Mr. Sawyer could give us his opinion onto--you know,any insight as to how he feels where the gate should be as it relates to this master plan. Thank you,Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Tim,before Mike gets here,just out of curiosity, it looks like coming in off Adkins those are two-way roads,or is that a one-way road? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it's two-way. It's basically two entry lane widths to allow for a vehicle at a call box to stop and a vehicle to pass it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the second one in you're going to make either--you're going to make a call box or something? You're not going to have two gate--you're going to have a gate,but it's not going to be a gatehouse or something like that? MR.HANCOCK: No, sir,no gatehouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious.Thank you. MR.HANCOCK: And it's shown at 100 feet,which we anticipate to be what the code will require, but we have not dimensioned it because there may be some other factors in the LDC that come to bear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. For the record,again,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. As long as the gates are internal to the development,we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Mike. MR.JOHNSON: And the one thing I wanted to ask Mr.Hancock,with respect to the proposed master plan,the second--I want to point to it on the visualizer. This area,the way I understand it, is that the rear yard of each unit that would be developed on that portion of the master plan,the rear yard would face west,and the front yard would face east so,therefore,there would be no sidewalk needed,according to the proposal,in this area. MR.HANCOCK: That is correct. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. And we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: Those are the questions that I had. You know,I just wanted some clarification. Many of these changes were not something that staff had fully evaluated,so I just wanted to make sure,you know,we have a grasp on what's going on. Page 56 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,we'll--Ray, is there any registered public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker,and that's the one I called earlier today,William L.Jones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Jones is here. If you want to speak,you're going to have to be sworn in by the court reporter,unless you were sworn in earlier. You can tell us when you come to the mike. Looks like he's got to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR.JONES: Thank you,Commissioners.Unfortunately,I was out of town when they had the hearing on May the 12th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify for the record,please,first. MR.JONES: William L.Jones,3000 County Barn Road,Naples,Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill Jones? MR.JONES: Bill Jones,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I didn't recognize you. It has been a long time. MR.JONES: Well,I remember when you didn't have all that fuzz. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,and I remember when your hair wasn't that color. My goodness,it's been years. Good to see you again. MR.JONES: It started changing when I sat on that board for 10 years,the licensing board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's been--I think you and I--three decades since I think I saw you. Wow. MR.JONES: I believe they've answered most of our concerns,frankly,because one of my--both of my nephews are involved. One works for the Sheriffs Department,and the other's in construction,and I have three parcels out there. And the thing that I guess the land was developed by Dewey Paul,and it was called Sunset Estates, an unrecorded plat. And they sold it in 5-acre sites. And some of it was rezoned to one and a quarter acre, which is the minimum that you could--or the maximum that you could do it on there. And I guess the density was one of our concerns,but by lowering the height with--that solved one of our concerns,and by making this entrance out on--direct access out on Adkins to Santa Barbara would be another major concern about traffic. So we're pretty much--I've erased most of my things here, I guess. So one of the things that I found out as a builder/developer that when I built a building in a certain area and the water line was here,I put the water line or the sewer line down to that end of the street,and none of the other property owners joined in to help me. So here's my wish list, if you would,Tim. We are pretty much a self-contained community out there. We put our own water in,we put our own sewer/septic tanks in,we paid for--I paid for the streets to put in front of our house. So we do get electricity from Florida Power and Light,and they charge us, so we're pretty much independent. So we'd like to see just what this development could give as far as stubbing out for future water. We'd love to have some water over there. We'd like to see a fire hydrant or something struck around the corner there,maybe close by,at least across the street so we could get within a 500-foot radius of some of the property owners there. And,of course,there's a force main sewer runs right in front of this property,and I think that probably would satisfy that. But we're basically looking to piggyback onto anything that we can do from this developer that would help us improve our community. We're pretty much a single-family set community,and we are sort of isolated from the other development areas around us. So we would welcome this community with the things that they've done,I think. And street lighting was another thing that you brought up, internally. I don't think we'd object to having a couple of post lights put there on the corner of Adkins and Sunset and Polly,maybe. If that was outside,that would certainly provide some safety. A lot of these roads out there,the only maintenance we get Page 57 of 71 June 2,2016 is the county goes through and grades them every once in a while after--not the paved areas,but the ones that are--and that's pretty much fire hydrants would be--these are some things that I think we'd like to just ask your help on in putting in there. And hopefully--I know you can't probably mandate those things. But at any rate, if--we'd certainly welcome a developer a lot better with that,I think. And with that,thank you,gentlemen. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you,Bill. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good to see you again. MR.JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way too many years. MR.JONES: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim,when you come back on consent,would you take a look at those issues and let--and just let us know what can or cannot be done inconsistent with your--I mean,consistent with your project. MR.HANCOCK: I will. And I'm not sure at this point we have finally located all of our water and sewer lines. We know that we're probably going to have to do a jack and bore for one or both under Santa Barbara, so there may be an opportunity for us,because we're probably going to have to do a hydrant interior to the community for radius purposes,but maybe the positioning of that can be such that the fire department has access to it in the event of a fire in the neighborhood so they aren't traveling even further to get to a source of water. So assuming we're retained as the engineer on the project,and hopefully my client will be listening to this,you know,we can try and walk through those issues as we go forward. And there are some other drainage issues in the neighborhood that,as we go forward,we want to pay close attention to as well. Not that we can fix the county's component of that,but maybe if we made a connection from this swale to that swale and help somebody out--and that's something during the course of construction we'll be looking for those ways to do what we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,when you come in off of Santa Barbara and you tap the water main, you're probably going to do that in alignment with Adkins. MR.HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you bring the water main up to tie into the parcel,just put a T fitting there so that they can continue it on. That would be the stub-out I think he's looking for. And that would get him part of the way down Adkins. And it wouldn't be anything additional for you guys; it would just be part of it, so... MR.HANCOCK: And we will certainly look at--that's the one area I was thinking about if that's where we're going to be coming from,but it just hasn't been determined exactly yet,so I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other speakers, Ray or Eric? MR.BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody here who has not spoke on this project wish to speak on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a quick question.Is Adkins-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The north side. That's that one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. But is that built or is that future? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, it's neither. Adkins is a public right-of-way. The property was quit-claim deeded to the county,and that's a part of your package. So the county owns Adkins. We are--you know,we're using it as a right-of-way for entrance to our project. But as I talked to the folks in the community,I've not heard anybody say they want Adkins to go through because then that's going to create another traffic issue within--on Sunset and for the folks who live on Adkins. So,you know,it's a county right-of-way. We're going to construct that section of the roadway to county standards,but we have no intention of continuing Adkins. We'll let somebody else fight that fight. Page 58 of 71 June 2, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any rebuttal or any closing comments you want to make,Tim? MR. HANCOCK: No,sir. I appreciate the detailed comments,and we'll work closely with the County Attorney's Office and staff to get those turned around right quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,I'm going to suggest something to the Planning Commission. Because there are so many changes here and we have a new master plan that staff needs to double-check--I've got a list of 17 things plus all the things that I didn't write down that we commented on as we went through the PUD that need to be corrected. I'm suggesting to the Planning Commission we read these to make sure the list is complete in addition to everything else we discussed and that we do a vote for this project and not have--and move it to the next meeting,continue it to next meeting for a final vote and consent all at one hearing, so your time frame still remains the same. Will that cause you guys any inconvenience? MR.HANCOCK: No,sir,actually,as long as we stay on that July 12 BCC hearing before the Board goes on its vacation,I'll do whatever we need to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the--on that meeting,you'll be the second one up that morning. The one ahead of you will be Highview. They'll be shorter. They'll just have to come in for a consent,then you'll come up under the first item under probably 9A to finish this and do consent and this wrap-up all at one meeting. Because we've gone through most of it here today,so it will just be acknowledging the cleanup's been done properly and to get anything from staff that they may have missed in processing today. Does that seem to work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr.Bosi,was he-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,do you have a problem with that? If you do,come up and say something-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He's waving his arms and everything out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's waving? He's riled up about something,huh? MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. No,I have no issue with that schedule. I'll talk with the applicants about their availability for the Board's July date. We have some issues related to that,but that's not a Planning Commission concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't change regardless of what we just suggested? MR.BOSI: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you've given them something definitely to worry about. MR.HANCOCK: And this day was going so well till you got up here,Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me--the list I made out,in addition to some of the--I didn't write down everything,Tim,because we talked about it on the fly. You're going to separately either plat or show as easements the LBE and LM--not an LME in this case but the LBE. You're going to remove the right-of-way width on the note;you're going to remove the utility plan;you're going to remove the public utility sentence on the--in the PUD and the landscape sentence in the PUD;you're going to add wording for enclosed garage,and there will be no parking lots except for the rec areas;you're going to block construction on the first floor,and minimum size units will be 1,400 square feet. No asphalt shingles. It will be a gated community. There will be a wall along the inside of the preserve locations. The covenant and restrictions will contain a statement about the existing neighborhood's zoos.The shielded street lighting where it's discussed,one thing that the shielded street lighting didn't talk about was the height of the streetlights,and you may want to put a height in there. I think that would be appropriate on the--so take a look at that. Use new master plan. The master plan we got at this meeting seems to be the one we'll be using. You're going to put some landscaping in comparable to the palette of a Type D in the backyards of Page 59 of 71 June 2,2016 those lots where the sidewalks are being removed. We're going to incorporate County Attorney's changes,and you're going to look into a possible stub-out and/or fire hydrant's locations. Those are the notes on the bigger items.There's a lot of other smaller items that I'm sure that between you and staff they got picked up,and we'll see if--it should be pretty clean by the time it comes back. Anybody have any other comments? Yes. MR. HANCOCK: If I just can seek a clarification. On streetlight heights,our buildings are at 35 feet. Are you suggesting a 25 or a 20? I mean,the streetlights--because we have buildings along that entire back and now on the south side,I don't think the streetlights are going to be visible if they're behind the building,so would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was just-- MR.HANCOCK: Okay,okay. Typically 25 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just can't see arterial size lighting on the interior of a project. And so if we're concerned about shielding and things like that,it doesn't hurt to have a height restriction on it,too; 12, 15, 18 feet. But you've got to be careful how high you want to get. I mean,the higher you get,the more shielding you're going to have to deal with,so... MR.HANCOCK: Understood. We'll look at that,and we will propose a compatible height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,most of your residential communities don't have high street lighting. It's real short,so... MR.HANCOCK: No, sir. I just--to be honest with you,I don't know what that number is off the top of my head,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I thought Mr.Jones wanted--something at Adkins would be a taller one so the people-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that was something else.He's talking about streetlights on the corners. Those would be roadway lighting comparable to the county standards. It's not the kind of lighting that would go on interior to a project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,I know interior and exterior. MR. HANCOCK: I could very well make Mr.Jones happy and make 37 other people unhappy by agreeing to that,so I'm-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I don't think the people-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had-- MR. HANCOCK: I'm going to stick to what's inside my property boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We fight that in the Estates a lot,too. MR. HANCOCK: But I will work on what potential stub-out locations for water and whatnot may be available. We'll take a closer look at that,and I'll have some information for you when we come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think,then,Eric,have you got something you wanted to say? MR.JOHNSON: Should the master plan actually show the cross-hatch like it's displayed right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever way he shows it on there. He'll have to call it out somehow. It doesn't matter. MR. HANCOCK: Due to the size of the font,I'll probably do it graphically and then have a note that indicates that that is an area for 10-foot Type B plant material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm sure--as long as you address it and you show the location of the wall and a couple indications like that. I would suggest where your drop gate's going to be or your access card gate on the secondary entrance,you just note that's there. Things like that will help it, so when it comes in for SDP,Matt doesn't throw it out instantly. MR.HANCOCK: Oh,Matt wouldn't do that to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he's back there. I had to give him--I had to say something about Matt while he's here today. And other than that,I don't think there's anything else. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) Page 60 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue this to the June 15th meeting? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So moved. Made by Wafaa. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second 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 carried. We'll see you first up under regular hearings on the 15th,Tim. Thank you. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got three items yet to go. I think we can finish those up rather quickly,but we're probably better off taking a short break now and then come back and just knocking out the next three items,and then call it a day;otherwise,we could be here for another hour before Terri got a break. So why don't we take a break until 10 minutes after 2:00,and we'll resume the meeting at that time. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. We'll resume the meeting,and the next item up,as soon as I re-open it up, is 9D,which is the final review of the accumulated comments that the Planning Commission made for the Land Development Code amendments for the architectural and site design standards. And I'm sure Jeremy will remind us that we've been through this one multiple times. They've collected all of our comments,put them into final form for final sign-off Jeremy, it's all yours. MR.FRANTZ: Yes. Jeremy Frantz,for the record. As you stated,this is essentially the accumulation of all of the changes and recommendations that have been made by the Planning Commission and the committee since it's been reviewed over five meetings now. It is essentially the format that will go to the Board. It is a little bit different than what you traditionally see with an LDC amendment,but it is the final language that represents all of your changes. There are several areas where there's some highlighted language in the LDC text,and those are staff-recommended changes really just for clarifications of the language;no substantive changes there. That's really all that I have. I can answer any questions that you might have. We're just looking for a final recommendation from you-all.And don't forgot that this includes not only the committee's--or the proposed LDC amendment but all the cross-references amendment that is at the end of this packet. And we'd also ask that--in your recommendation that you allow us to make any additional changes for errors or clarifications that we happen to find. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Jamie(sic),I mean,after five meetings on this,I think we've done a good job on getting you a package. I think you and Caroline and Rich,whoever's worked on it,have done an excellent job. Your department or your division or your piece of this growth management division is repeatedly doing extremely good work,and I sure do appreciate it,because the clarity of this particular product,as well as the others you've produced,make it easier for all the boards to better understand what's being voted on,and that's crucial today. So thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. Page 61 of 71 June 2, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good job. I don't have anything to add to it. I've seen the highlighted parts. From my perspective,they're fine. I don't know if the rest of my Planning Commission members want to make any changes or have any suggestions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've gone over this many times,and I think you've done a really good job of summarizing it. So if there's no other changes, I've noticed your yellow corrections. They were consistent. I think that your request to be allowed to make any small changes like that as you further read this,as you prep it for the Board,is consistent with the way we've done things in the past. So with that in mind, if there's a motion to recommend approval of--and let me read it out so if anybody wants to use it--the architectural and site design standards,No.9D of our agenda.Without reading each section of the LDC,because there's quite a few of them,I think that would be sufficient. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I move to approve--recommend approval of architectural and site design standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need anything else from us,Jeremy? You're all set with this motion? MR.FRANTZ: I think we're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those 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. That was probably the simplest presentation you've made on this item in all these times. MR.FRANTZ: Just for your information, it's scheduled to go to the BCC on the 28th,June 28th. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: June 28th? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. ***We have two items remaining for old business. One is a discussion concerning--I'm not--this next word's hard for me to get out. How's it said? Deviations. It's Wafaa's request. So,Wafaa, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: First of all,thank you for allowing me this opportunity and definitely,as a newcomer to this board,I realize now more than ever the tremendous job and the amount of details that go through to get something approved. So I'm very appreciative and very happy to be part of this group. And I never intended to be the lone dissenter or the lone opposition to the item of deviations,but-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Deviant. The lone deviant. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So--but,candidly,I'm overwhelmed by several things that relate to deviation. Number one is the amount of deviation,and number two is the casual attitude by the applicants about asking for things that are not really essential or germane to their developments.And I can tell you out of experience as a past planner and architect and recently a developer,during my career as a developer,by the time you get to the Planning Commission or the time you get to the permitting stage of your real estate project,regardless of how small it is,you have expended a tremendous amount of money,tremendous Page 62 of 71 June 2, 2016 amount of time. You hire consultants. You do market studies. So it's a very risky business,and the effort to be accurate in projecting a development is extensive to minimize the risk later on. So by the time you come to the Planning Commission and you ask for several deviations and we're sitting here thinking that we'd like to be helpful to the developers,we'd like to promote business because that enhances the county and,of course,we like the attitude of being helpful to people. So--but if we were to deny some of those deviation which are not essential to the development,I don't think any developer will back out of development,will scrap their projects,will go away and terminate his ventures. So sometimes we feel,oh,I don't want to cause any headaches for anybody,or I feel obligated to go along,but believe me, if we--if we share the opinion and we promote the understanding that deviations are only for the items that are essential or don't make sense for that particular development or have(sic)more meaningful to the productive--of a production of a--of a good project,we shouldn't worry about that. Those are not--my observation is that--and I'm not going to tell you anything you didn't know or knew--that the consultants oftentime make some remarks that I consider insulting to our intelligence. I try not to be offended,and I understand that this is part of the program. I also understand that they are advocates.They are here to speak on behalf of their petition,not necessarily because they truly believe in it,but they are here to put it forward, support it,and that's their job. Similarly,I think staff and us have the obligation to defend and protect the county ordinances, stop further deterioration of the county codes--and I'd like to put a couple of items as an example on the visualizer--not in any specific order--so that I can further make my point. So I would like to see,hopefully at the end of this discussion,maybe a policy or an attitude that although we cannot prevent anybody from petitioning--this is the right of the individuals--but we should be more considerate of the county codes--no matter what I say it's not going to come out right,but I don't mean any offense to anybody--and that we should take those things more seriously in my view,for a lack of a better term. Examples are anything that has to do with signage. Signage,in my view,is essential when it's directing traffic,when it's guiding people to their destination,when it's a safety item,but abundance of it is pollution. And to have too many signs,bigger signs,closer signs,those are not items that are germane to a successful development or any particular approach. I recall Fort Myers,the City of Fort Myers or Lee County,hired a consultant years ago to look into the tourism business for Lee County and tell them how come Lee County is not getting enough tourism like Collier County does. And the consultant,one of the items that they talked about is--put a slide on the projector,and he showed them a picture of Cleveland Avenue. Cleveland Avenue is the equivalent of U.S.41,our Trail or 9th Street. And he said,with this amount of billboards and signs,all colors,all locations,all heights,do you think anybody would like to come and visit and look at that? And he drove the point home that signage as a tool to guide traffic and safety and all of that is essential,but the abuse of that is detrimental to the health and well-being and the appeal of any community. I can't think of any instances where anybody can convince me that violation of the county code, particularly to signs,is essential to a development. As an example,any Publix or any big shopping center or any big gas station that sits so far away from the road,everybody knows that this gas station is there,Publix is here,and you don't need to double the size of the sign to make people aware that you exist and are doing business in that location. Once you're here,people know that you're there,and you guide them. The exhibit that I have before you is one that causes me a great concern,because you oftentimes see that and you oftentimes see the exemption about putting the sign closer to the road to five feet instead of 10. According to my calculation,that 5-foot setback from the outside valley gutter would fall smack in the middle of the sidewalk. And I don't see anybody who would like to do that. So the point is, some of those deviations are not well thought out. They ask for them because they have been previously granted,they are easy to get,and they might as well get as many while we're here. We Page 63 of 71 June 2,2016 have our day in court;we might as well get all that we can,but none of them really make sense. Another example is--Mike,would you put the other sheet,please. That came during the Buckley PUD,as an example,and they were talking about the 10-feet trees and the easements to maintain them and the location of the tree,and they were requesting a deviation from that. And my point is that you're locating that big tree very close to the property line. Why don't you move it a little bit to the left? This way you can have the big tree,you don't need to create the easement or trespass on somebody else's property and you can still--you can still have your 10-foot crown tree. And the landscape consultant or architect who was representing,he made a statement that shocked me. He was telling us,and I almost caught him.You know,that trees don't grow evenly? They don't grow in exact circles. And I found statements like that a little bit annoying,a little bit condescending,a little bit unneeded,but that conveys the mentality or some of the attitude on the part of the presenters to our board. The other thing is that I suggested to move it a little bit to the left and avoid the deviation,and the presenter for that particular development,his answer was,I hate trees in front of the front door. That's what he said. Well,first of all,candidly,I don't care what he hates or likes. His preference regarding the locations in the front yard is not that significant in reviewing the developments,and it's not the county code. The last thing I want to say,instead of going through all of that every time we get a big list of deviations,maybe staff can accumulate a list of frequently requested deviations and we can see which one of them makes sense,which one of them don't make sense,and we can lump them all into one amendment or one correction to the code and save a lot of time and effort and, in my view,unnecessary attention to something that is not germane to the development or the zoning process. Many,many times,for me personally,I feel like there's nothing wrong with the development. I can, you know,change the language, like Mark does. He reviews everything. He comes up with language that cures the ills of that particular item,but I find myself--I really don't want to be the dissenting vote. I don't want to be negative. But because of sometimes attitude or sometimes the silly rationale or justification of those deviations,I'm very much tempted to say,no thank you. I don't want to vote for that. And when I do that,sometimes I get calls from the commissioners. Wafaa,why did you vote against that? So I had to explain why did I vote against that,although I have no problem with the general development. But the fact that--the claim of flexibility or creativity is not true. There's no substance in that. You could be very creative within limits of the code. You could be flexible within the code limitations. The codes usually requires minimum standards. If we take the opposite side of all of what I'm saying and say,we shall not put standards in our codes, we can say,thou shall have one free-standing sign,and we let them decide where they put it,how tall it is, how big it is,then the county would look like a zoo. But it is essential from a legal point of view,it gives a backbone to the ordinance that after all the time that we take for considering,deliberating,adopting ordinances,that we put standards. So when we say not to exceed 10 feet or not to be wider than X or something like that,we mean it. We shouldn't say,okay, you don't want 10 feet,we'll make it five. You don't want to put an example of the gas station,they swapped--they swapped a buffer for a driveway. Remember,there was a requirement that if you have two or three lots in a row,that you put buffers in between? So they opted to make a circular driveway within the gas station site in lieu of providing a buffer between the two lots. Well,the code requires a buffer on the property line. The code doesn't tell anybody that you have the freedom to swap it for a driveway.They didn't say,you can have either a buffer or a driveway or a buffer or a smaller sign. They didn't give us that flexibility. Codes are the codes. And I guess because of my nature,I like to go by the law. I'd like to go as much as I can by the codes. So hopefully at the end of this brief discussion we agree or I,hopefully,will see,you know,a clear signal being sent to petitioners that the idea of applying for 15 deviations because you would like to is not recommended. And I even think that it may be a good idea that we forward that line of thinking to the commissioners because,as an outsider to the Planning Commission for many,many years,I grew up professionally to see how valuable your recommendation is. Everybody's scared of the Planning Page 64 of 71 June 2,2016 Commission. Boy,do I ever get a denial,then I have an uphill battle. If I get conditions that I cannot meet,I might lose my development. So a lot of people among consultants and developers put a lot of value on what we recommend.The commissioners rely on us to screen it and go through it and nit-pick it. And then when we give them a recommendation,they feel that those are very-well-paid-attention-to items that we bring forward to them. So this is my goal for the presentation. I hope I didn't take too much time. I hope I was able to convince you,and thank you for listening. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wafaa,could I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane,would you like to say something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I understand your deviations more than you think. I had a big thing with sidewalks on both sides of the street. It came so many times. And you're right,because the developers expected it. And I said,so you've been doing this for 20 years,you are not expecting it,and it's supposed to be individual. We now have changed that code. I shouldn't say changed. We have enforced the code that was there. And you are also right about the signage. We just had the one on Immokalee Road where everybody else was the same distance away. And so I agree with you,because it's--after a while they just--they expect it. You will give us this deviation,and that's--you're right.It's the attitude that I--each project is different to a certain degree,but when we have codes,we ought to follow the codes that we have. And so I have to agree with you there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything to say on this subject? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How long would it take for you to get up,Ray, a list of all the deviations that were approved in the last year? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. We have a list of all the petitions that are approved. We can pull those PUD documents and count up the deviations. Shouldn't take long. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious which ones are the most common,you know, why they're asked for and how often they're approved. Two meetings? MR. BELLOWS: I think that would be reasonable. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We meet when the board's on vacation,right? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,we need something to do. MR.BELLOWS: Unless you decide to take a vacation,too. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. We have something to do then. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I think that would be a good idea. I also want to say that some of them are understandable or acceptable,because when the county--county years ago,all of the streets were public streets,like Naples Park,as an example. So they expected all the roads to be 60-foot wide if you have a closed drainage,or they have to be 74-or 84-foot wide if you have an open drainage; swales on both sides. That was the code. The idea of private roads did not come about until a little later. So now with developers doing gated communities and developers are--owners within the communities are responsible for the maintenance,the county doesn't have to go and maintain the roads for the private developments,then maybe 50-foot is very acceptable. I have no problems with that. To have a small development like the one we looked at today with one sidewalk on one side instead of two,I mean,this is a very quaint, little development,48 units. Not--no through traffic,gated. So to have one sidewalk instead of two makes a lot of sense to me. But those are all code requirements that we need to go through and identify--identify which ones are okay and which one is not. But,generally speaking,the signage is the one that I cannot justify. I had a sign man come in before the city planning board one time during my tenure there,and he Page 65 of 71 June 2,2016 said,I hate it--I hated sign ordinances because they limit my design ability. Well,hello. That's exactly why the sign ordinance is there,to limit your design ability,because when you have all the freedom,look at the mess that you created. So it took 20 years or 30 years to clean up the mess,and now if we get too flexible or too accommodating,it will get back there. That's all I want to say. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Andy. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --quick question,yeah.And maybe--maybe this is a question for Heidi,but just for educational purposes maybe for me.There's a standard,is there not,for how we consider deviations? And the reason I'm asking that is I think there's the practicality of it,but there's also--there's a standard that we--I'm assuming we have to apply in determining whether or not to grant the deviation. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. We've been through this before,and my screen has locked because I was going to read a section to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike has it on the overhead.Mike has it on the overhead,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,there are a couple of them,because there's also,under 2.03.07,where there are a number of areas where it talks about deviations and the whole point of deviations,but I can't pull that up because my screen has frozen up,but--yeah. There's something about relating to deviations for master plans that it not being adverse to the health, safety,and welfare. So that's one standard that you're looking at,and then the other comes out of the statute, which I can't pull that language up for you. But they are allowed to have flexibility but,you know,the intent is that it's a give and a take,you know,that they get alternative design but the county would get something else in return.That's how it initially came into play. I can't say that that's how it's working now. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Oh,that's why I can't move it,because he's got it--just a second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's overriding your computer. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I was trying to get on--I was on that screen,and I was trying to move it and wondering why it was locked. So there are a couple sections on the planned unit developments and the deviations. And as I said, from the master plan elements,the standard is that the element may be waived and will not--when--which demonstrate that the element may be waived and will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety,and welfare of the community.And then the other section-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So--but if it doesn't affect the health, safety,and welfare of the community,are they entitled to it,or is it--do we have the discretion,or does the Board have the discretion? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No, it's not an entitlement. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And compatibility is always a factor in your review. You're still looking at your list of,whatever,26 factors that you're looking at. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We could move on to-- Stan,I think you had an item that you want to talk about,exotics. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I want to talk about invasive exotics. We--a friend of mine and I have been going around to different areas,and we noticed that there are just exotics growing everywhere. I remember when I came down here. I've been down here since'81. There was a big push about four exotics: The downy rose myrtle,Melaleuca,the Brazilian pepper,and then the list started to grow,and everybody was very conscious about taking out the exotics. But as I drive around and as I walk around--I bicycle a lot;I canoe a lot,I kayak through areas,and I see just exotics everywhere. And we are spending a lot of money. This project this morning,Enclave, if Page 66 of 71 June 2, 2016 you looked at the preserve they kept on their south property line, it's--the vegetation description said it was 25 to 49 percent exotics. When you take out those exotics,it's going to open that up,and people are going to see through that preserve. Now,to plant--and these folks are going to be annoyed. And I've seen projects come through here where they take out--they clear an area of all the exotics,and the first thing you see is whatever's on the other side. I see no reason to take the exotics out of a place like that because the logic behind removing the exotics was you didn't want the exotics spreading into the Everglades. Well,that horse has left the barn,and you're not going to put it back in. There are more exotics out in the Everglades that I see than we have in Golden Gate City,and we're making people spend a lot of money. Now,I know this is going to sound like heresy. We're making people spend a lot of money to pull exotics out. And they're the exotics that everybody knows but,yet,I see torpedo grass that's on the list.We have bauhinia that they're planting in the median of Livingston Road that's on the exotic list. Nobody keeps track of what's allowed and what's not. Most of the fish around here--I'm pulling Mayan cichlids out of everywhere. They're an exotic. I can send you pictures of peacock baths and plecostomus and tilapia that were caught in the Golden Gate canal system which ties to every canal system in Collier County. But the reason that is is because the lakes are all exotics. There were no lakes and canals in Collier County before people came down here. Okay. We have changed the entire ecosystem. We've cleared land. And when you clear land--Picayune Strand,they're clearing the land. Great.The first thing that comes in when you clear land is what? Exotics,because they out-compete the natives. Why are we forcing people to spend all this money? And Golden Gate Estates was where I started out with this,because there's people complaining to me that,yeah,I want to put a$20,000 pool in my backyard; it's going to cost me 20,000 to pull all the exotics off my property so,you know,I'm not going to put the pool in. Well,you know, so you clear the exotics off your property;the people around you still have their exotics,and they're going to reseed your property. I would love to know,does anybody have a real handle on how bad the exotic problem is? I mean,I bicycle around my block where I live. I see brown basilisks,you know,the Jesus lizards that run on the water. Brown basilisks running around there.I see the green anolis,the big green anolis in the trees. The Cuban anolis,they're everywhere. I have marine toads. You can hear them at night in the Airport Road canal. I have marine toads on my property going into the lake. These are all exotics. Nobody's doing anything about them. The environment is not just a few trees. The environment is everything that's out there. It's the reptiles,it's the birds,it's the lizards,whatever. And we're concentrating on five or six trees that we make people take out. The earleaf acacia are growing everywhere. They're spreading faster than we can keep up with them. I don't know what it takes to get us--this project this morning,Enclave,I would love to tell those people,you don't have to take the exotics out of there,because when you look at the aerial photograph,that whole area's kind of built up. You're not going to infest anything by leaving those exotics there. It's going to make a nice buffer. We had--we had a project--and it might still come back--Livingston and Vanderbilt,that golf cart overpass. There's a project in there. I forgot what it's called. I bicycle through there.They have this massive Brazilian pepper hedge on their north property line. When somebody goes to develop that and cuts that down,the neighbors are going to complain because that--right now that's a beautiful hedge. When you take that out,nothing's going to replace that for 10 years. So I--I think it's a waste of money. I think some areas we should just look at it and say, leave it alone. That's my opinion. And that's--I don't know who to talk to about it. I suppose I could go and make up in front of the Board or something. Summer says all this predates her,you know.I just hate to see everybody spending all this money on something that's just-- it's here to stay. That's it. Page 67 of 71 June 2,2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a good point. Is there--are there any studies,or is there any information on what impact requiring all these exotics to be removed as the condition of any kind of permit? I mean, is that--in the grand scheme of things,is there any data on what--has that done anything at all? I think, Stan,you've got a good point. Is it helping us win the battle against the invasives or not? That would be an interesting thing to know. Does anybody know that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you the project that I had to clear those on,and they were large projects. One of them alone was a half million dollars,I think we had to budget,for exotic clearing. And when we got it cleared,the result to the ecology was much better. In fact,you could walk through the mangroves and prairies and everything else that was there that was previously infested with exotics. I shouldn't say mangrove;cypress,whatever else was there. I don't know to this day if it's still the same way after we cleared it,but we did cut them,clear them, squirt them. And when we got done, it was a much better-looking natural area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Healthier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,how that-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How long is that good for? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. That was your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't know. I mean,that's part of the maintenance process that's also required by most of your Corps permitting when you go into these areas. So we would--we had to take videos,panoramic photos of it and submit them on a certain--I think it's every three years or something to the Corps to acknowledge it wasn't coming back and showing that we're maintaining it. I guess the argument is,okay,well,that's just one little speck out of the entire Collier County/Everglades area. But the flip side is, if we didn't do that,how are we helping at all?Maybe that one little speck was a grain of sand that was better than if we hadn't taken it out to begin with,so--and I don't necessarily agree we ought to be putting that kind of burden on people doing a room addition in Golden Gate Estates. I think that's silly,because when your exotic removal in the Estates supersedes the cost of the addition,it doesn't even make any sense. But in some cases,when it can be effective on large areas, it seems that it is. And I-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: To me it would matter where it is. Like,where you're talking about, if it's in among the mangroves--but,yet,I canoe down the Turner River,and I see Brazilian pepper two,three miles south of 41 growing where there's no right for it to be,and the only thing I can figure is the birds are,you know,spreading it somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I think, Stan,for any policy changes,that's more of a Board action than it would be ours in involving exotics. I mean,I don't have a dog in the fight. I just know that in the Estates it's not really fair to burden the Estates residents like they are. I don't think the code said we're allowed to do that,but I know we're doing it. But that's a whole'nother problem I don't really want to get in to. Summer,did you have something you wanted to say? You're there for a reason,I take it? MS.ARAQUE: Well,in regards to your--to Stan's question about any studies,I mean,we can look to see if IFAS--that's the University of Florida extension office or the CISMA group,which is a group that looks at exotics,we can look to see if there's been any studies done. I mean,we don't really have a natural resources department that looks at that type of thing,but we can reach out to those groups and look to see what they do have. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ask them if it's doing any good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. Does not--the South Florida Water Management and the Army Corps, don't they require that you take out the exotics? MS.ARAQUE: Yes. And that was another discussion that I had with Stan recently as well was that it's not just our requirement. I mean,you've got state regulations as well,and this is done statewide, so it's not like Collier County is just the only one requiring removal of exotics. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if I see an area of two or three square miles of Brazilian pepper in the Big Cypress,I just tell them,and they come take it out? Page 68 of 71 June 2,2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: They better. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Well,they tell you that they don't have money to enforce it. That's the point. MS.ARNOLD: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,you guys,this is great,but do you want your tax dollars spent on taking out Brazilian pepper, or do you want it spent on infrastructure and other needs that the community has? Security? Police force? Fire? I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on that than worrying about cypress--Brazilian pepper out in the Big Cypress,so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I will give you a location map showing where it is,and you tell me in a year how much luck you've had getting it removed. MS.ARAQUE: To answer your question or your comment,my understanding is that a lot of the areas are activity managed,but you're talking about thousands and--hundreds of thousands of acres,and so they're not going to remove them all at once. But I do know that there is an exotic removal that goes on. Anything else I can help you with? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Summer. Okay. Does anybody have any other issues? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That are on the agenda? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. This is for future-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --to bring up. Well,we're starting to have a problem,Mark,with roots getting into water lines. They're starting to create problems. There's not enough room. The people are complaining about the widths of the streets a little bit. You know,you're not supposed to plant in the 10-foot easement,and I can go along almost all of these places where the 10-foot utility easement is,and there are trees and everything there. So if we could kind of look into this and bring this back at a future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So be it. We'll add it to one of the old business discussions or new business discussions for one of the future meetings after staff has time to look into it. Okay. That takes us to 10,new business. Is there anything else besides Diane's item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Nobody's left. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: One time we talked about maybe a policy regarding how much time is allowed when you postpone a public hearing and when a development gets pulled out of the schedule,and we dropped that, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,what do we care if they continue? What do we care if they continue something? As long as it's legally advertised,what difference does it make? I don't care if we hear something this week or six months from now.It doesn't--I mean,what difference does it make if we're going to hear it eventually? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Well, it makes a difference sometimes when you have to spend hours--and you spend more time than I venture any of us reviewing those applications--and only to come here and say they postponed it. It's pulled out of the agenda. And you have spent tremendous amount of time,more than I do--I know that for a fact--but I do spend a lot of time going through them. Then it's just--if it's not ready, if it doesn't meet a certain standard, it shouldn't even get on the--get on the agenda. I know staff tries to be accommodating and helpful. MR. BOSI: From the comments of the Planning Commission, I think it was two or three months ago,we have reminded the--our planners,and our planners are trying to convey that message to the applicants,you know,that if we set a date,we have to make sure that,you know,we're confident that we can Page 69 of 71 June 2, 2016 move forward with it because of,you know,the expressed concern the Planning Commission does not want to spend time on items that aren't going to be heard but are on the agenda. So we've tried to be conscious of your time. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Sure. MR.BOSI: And the amount of effort and time consideration that you do give and have conveyed that message to the applicant community as to potential issues associated with that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: We have one that's been suspended or withheld from December last year.Remember that one? Pelican Marsh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pelican Marsh,yeah. It's coming up June or July, I think. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Six month. MR.BOSI: July 7th,tentatively. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Tentatively. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. And I've been directed by both this board and the County Attorney that if I have outstanding legal issues,I'm not to approve the advertisement;whereas,before I was allowing them to go forward because the applicant was willing to take the risk of a continuance. So we've changed policy, so--but that doesn't mean there aren't going to be times when issues are addressed subsequent to the advertisement that come up that might-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think that's different--I think that's different than the continuance that we're talking about. The continuance--I mean,not that you're wrong,but it's not something that gets continued because we find out it hasn't had full advertisement, something like that. So I thought it's more of the issues like we had today where we continued the item today to rehear it on the 15th with the corrected changes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That is fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. He's talking about when he has to read hundreds of pages and then it gets continued. He doesn't want to do that anymore. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well,right,where the applicant is taking the--they're hoping they're going to have it ready by the time the hearing comes around. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And they're gambling,but they're really gambling with,kind of,our prep time,and if--but if that policy's changed,then I thing that's a great change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's already--yeah,that's already changed. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's already been implemented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. She's already--that's what I was getting confused on. That one we already asked,and that's been done. MR.BELLOWS: That's correct. And we also--as Mike mentioned earlier, staff is also reminding the applicants that we're not scheduling till we're sure that we can get the bugs worked out. Not in hopes of getting it worked out,but we're sure we can get it worked out. MR. BOSI: And that all deviations need to be adequately justified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the last item on the agenda. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Wafaa. Seconded by Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. 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. Page 70 of 71 June 2,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:54 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 71 of 71 > Ad Proof . .4apl.yes Battu N Sales Rep:Ivonne Gori(N9103) Phone:(239)262-3161 Email:ivonne.gori@naplesnews.com —‘11111=111 — '—‘1111111111111111EW--r Date:05/19/16 This is a proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Account Number:506365(N068778) Please confirm placement prior to deadline by contacting your account Company Name:BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV rep at(239)262-3161. Ad Id:1098071 P.O.No.:45-161981 Total Cost:$405.37 Contact Name: Email:martha.vergara@collierclerk.com Tag Line:NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is h Address:3299 TAMIAMI TRL E#700,NAPLES,FL,34112 Start Date:05/27/16 Stop Date:05/27/16 Phone:(239)774-8049 Fax:(239)774-6179 Number of Times: 1 Class:16250-Public Notices Publications:ND-Naples Daily News,ND-Internet-naplesnews.com I agree this ad is accurate and as ordered. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission sitting as the local planningagency and the Environmental Advisory Council,will hold a public meeting on Thursday,June 16,2016 at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING COUNTY-INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,PRIMARILY TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY TEXT AND CORRECT MAP ERRORS AND OMISSIONS SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT;FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP;STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO REMOVE THE DISCHARGE RATES:TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTANDTRANSPORTATION MAP SERIES;AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.[PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTIONtS will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore, the materials 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,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Zoning Division.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday,June 16,2016,will be read and considered at the public hearing. 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, youare entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,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 Commissioner's Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission Collier County,FL May 27,2016 No.1098071 Thank you for your business. Our commitment to a quality product includes the advertising in our publications. As such,Journal Media Group reserves the right to categorize,edit and refuse certain classified ads.Your satisfaction is important. If you notice errors in your ad,please notify the classified depart- ment immediately so that we can make corrections before the second print date. The number to call is 239-263-4700. Allowance may not be made for errors reported past the second print date.The Naples Daily News may not issue refunds for classified advertising purchased in a package rate;ads purchased on the open rate may be pro-rated for the remaining full days for which the ad did not run. Agenda Item #9A COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT S 2013 Batch#2 GMP AMENDMENTS (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) [Petitions: Project PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11] CCPC: July 07, 2016 [continued from June 16, 2016] BCC: September 13, 2016 Clerk's Office AGENDA 2013 Batch #2 In-House GMP (EAR-Based) Amendments TRANSMITTAL HEARING Project PL20130O02637/Staff Petition CPSP-2013-11 CCPC July 07, 2016 [continued from June 16, 2016 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report w/Support Materials: PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11 2) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENTS:Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text and/or Maps: PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11 3) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement: PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11 Amendments(s) include the following GMP Elements: 1) Conservation & Coastal Management Element 2) Capital Improvement Element 3) Future Land Use Element & FLU Map and Map Series Exhibit 'A' Maps 4) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map 5) Stormwater Management Sub-Element; and 6) Transportation Element & Exhibit 'A' Maps: [TR-1, TR-2,TR-3, TR-3.1,TR-3.2,TR-3.3, TR-3.4,TR-3.5,TR-4, TR-5; TR-6, and TR-8] Agenda Item 9.A CO eY 9 i#rni y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JULY 7, 2016, CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 2016 RE: PETITION NO. PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION MAP SERIES,AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] REQUESTED ACTION and STAFF ANALYSIS: This proposal consists of several individual staff-initiated amendments, as authorized or directed by the Board of County Commissioners to six Elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Most of these are "housecleaning" or "glitch" amendments intended to add clarity, correct text and map errors or omissions, and provide harmony and internal consistency among components of the GMP. A number of these Board-directed changes are not substantive but are predominately corrective in nature and follow direction provided by the adopted 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Another small number of these staff-initiated changes are associated with recent amendments proposed for or adopted in the Land Development Code (LDC), changes in the 2014 or 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR), or with changes in State or Federal regulations, and to revise format, structure and language to follow other Board directives, and to properly reflect staff functions. Additionally, staff is proposing a substantive amendment to the Stormwater Management Sub-Element to remove the stormwater off-site discharge rates and replace with a reference to the Land Development Code; and, an amendment to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to remove references to the Stormwater Management Sub-Element and the Water Resource Ordinance (No. 2001-27) related to the off-site discharge rates and replace with references to the Land Development Code — as approved and directed by the BCC on April 26, 2016 (refer to the attached Executive Summary and White Paper on Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates). As provided by Ordinance 10-37, this Staff Report also serves to provide guidance to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) in making a recommendation on the proposed amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)to carry forward through hearings by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Each amendment is identified below, followed by a brief explanation/analysis. The proposed amendments themselves make up the individual Exhibit"A"s accompanying the Transmittal Resolution. — 1 — Agenda Item 9.A Conservation &Coastal Management Element(CCME): • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Goals, Objectives and Policies for proper language format of a GMP Objective and Policy, as follows: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.2, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, 10.5, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4; and Policies 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 3.1.4.1, 10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.3, 10.5.4, 10.5.6, 10.5.7, 10.5.8, 10.5.9, 10.5.12, 11.1.1, 12.1.8. These were overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR- based GMP Amendments. • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Goals, Objectives and Policies for proper language format, capitalizing references to specific Elements, Goals, Objectives and Policies, as follows: Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 2.1.1 through 2.1.7, 3.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.1.2.e, 6.1.2.(1), (3), (4), (5),(8)and(10), 6.1.5,6.1.9, 6.2.4, 6.2.4.(2),6.2.5, 6.2.5.(1), (1)a, (3), (4), (6)a.4, and(6)a.5, 6.2.6, 6.2.7, 6.2.7(2) and (3), 6.2.9, 6.5.2(1), (3), (4) and (6), 6.2.6, 6.2.7, 6.2.9, 6.5.2(1), 7.1.1(6), 7.1.2(2)(a)2 and 3, 7.1.2(2)(c), (d), (e) and (g), 7.2.2, 10.4.3, 10.6.1, 10.6.1(6), 12.1.4, 12.3.1. These were overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR- based GMP Amendments. • Revise Objective 2.1 to redirect references provided in subsection "a." from the Stormwater Management Sub-Element [where off-site discharge rates are presently listed] to the Land Development Code[where new off-site discharge rates are to be listed], per April 26,2016 Board direction; also, revise Objective 2.1 to redirect references provided in subsection "d." from "Ordinance 2001-27, adopted May 22, 2001" [where basins are presently established and off- site discharge rate limits are set]to the County Land Development Code[where new information is to be listed], per April 26, 2016 Board direction; the subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Objective 2.1 subsection "a." to identify the specific citation in an updated version of a document previously provided by placeholder language here. • Revise Policy 3.1.4 to provide full entries, internal consistency and clarity, to reflect changes to LDC provisions for development within Wellfield Risk Management Zones, and re-number accordingly. • Revise Policy 3.3.2 to correct Board name and map series; map reference cannot be to both the "Countywide FLUM" and the"FLUM Series"—the Wellfield Risk Management Zone map is part of the "series". • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Policy 6.5.2 to identify the specific citation in an updated version of a document previously provided by placeholder language here. • Revise Objective 7.1 and Policy 7.1.2 (as with revisions proposed in the FLUE) to delete no longer needed references to specific publications used by the FFWCC and USFWS for technical assistance, as found elsewhere in Policy 7.1.2, and, revise for proper language format throughout. Also revise to address USFWS and FFWCC changes in regulations governing protection and management of listed species. Proposed changes to the CCME retain requirements for management plans for development, for bald eagle and Florida black bear. Requirements for management plans in the Policy are consistent with the requirements and goals of the Bald Eagle Management Plan (http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle Plan April 2008.pdf) and —2— Agenda Item 9.A Florida Black Bear Management Plan (http://mvfwc.com/media/2612908/bear-management- plan.pdf) adopted by the State. A major goal of the Florida Black Bear Management Plan is to reduce human-black bear conflicts by educating residents who live in areas where black bears occur, about black bears and to secure trash, a major attractant to black bears. For bald eagle, establishing nest protection zones around nests of bald eagle and limiting activities that can occur in the nest protection zones or when certain activities can occur within these zones, remain as criteria used by the State for development. These criteria along with delineation of the nest protection zones on site plans approved by the State are in turn included on site plans for development approved by the County. • Remove/revise Policies 10.1.6 and 10.3.15 to implement proposed changes to LDC provisions for development within the Special Treatment Zoning Overlay. • Revise Policy 12.1.4 to reflect updated agency name. • Revise Policy 12.1.14 to reflect updated edition of reference document. • Revise Policy 12.3.3 to reflect updated agency names and position titles. Capital Improvement Element(CIE): • Revise Policy 1.1 to introduce the parenthetical acronym before its first appearance/use in this Element unaccompanied by its parent term. • Revise to update Level of Service Standards (LOSS) in Policies 1.5.D and 1.5.E, as adjusted by the 2014 Water Master CIP Plan and the 2015 AUIR. The Water LOSS was adjusted from 170 gpcd to 150 gpcd in the 2014 AUIR approved by the BCC on November 10, 2014, reflecting the updated historical analysis contained in the 2014 Water Master CIP Plan, also Appendix III to the 2015 AUIR approved by the Board on November 10, 2015. The North Service Area Wastewater Treatment LOSS was adjusted from 120 gpcd to 100 gpcd in the 2014 AUIR approved by the BCC on November 10, 2014, reflecting the updated historical analysis contained in the 2014 Water Master CIP Plan, also Appendix III to the 2015 AUIR approved by the Board on November 10, 2015. The South Service Area Level of Service Standard (LOSS) has remained unchanged since 2001 at 100 gpcd. The northeast service area has been incorporated into the north service area, and the southeast service area has been incorporated in the south service area. • Revise Policy 4.1 to reflect changes to Florida Statutes by HB 7207 [which is now Chapter 2011- 139, Laws of Florida], in particular the deletion of the restriction limiting amendments of the comprehensive plan to no more than twice a year, and to the descriptions of corrections and modifications on amendments to the CIE. • Revise Policy 4.2 to allow adoption of the Collier County School District capital improvement plan and facilities work program documents by reference, previously requiring each specific updated version of these documents to be adopted each year with the annual update to the Schedule of Capital Improvements. This revision also reflects changes to Florida Statutes by HB 7207 [which is now Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida] • Revise Objective 5 to introduce a formal title in text before its standards are established and described later in this Element. • Revise Policies 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 for internal consistency, per adopted 2011 EAR direction to discontinue use of "zero"—based entries under Objectives; these were —3— Agenda Item 9.A overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR-based GMP Amendments.This re-formatting shifts and re-numbers existing supporting Policies and changes cross references between Policies, under this Objective, and in Programs to Insure Implementation subsection V.6.C. • Revise Policy 5.3.D to reflect name-change of agency. • Revise the "footnotes" that provide brief explanations of revenue sources and their acronyms found in the Schedule of Capital Improvements in accordance with changes made in previous AUIRs. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction—revise Objectives and Policies for proper language format of a GMP Objective and Policy, as follows: Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; and Policies 1.1 through 1.5, 2.1 through 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 through 4.10, 5.1 through 5.14, and 6.1 through 6.5. This re-formatting creates new supporting Policies taken from the Objective in numerous locations,and shifts and re-numbers existing supporting Policies under these Objectives. These were overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR-based GMP Amendments. • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Policies for proper language format, capitalizing references to specific Policies, as follows: Policies 5.10, 7.5; Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA Overlay) Policies 3.11, 4.16, 4.18, 4.20, 4.21, 5.5.2.a.ii and, a. iii, 5.5.2.b through 2.f, 5.5.2.g, 5.6 and 5.6.3.a.i and 3.c and 3.f.iv; and RLSA Overlay Attachment"C". These were overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR- based GMP Amendments. • Revise to update Policy references in the introductory FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES list affected by changes to Objectives and Policies for proper language format throughout. • Eliminate ASI (Area of Significant Influence) option from Policy 2.2 as a corrective measure necessitated by recent statutory changes regarding areas of significant influence and to maintain consistency between documents. • Revise to update CIE Policy references in Policy 2.5; now 2.6, revised by the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR-based GMP Amendments. • Revise to update Policy reference in Policy 3.1.j; now 3.2.j, affected by changes to Objectives and Policies for proper language format throughout; also revised likewise in Policy 5.1.a, now 5.3.a; Policy 5.1.d, now 5.3.d; Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict subsection g.; Density Rating System subsection 1.e.1), and in Future Land Use Map Series listing. • Insert parenthetical numerical entries where only written numbers appear, or written numbers where only numerical entries appear, so as to add clarity [in these page 42 Subdistrict provisions]. More such housecleaning revisions occur later in document, for instructional and regulatory entries. • Insert parenthetical percentage entries where only written percentages appear, or written percentages where only numerical percentage entries appear, so as to add clarity [in Density —4— Agenda Item 9.A Rating System provision B.2.c.] More such housecleaning revisions occur later in document, for instructional and regulatory entries. • Revise to replace numerical entry with written number [in Density Rating System provision B.4.a.] • Revise Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands provision A) 4.b) to update name of State agency, and remove name of County agency who is not specifically involved with Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Planning. • Revise Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands provision C)6. to extend TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) Sending Lands Early Entry Bonus horizon to September 27, 2018 per (April 28, 2015) Board direction. • Revise Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands provision D) 3.a) to indicate certain LDC provisions have been amended as instructed by this provision. • Revise to update Policy reference in Estates Designation statements affected by changes to Objectives and Policies for proper language format throughout. • Revise Overlay and Special Features' provision V.A. to read same as State ACSC (Area of Critical State Concern)regarding prohibited impacts to wetlands, to amend the prohibited plants list to include all of those in the LDC, to reorganize/restructure the Overlay, correct an internal reference, and to reference the Ochopee area lying within [but exempted from] the Overlay. • Revise Overlays and Special Features, Receiving Areas provision V.B.3. to standardize the use of words in legal descriptions, replacing the less-frequent use of numerical fractions. More such housecleaning revisions occur later in document. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 1.6 to reflect statutory changes concerning the EAR based amendment process. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 1.22 to reflect name-change of State agency. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policies 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3 to reflect updated acreage figures for these land areas, based upon changes to these designations since first being identified. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 4.3 to indicate certain LDC provisions have been amended as instructed by this provision, remove the "one time" activity implied, and indicate an ongoing relationship between such amendments. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 4.4 to reflect statutory changes concerning the EAR based amendment process. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 to provide for an alternative/alternatives to application of the FIAM per Board direction. • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 5.5 (as with revisions proposed in the CCME) to delete no longer needed references to specific publications used by the FFWCC and USFWS for technical assistance, and; revised for proper language format throughout. [Refer to the extended CCME Objective 7.1 and Policy 7.1.2 note above for additional explanation.] • Revise RLSA Overlay Policy 5.6 to remove date specificity to reflect that the time period provided for has passed and action has occurred. • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise RLSA Overlay Policy 5.6 to identify the updated version of a specific document initially overlooked here. —5— Agenda Item 9.A • Replace the informal "#" with the formal "No." or "no." for internal consistency in Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay provisions and throughout. Note: the strike through of the number symbol -#- may not be apparent in Exhibit"A". • Revise RLSA Overlay Attachment "C" footnote to recognize the correct Policy. Note: the underlining visible in the body of the table does not connote any proposed amendment, as the only change is to a footnote. Future Land Use Map Series (FLUMS): • Revise the Countywide FLUM to provide for current mapping; identifying the geographic area of Ochopee that lies within the boundary of the ACSC [by delineation and notation] but is exempt from ACSC regulations, and update the horizon year from 2025 to 2030. Pertaining to the FLUM horizon year extension, data and analysis regarding land use inventories and future needs is attached, taken from the 2011 EAR, and population projections are provided as revised in 2015. This data and analysis indicates there is adequate land to support the projected population in the new FLUM horizon year of 2030. Note that the population projection prepared in 2015 for the new horizon year of 2030 (435,400) is less than the population projection for year 2025 contained in the 2011 EAR (446,400). • Revise the RLSA Stewardship Overlay Map to provide for current mapping; reflecting the addition of Stewardship Sending Area(SSA) No. 16 and the removal of SSA No. 8; and, removal of areas designated Conservation from the RLSA. • Revise titles in the 4 Properties Consistent by Policy inset maps [EXFLU_Maps 9, 10, 11 & 12] to update Policy references affected by changes to Objectives and Policies for proper language format throughout. • Revise to update the 19 Activity Center inset maps (throughout)to provide for current mapping; adding an informational zoning note/disclaimer in each map's legend, updating the base maps' underlying zoning, developed parcel & building footprint information, updating the base maps' parcel split and subdivision information, and updating road changes (intersection improvements & realignments, ROW widenings & reconfigurations, etc., e.g. Davis Blvd./CR 951 and US 41/CR 951. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Area-wide Map (GGAMP): • Revise to update the GGAMP Area-wide FLUM to provide for current mapping; depicting the PRC&M PUD [Palm Royale Cemetery & Mausoleum] area on south side of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. between CR 951 & Logan Blvd. The southerly "outlot" that abuts Cherry Wood Drive is within Golden Gate Estates thus is within the GGAMP Estates land use designation. Stormwater Management Sub-Element: • Revise Objective 6 to remove superfluous text. • Revise Policy 6.2 to reflect updated edition of reference document. • Revise Policy 6.3 to remove listing of off-site discharge rates, and move them to the County Land Development Code, per April 26, 2016 Board direction. —6— Agenda Item 9.A Transportation Element(TE): • Revise entries under the introductory List of Tables/Maps/Figures and Future System Needs section to update text references to reflect transportation map updates, as revised by the MPO and Collier County. • Revise Future System Needs section to update text references to reflect transportation map updates, as revised by the MPO and Collier County. • Revise Intermodal &Multi-Modal Transportation section to reflect name-change of agency; also revised likewise in Perspectives section, the Introduction, Objective 3, Policy 3.5, Policy 6.1, Policy 11.3 and Policies 12.1 & 12.2. • Revise Perspectives section subsection heading to remove redundancy. • Revise Objective 3 and Policy 3.5 to properly reflect staff functions in their consideration of documents that identify transportation improvement projects. • The subject of adopted 2011 EAR direction — revise Goals, Objectives and Policies for proper language format of a GMP Objective and Policy, as follows: Policy 3.1. This was overlooked and did not specifically appear in the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR-based GMP Amendments. • Revise Policy 5.5 to reflect name-change of department/director. Insert parenthetical numerical entries where only written numbers appear, or written numbers where only numerical entries appear. More such housecleaning revisions occur later in document. • Revise to update CIE Policy references in Policy 5.6 and Policy 5.7, revised by the 2013 Ordinance adopting EAR-based GMP Amendments. • Revise throughout to correctly use the "US 41" highway designation that officially, has no periods, as with "U.S. 41"and no hyphenation, as with "US-41". Change all US 41 entries—and other US highways—to be consistent. Transportation Map Series (TRMS): • Revise to update transportation map exhibits TR-1 through TR-6, and TR-8 to reflect transportation map updates, as revised by the MPO and Collier County. Changes Common to All Six Elements: • Housecleaning measures to revise Goals, Objectives and Policies throughout to further consistency with EAR-based re-formatting where re-formatting creates, shifts or re-numbers Objectives or Policies. • Housecleaning measures to revise formal references to Goals, Objectives and Policies throughout to further consistency with EAR-based re-formatting. • Housecleaning measures to replace the informal "#" with the formal "No." or "no." for internal consistency in (provisions not specified above) throughout. Note: the strike through of the number symbol -#- may not be apparent in the exhibit. —7— Agenda Item 9.A • Housecleaning measures to insert parenthetical numerical entries where only written numbers appear — or written numbers where only numerical entries appear, so as to add clarity in provisions with percentages, distances, counts, timeframes and similar entries not specified above. ADDITIONAL STAFF ACTION and ANALYSES: Amendments to Elements of the Plan have a number of changes in common — within and between Elements. Approval of amendments to these Elements is intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear — within and between Elements — as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un- adopted portions of the documents. Environmental Impacts: The above amendments are primarily text and/or map corrections and clarifications,with no amendment resulting in a new change to a future land use designation. Accordingly, these amendments do not intensify the allowable uses or densities. Due to the nature of most of these amendments, there are no new environmental impacts being authorized. A small number of the individual amendments however, particular to Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA Overlay) provisions in the FLUE, may produce derivative environmental impacts. These impacts would be limited to those deriving from the addition or removal of Stewardship Sending Areas(SSA)-designated lands to or from the RLSA Overlay and acreage recalculations, as no actual revisions affect the RLSA Overlay future land use designation. Changes to ACSC wetlands protection, by revising text to mirror that found in State law, may lessen the protection for freshwater jurisdictional wetlands. Rather than an outright prohibition on impacts to these freshwater wetlands, such wetlands would be subject to the same protection as those wetlands outside of the ACSC as provided by (County, State and Federal regulations) — including the ability to mitigate for impacts. Public Facilities Impacts: Due to the nature of these amendments, there are no new impacts upon public facilities being authorized. AUIR-based changes to the Level of Service Standards found in the CIE for potable water systems and for wastewater treatment systems are reductions — effectively extending the useful lives of these facilities. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The criteria for land use plan and map amendments are found in Sections 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on June 3, 2016. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL That the EAC forward proposed revisions to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)and the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)found in Petition CPSP-2013-11 to the Collier County Planning Commission with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. —8— Agenda Item 9.A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP-2013-11 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Attachments: • Executive Summary and White Paper on Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates. [2 items] • Data and analysis supporting FLUM horizon year change. [3 items] [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] —9— Agenda Item 9. PREPARED BY: pig."„„.„,.,„,.. DN:C=US,E=carbyschmidt@colliergov.net, Corby Schmidt O=GMD,CU=Comprehensive Planning, 06/20/2016 Da :201 Schmidt DATE: Date:2076.06.22 06:05:26-04'00' CORBY SCHMIDT,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: Digitally signed by David Weeks DN:C=US,E=davidweeks@colliergov.net, David Weeks O=GMD,OU=Comp Planning,CN=David Weeks Date:2016.06.20 14:11:58-04'00 DATE: 06/20/2016 DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: Oigilalty signetl Oy MBosi DN:E=cusicmersuppg�t@coslar.com,CN=MBosi,OU=COSur M Bos I A nu a�eresiewee sltlua me esdz 5=MeryanQ 06/22/2016 �e,e:gg,6.g622,6:52:d&gPgP DATE: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: — i 4-7-11.40__ _ �� DATE: 6 /---2. 7/i JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PPR WED -77---Y _ I 6 /z.:7 //I) ‘:, ,� DATE: DAVID S. WILKISON, DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION NO. PL20130002637/ CPSP-2013-11 Staff Report for the June 16, 2016, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has not yet been scheduled for a BCC Meeting. --� - 10- 2.3-The Extent Of Vacant&Developable Land A. Background: Section 163.3191 (2) (b), Florida Statutes, requires Evaluation &Appraisal Reports to assess the extent of vacant and developable land within the relevant jurisdiction. In Collier County, non- residential development is restricted by the nature of the County's Future Land Use Designation provisions. Therefore, it is safe,at least under current conditions,to assume that most vacant and developable land will ultimately be developed either as residential property or as some type of agricultural use. B. Analysis: Staff's analysis of the acreage and percentage of developed land,as well as that of the vacant and developable land, in Collier County was generated utilizing the most current Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) tax parcel data; (December 1, 2009). Staff summarized the number of acres per Land Use Code from the Florida Department of Revenue's (FDOR) official land use designations. Please refer to Tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. 1 Vacant&Developable Land Table.2.3.1 1 Single Family 76,507 94,925 2 Mobile Homes 3,489 2,722 3 MultiFamily 91 888 4 Condomrnia 10,165 10,165 5 cooperatives 51 325 6 Retirement Homes 16 336 7 Boarding Homes(Institutional) 828 2,554 8 Multi family less than 10 units 1,986 607 11 Stores One Story 474 443 12 Mixed Use,i.e.,Store and Office 330 292 14 Supermarket 10 13 15 Regional Shopping Malls 4 70 16 Community Shopping Centers 174 933 17 One Story Non Professional Offices 120 112 18 Multi Story Non Professional Offices 127 191 19 Professional Service Buildings 46 43 20 Airports,Marinas,Bus Terminals&Piers 47 84 21 Restaurants,Cafeterias 101 92 22 Drive-in Restaurants 42 35 23 Financial Institutions 85 92 25 Repair Service Shops 27 23 26 Service Stations 55 37 27 Automotive Repair,Service,and Sales 181 226 28 Parking Lots,Mobile Home Sales 211 787 29 Wholesale,Manufacturing,and Produce Outlets 51 73 30 Florist,Greenhouses 11 39 32 Enclosed Theaters,Auditoriums 2 11 33 Night Clubs,Bars,and Cocktail Lounges 10 6 34 Bowling Alleys,Skating Rings,Enclosed Arenas 8 16 35 Tourist Attractions 220 1,651 36 Camps 2 22 37 Race Horse,Auto,and Dog Tracks 4 555 38 Golf Courses 633 15,034 39 Hotels,Motels 79 213 41 Light Manufacturing 275 336 42 Heavy Manufacturing S 41 43 Lumber Yards,Sawmills,Planning Mills 15 26 44 Fruit,Vegetables,and Meat Packing 30 97 46 Other Food Processing 4 2 47 Mineral Processing 11 309 48 Warehouses,and Distribution Centers 442 556 49 Industrial Storage(Fuel,Equip,and Material) 126 145 71 Churches 175 808 72 Private Schools 32 403 73 Private Hospitals 15 180 74 Homes for Aged 9 33 75 Orphanages 195 1,262 76 Mortuaries,Cemeteries 15 86 77 Clubs,Lodges,and Union Halls 22 111 78 Sanitariums,Convalescent,and Best Homes 4 28 79 Cultural Organizations 23 59 Source:2009 property Appraiser Records 8 ColBer County GIS data. 2 Vacant&Developable Land Table 2.3.2 � _,., �;_�,>< ...r,. ,...n.,..✓<..,.��.,�, .:, . a-.-. . w.x;ra�,r. *A;'.s':-..- �..��.rt ...soy 0 Vacant Residential 29,658 105,199 10 Vacant Commercial 1,115 1,657 40 Vacant Industrial 204 584 SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL,COMMERCIAL& INDUSTRIAL 30,977 107,439 51 Cropland Soil Class 1 128 18,959 52 Cropland Soil Class 2 121 41,883 60 Grazing Land Soil Class 3. 845 85,106 61 Grazing Land Soil Class 2 2 1,258 66 Orchard,Groves, Citrus 268 57,660 67 Poultry,Bees,Tropical Fish, Rabbits,etc. 455 2,659 69 Ornamentals, Misc.Agriculture 309 3,386 SUBTOTAL AGRICULTURAL(Code 51-69) 2,128 210,912 70 Vacant Institutional 558 15,996 SUBTOTAL INISTITUTIONAL 558 15,996 Source:2009 Proper;.Apprarse'Pecoros&Coil°er County GIS cfi2ta. Based upon the PAO's records, there are approximately 1,354,936 acres in Collier County. Approximately 138,100 acres or 10 percent of Collier County consist of developed land. In addition, 334,347 acres or 24 percent of Collier County consists of vacant and developable land. Please refer to the map on page 2.3.4. The Collier Inter-Active Growth Model(CIGM)approved by the BCC in January, 2009, as a supplemental planning tool projected that the build-out population for the County would be approximately 950,223. The most recent University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimate for the County's current population is 333,032 for April, 2009. The current population estimates (333,032) compared against the amount developed land (138,100) equates to .415 acres of developed land per capita. Utilizing this ratio against the projected build out population of 950,223 would yield a total of 394,343 acres of developed land to satisfy the projected population. The total acres of land developed (138,100), plus the vacant and developable land (334,347) results in approximately 472,447 of land either developed or developable or expressed another way 20 percent more developable land than the population projections would require. It should also be pointed out that the current, .415 acres of developed land per capita is derived in part from antedated large lot zoning practices such as the estates. Based upon the regulatory allowances of the GMP the future rate of acres of developed land per capita is expected to diminish. C. Summary: 3 Vacant&Developable Land Based upon the data analysis, Collier County appears to have a sufficient amount of vacant and developable land to accommodate future growth. It should be noted that for the 2025 suggested Horizon Year,the most recent University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research projections for the County at year 2025 is 446,400, an increase of 113,368. Based upon the existing ratio of developed to developable land, the County can accommodate the population projected for the Horizon Year. Below is the BEBR projection to the Horizon Year. YEAR PROJECTION 2010 333,600 2011 339,786 2012 346,087 2013 352,505 2014 359,042 2015 365,700 2016 373,518 2017 381,504 2018 389,660 2019 397,990 2020 406,500 2021 414,184 2022 422,013 2023 429,991 2024 438,119 2025 446,400 4 Vacant&Developable Land Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section May 26,2015. YEAR POPULATION 2010 321,520 estimates 2011 323,785 estimates 2012 329,849 estimates 2013 333,663 estimates 2014 336,783 estimates 2015 343,200 projections 2016 349,541 projections 2017 356,000 projections 2018 362,578 projections 2019 369,277 projections 2020 376,100 projections 2021 382,068 projections 2022 388,130 projections 2023 394,288 projections 2024 400,544 projections 2025 406,900 projections 2026 412,447 projections 2027 418,069 projections 2028 423,768 projections 2029 429,545 projections 2030 435,400 projections sources: 1)U.S.Census Bureau 2)Bureau of Economic and Business Research(B EBR)at Univ.of FL. 3)Collier County Planning staff G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\CPSP-2013-11 Second Batch Amendments\A2A Batch.2 post-CAO Exhibits for CCPC_FINALS\01d CPSP-13-11 Batch.2 Staff Report attchmnt 3 by-dw/5-2015 4-2016 163.3191.2.b Florida Statutes 2.2 -The location of existing development in relation to the location of development as anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. hi order to assess the Character and Magnitude of Land Uses in Collier County a study of the four major land uses(Developed, Undeveloped, Conservation/Preservation and Agricultural) was conducted for each of the 12 Planning Communities for the 2004 Collier EAR and to provide consistency in analysis the same structure of comparison was preformed for the 2011 EAR. The analysis(see Table 2.1) demonstrates that development in unincorporated Collier County is not only concentrated within the Urban Planning Communities (North Naples, Central Naples, East Naples, South Naples Golden Gate, Marco, Urban Estates and Immokalee),but has been experienced in the Rural Planning Communities(Royal Fakapalrn, Big Cypress, Rural Estates and Corkscrew), as well. These communities, while remaining largely undeveloped, have experienced a larger percentage of growth in developed lands compared against the Urban Planning Communities. The development within the rural planning communities has placed a greater cost for the provision of services to the county's infrastructure providers, as distance is a primary factor within the calculation of cost of service. It should be noted that due to the larger percentage of dedicated conservation/preservation designation that the majority of the acres contained within these communities will remain undeveloped. C -.der and Magnitude of Land(Prepared in 2009) Planning Developed Undeveloped Conservation Agricultural Total %of Land Community Land*(less Ag) Land(less Ag) Preservation Land Acres Developed North Naples , 13,500 4,381 501 1,123 19,505 69.21% Central Naples 5,743 702 61 156 6,662 86.21% East Naples 3,853 807 19 1,186 5,865 65.69% South Naples 7,543 2,530 989 1,517 12,579 59.97% Golden Gate 6,863_ 1,254 46 137 8,300 82.69% Marco 1,486 4,741 12,472 1,510 20,209 7.35% Urban Estates 14,376 3,474 288 2,904 21,042 68.32% Immokalee 5,041_ 789 1,137 10,788 17,755 28.39% Rural Estates 29,634 28,950 114 16,426 75,124 39.45% Corkscrew 12,603 13,464 20,672 134,427 181,166 6.96% Royal Fakapalm 10,104 36,441 230,698 75,715 352,958 2.86% 1 Existing v.Anticipated Development Big Cypress 21,218 210 563,658 11,220 596,306 3.56% Total 131,964 97,743 830,655 257,109 1,317,471 10.02% (Source:2009 Property Appraiser Records&Collier County GIS data) *Includes developed Residential,Commercial,Industrial, Institutional Use land,Government,Golf Courses and R-O-W,Utility,Outdoor Rte,land etc, g 4 i y , Character and Ma:nitudeof Land Pre= red it ZOO' Planning Developed Undeveloped Conservation Agricultural Total %of Land Community Land* (less Ag) Land(less Ag) Preservation Land Acres Developed North Naples 13,109 3,547 _ 477 2,372 19,505 67.21% Central Naples 5,333 851 67 411 6,662 80.05% East Naples 3,660 874 16 1,315 5,865 62.40% South Naples 6,281 2,206 1,100 2,992 12,579 49.93% Golden Gate 5,923 2,028 46 303 8,300 71.36% Marco 898 4,512 12,425 2,374 20,209 4.44% Urban Estates 12,291 4,467 232 4,052 21,042 58.41% immokalee 4,776 1,036 1,326 10,617 17,755 26.90% Rural Estates 21,764 36,998 125 16,237 75,124 28.97% Corkscrew 7,959 12,166 19,522 141,519 181,166 4.39% Royal Fakapalm 8,191 41,280 226,621 76,866 352,958 2.32% Big Cypress 19,912 92 563,507 12,795 596,306 3.34% Total 110,097 110,057 825,464 271,853 1,317,471 8.36% (Source:2003 Property Appraiser Records&Collier County GIS data) `Includes developed Residential,Commercial,Industrial, Institutional Use land,Government,Golf Courses and R-O-W,Utility,Outdoor Rec.land etc. The comparison tables shows that the County has experienced a 19.9 percent increase in developed land over the past six years (131,964-110,097/110,097), with a majority of that expansion contained in the 2004-2006 time period. For the period of comparison the BEBR population estimates for the unincorporated area indicate an estimate in 2003 of 260,948 and an estimate in 2009 of 293,909 a 12.6 percent increase {(293,909-260,948)1260,948}. The increase in developed land was not supported by a corresponding rate of population increase for the period of analysis. Clearly a negative consequence associated with the housing bubble of the past decade.Chart 2.1 on the following page illustrates the extent of developed, undeveloped and undevelopable land within the County's land inventory. 2 _ Existing v.Anticipated Development Chart 2.1 The Extent of Developed,Vacant&Developable land, Vacant&Undevelopable Land within Unincorporated Collier 2009 830,655 Acres AC.RFS 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 354,852 Acres 500,000 131,964.Acres 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 ..., .It- n-- 0 Developed land Vacant&Developable Vacant&Undevelopable Land Land In order to assess developed land uses in Collier County a comparison of Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional uses was conducted for each of the County's 12 Planning Communities, comparing the table generated for the 2004 EAR against the 2011 EAR. This analysis is provided for in Table 2.3 and 2.4,and Chart 2.2 and 2.3. . „mob . Table 2.3 Land Use of Develops ds for Unincorporat tollPer Prepared in 0 Planning Residential Commercial Industrial institutional Total Community Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres* North Naples 6,796 1,518 395 432 9,141 Central Naples 2,797 495 406 68 3,766 East Naples 2,251 443 56 83 2,833_ South Naples 3,246 369 9 164 3,788 Golden Gate 5,084 ! 186 9 152 5,431 Marco 538 24 9 86 657 Urban Estates 9,018 360 9 219 9,606 Immokalee 1,838 364 147 185 2,534 Rural Estates 23,165 81 692 91 24,029 Corkscrew 1,765 219 52 1,069 3,105 Royal Fakapalm 3,706 1,781 297 161 5,945 Big Cypress 556 72 0 41 669 3 Existing v.Anticipated Development Total I 60,760 I 5,912 I 2,081 I 2,751 [_71,504] (Source:2009 Property Appraiser Records&Coffier County GIS data) *Total excludes Government,Golf Course end R-O-W,Utility,Outdoor Rec.land etc. Table 2.4 Land Use of Developed Lands for Unincorporated Collier (Prepared in 2003) Planning Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Total Community Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres" North Naples 6,338 1,148 390 495 8,371 Central Naples 2,397 468 429 84 3,378 ^East Naples 2,190 433 53 121 2,797 South Naples 2,883 431 7 135 3,456 Golden Gate 4,908 175 8 152 5,243 Marco 376 21 9 86 492 Urban Estates 7,875 190 33 165 8,263 Immokalee 1,628 251 133 150 2,162 Rural Estates 16,843 32 558 5 17,438 Corkscrew 1,414 572 52 886 2,924 -- Royal Fakapalm 3,582 879 310 86 4,857 Big Cypress 635 49 0 34 718 Total 51,069 4,649 1,982 2,399 60,099 (Source:2003 Property Appraiser's Records&Collier County GIS data) Total excludes Government,Golf Course and R-0-W,Utility,Outdoor Rec.land etc. Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional 2003 51,069 4,649 1,982 2,399 2009 60,760 5,912 2,081 2,751 Change In Acres 9,691 1,263 99 352 Percent Change 18.98% 27.17% 4.99% 14.67% As noted within the analysis for the time period, based upon BEBR estimates, the unincorporated population for the County increased by 12.6 percent, where both the residential and commercial categories increased at a accelerated pace,the institution category was close to alignment with the population increase and the percent increase of industrial land use lagged significantly the population rate of increase. The outpacing of the residential and commercial development compared to the expansion of the population has a 4 Existing v.Anticipated Development direct correlation to the surplus of both land use commodities experienced by the County over the past two years. Chart 2.2 2003 DEVELOPED LAND FOR UNINCORPORATED COLLIER Institutional Industrial 3.99% 3.30% Commercial 7.74% Residential 8497% Chart 2.3 2009 DEVELOPED LAND FOR UNINCORPORATED COLLIER Industrial Institutional 2.91% 3.85% Commercial $,2790 --NN:NN I Residential 84.97% The following charts and maps depict the twelve Planning Communities within the County and the land use breakdowns for each of those Planning Conununities 5 Existing v.Anticipated Development • N m % a It It 31 JA m r N , z reccci Em7 c� U_, Z m ,n 5 I DQ M 7 z0Cwcif a ,0"► 999 1113 , C � � � as da I P IUci, g E3 :>-' 1 / N ., CC 1 N Y „1"---..,,,0 a � ar o -H' z jWYii1c )- (L 11FZE i om!rli; L.LI J iV . �, snwZ g ;562-...ii d ,.+, .t., e 1. Jill '.-f ___v_ci.,,,_,_- "1-ULF of t8e. . 1. ' V c7 .o, v 6 Existing v.Anticipated Development „...... — ---------- -i - 'L. 0 c.4 Li (..1 gr N 0 1 IN oa ia3 _ i TV i I-1 r. ao"o I -- -- § . Rti 0 in N P4 et ----- - ------,- - - -- g III ' i .q 01 1,y la e 7 41 61 toM 1: 1,1 I LW IN 1 1 k st Ul 1 i 9 ii I A '4 Ts CO .. A .4. r4 C i cr, CO "43 1 vl w o 0 . L. 1.0 et A 1 --- a) 0 1 — --- a) in 1 c3'.. • W N 11 ko I gi TS w — C RI . zAial A ^t at 0 , 0 . es) I uio z oo Lel 3 N. cz. I NI i I I 'Si. A) UJ I 1 1 1 l'' 1 8 ; N [ .. 1; r, . i 1 I rn't 011 in4 r., { 1 1 z 2 -...- 1 1 1 li II 1---1 -.ii, -n-11 IA - I- o S ,f) a) .4 0 Si 1.11 in 0 E . . 0 .., . . cu fa 1:1) 4.., - I- 01 co ea ar a” -5. a 5•. EL (.7 1 1 •k g 8. 01 10 RI ra < al al (3 t.b. 2 c 7 z Z 7 o. cl -SC LLI To 3 1 : ra u i 71'ong 'a' tto Li- 0 TO E cc '5 0 co 7,- U ,..- - m w 0 ...... 0 . E 4 o (..) ce c u re El gi ,7"1 - — ........- 7 Existing v.Anticipated Development ........., " — — —--- - i . E w 0 al co ID U. i of i I 1 ni N cy ifl rp, RI:, ...1 g 'A IN 4 , . f is, 1 in WI Cie 4 -1 1. GC al-------- i esi -,/- :9 1 IA 4-' 0 1r-1M l'o. 'CS E 1 t" 1 , 1 CU i 8 6 ;.°4 in cy) 8 in rs 1 m, -2 al .-t 0 CU „,N E a) - — 13 I co — 40 V) g i 4 ' n } 1 i o 1 "C1 i 0 to Ln r-i m , 11 I I 3 -0.. rcl hrnq .9 10 •••4 .7 N ill czt , I . , N f cr 1 0 N i C CO i i t us 1 i r-• ! .04 al z et er "1 , r4 __ 0 C E ue cu 0 41 cu a, a) u •-• a) lu 2 to c 2 z m m z z a To 4 ra — w 0 Lu — 2iri E CO c 2 E co o z co 4,""' .2 E 4,' 0 8 z ' E — cc "' c, 8 u cc 0 ' 44 rl ..--, 8 Existing v.Anticipated Development I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a standalone Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment cycle to allow for the removal of the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin from the GMP; in the interim, approve placing in abeyance the discharge rates in the GMP; and, authorize staff to initiate amendments to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code (LDC) to add stormwater discharge rates; and, approve a standalone LDC amendment cycle,if needed. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)to authorize amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) to remove the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin and modify, as needed, any GMP related references to those discharge rates for proper form and clarity; authorize placing in abeyance the discharge rates contained in the GMP; and, authorize amendments to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code, as appropriate,to add sixteen new maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin. CONSIDERATIONS: Background: The existing conveyance capacity of the County's primary and secondary stormwater and surface water management system is limited. Expansion or enlargement of this system to create additional system capacity is not a viable strategy for managing stormwater flows. The Stormwater Management Subelement of the Growth Management Plan requires that drainage systems have adequate stormwater management capacity at the time development permit is issued, and the system be designed "to ensure that the final outlet point has the adequate capacity to handle all discharges from the upstream portion of the watershed under conditions present at the time of design." Additionally, Policy 6.3 of the Subelement requires off-site discharge rates be computed using a storm event of a 3 day duration and 25 year return frequency. Analysis of the system's capacity to accept flow and adequately convey it to downstream receiving waters resulted in the current maximum allowable post development discharge rates. Six (6) sub-basin areas presently have specified reduced maximum allowable post development discharge rates ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre; all other areas of the County have a maximum allowable post development discharge rate of 0.15 cfs per acre. These discharge rates are listed in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 90-41. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, adopted in 1989, required that the County develop a watershed management plan by January 1993. After postponement for several years, the Board of County Commissioners sponsored development of a comprehensive Collier County Watershed Management Plan(CCWMP) and accepted it in 2011. The unit discharge rates adopted in the earlier years were based on preliminary hydraulic analyses. Detailed hydraulic modeling for evaluation of the design storm conveyance capacity of the canal network performed as a part of the CCWMP updated the maximum allowable discharge rates for all of the basins. Two additional detailed stormwater management master plans, developed jointly by the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) and the County for the Belle Meade and Immokalee areas in 2005, recommended further limiting the discharge rates for sixteen(16) basins/sub-basins. Computer modeling results indicated various segments of the system do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. In some cases,the canal banks would be overtopped during a 10-year design storm event. Conditions may worsen in the future unless management actions are implemented to control for the impact of subsequent changes to land use. Reducing maximum allowable post development discharge rates in these 16 basin areas is recommended to ensure adequate flood protection levels of service. Accordingly, amendments to existing ordinances, including the Stormwater Management Subelement are needed to meet the commitments of the GMP by incorporating the limiting discharge rates proposed in CCWMP and the two stormwater master plans.The following benefits are anticipated as a result: • Improved Levels of Service (LOS) for flood protection provided by SFWMD and County operated canals • Enhanced groundwater recharge potential • Restored hydrology and wetlands hydroperiod • Water quality improvement of receiving waters • Reduction of freshwater flows to the estuaries • Gain consistency in Environmental Resource Permitting(SFWMD and County). Based in part on the CCWMP, the County amended the Stormwater Management Subelement of the GMP by Ordinance No. 15-09 to add stormwater discharge rates for 14 sub-basins. However, some of these rates do not reflect the discharge rates contained within the studies for the Immokalee and Belle Meade areas, and need additional public vetting. Further, staff has confirmed with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that oversees all local government comprehensive plans, that these discharge rates are not required to be adopted into the GMP. Removing the discharge rates from the GMP and instead incorporating them into the LDC and/or Code of Laws and Ordinances will allow for an amendment process, as future changes may be needed,that is faster, less costly and less cumbersome. Finally, staff has presented the proposed discharge rate reductions to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) on three occasions (6/3/15, 11/4/15, and 3/2/16) with assistance from the Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District and the engineering consulting firm of Robau and Associates,LLC. Questions and comments were raised by DSAC members and at subsequent DSAC meetings staff and the consultant team responded to those. Moving forward, the DSAC will continue to review all proposed changes to the LDC and/or Code of Laws and Ordinances and provide comments and recommendations prior to review by the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for authorizing standalone GMPA and LDCA cycles, nor for placing in abeyance the discharge rates in the GMP. Costs associated with the text amendments will be accommodated in the current fiscal year budget. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: This item's Growth Management Plan(GMP) impact consists of placing in abeyance the discharge rates listed in the Stormwater Subelement. Text revisions to the GMP will be provided to the Board at a subsequent hearing for review and approval. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality,and requires majority vote for Board approval.--HFAC RECOMMENDATION: To approve a standalone Growth Management Plan amendment cycle to remove the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin and modify, as needed, any GMP related references to those discharge rates for proper form and clarity; authorize placing in abeyance the discharge rates contained in the GMP; authorize staff to initiate amendments to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code (LDC) to add sixteen new maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin; and,approve a standalone LDC amendment cycle,if needed Prepared by: Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division, Growth Management Department and David C. Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager,Zoning Division,Growth Management Department. Attachments: (1) Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates White Paper (2) Stormwater Management Sub-Element,Policy 6.3 (3) Code of Laws and ordinances, Section 90-41 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates March 23,2016 Executive Summary Since 1990 (Ord. 90-10), Collier County has had Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates. In most areas of the County,the maximum allowable post development discharge rate is 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. There have been six(6) exception areas-areas (sub-basins) with rates more restrictive ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cfs per acre. These more restrictive rates were established based on modeling studies demonstrating the need to further restrict the runoff rate from adjacent lands based in limited conveyance capacity of the receiving canals. Between 2006 and 2011, three (3) studies were completed which included recommendations to reduce discharge rates in sixteen (16) additional sub-basin areas. In order to proceed with implementation of adding these 16 additional reduced discharge rates, Stormwater Planning initiated a vetting process including a feasibility analysis to examine all the effects that could result should some or all of the additional reduced discharge rates be implemented. This process began in May 2015. Since May 2015, staff has presented this issue to DSAC three (3) times on June 3, 2015, November 4, 2015,and March 2, 2016,with assistance from BCB/SFWMD staff and the Engineering Consulting firm of Robau &Associates, LLC (R&A). Many related issues have been discussed with DSAC. The following is a list of some key issues with staff comments. 1. Currently Built-Out Basins:Some of the areas where new restrictions are proposed are in basins that are principally built out. Why are you proposing implementation in these areas? Staff: Limited canal conveyance capacity is still relevant in these areas. Redevelopment potential is high in older built out areas. Opportunities to decrease runoff at the source will play a key role in ensuring adequate flood protection level of service (LOS). 2. Economic Analysis: What is the cost increase to developers that will result when adhering to more restrictive discharge rates? Staff: With DSAC's approval and understanding of the worst- case scenario - a high intensity commercial development, R&A completed a detailed analysis and presented it on March 2, 2016. The cost increase as analyzed was approximately 2%of the total site work. The additional cost is due to additional fill. 3. Affected Areas: Every basin should be checked. Staff: Detailed maps of each affected basin are being produced using high-level GIS analysis. These maps will show explicit basin boundaries and current land use with the potentially affected area (remaining undeveloped parcels) quantified by area (acres) and by percent of total basin area. 4. Incentives,Vested Rights,etc.: Other related land development regulations should be examined for possible changes that could offset this proposed higher regulatory standard. Staff: Issues such as redevelopment thresholds,vested future development rights(permitted but not Page 1 of 6 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department Co Cmsmy yet built), Low Impact Development(LID)source control initiatives, relaxed parking lot drive aisle elevation requirements, berm side slopes, and buffers are some examples of incentives for consideration that will be examined during this vetting process. Our next step is to seek Board approval to begin the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) amendment process. We anticipate going back to DSAC two (2) more times and to the CCPC three (3)times as part of the transmittal and adoption hearings. Staff is recommending removal of the discharge rates from the GMP with insertion into either the Code of Laws and Ordinances or the Land Development Code. Unfortunately, during the 2011 Ear-Based GMP Amendment Cycle which was originated to revise format, structure and language for internal consistency, additional restricted discharge rates as recommended by the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) were prematurely adopted by the BCC as part of the 2015 glitch amendments. Staff will bring an executive summary to the BCC on April 26, 2016 to request that the additional restricted discharge rates be placed in abeyance until the vetting process is complete. Our professional team working on the initiative consists of Jerry Kurtz, Ananta Nath, Robert Wiley, Michele Mosca, Liz Gosselin, Jin Xue,Joss De Lestang and Emilio Robau. Monthly County/BCB/SFWMD coordination meetings include regular progress updates on this issue insuring consistent understanding of regulatory application upon final approval and implementation. Background The following information includes an explanation of the history of the issue, the current need for the change, the areas that will be impacted should such an amendment be approved and the steps in the amendment process. 1.Surface Water Management and Maximum Allowable Discharge Rates The existing conveyance capacity of the County's primary and secondary stormwater and surface water management system is limited. Expansion or enlargement of this system to create additional system capacity is not a viable strategy for managing this issue. Previously completed analysis of the system's capacity to accept flow and adequately convey it to downstream receiving waters resulted in the current maximum allowable post development discharge rates. Subsequent and more recent analysis has been completed and the results indicate that sixteen (16) additional basins should have reduced maximum allowable post development discharge rates. Computer modeling results indicate that various segments of the system do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. In some cases,the canal banks are overtopped even during the 10-year design storm event. Conditions would worsen in the future unless management actions are implemented to control for the impact of subsequent changes to land use. Page 2 of 6 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department `-'_.-mow►'' Reducing maximum allowable post development discharge rates in these identified areas is one of the most prudent actions recommended to insure adequate flood protection levels of service. 2.Stormwater Management Discharge Rate Restriction History • 1974— Ordinance 74-50 Establishes Collier County Water Management Policy and implements local design criteria. • 1982 — South Florida Water Management District establishes Pre-development verses Post- development matching discharge design criteria. • 1989 — Collier County adopted its first Growth Management Plan (Ord. 89-05) requiring the County to develop a Collier County Watershed Management Plan by 1993. • 1990—Ordinance 90-10 Established additional design criteria, and discharge limitations for four (4) basins including a 0.15 cfs/acre global restriction for the rest of Collier County. • 2001—Ordinance 01-27 further updated the allowable discharge rates, added two (2) additional basins, and other design criteria. • 2007 — DCA pushes Collier County to fulfill the 1989 Comprehensive plan commitments and County adopts interim watershed regulations through a Growth Management Plan Amendment (Ord. 07-16). 3. Basins with Specific Discharge Rates Currently there are a total of six (6) basins with specified reduced maximum allowable post development discharge rates ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. In all other areas of the County the maximum allowable post development discharge rate is 0.15 cfs per acre. Discharge rates are computed using a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. The current list of basins with specified maximum allowable post development discharge rates can be found in Policy 6.3 of Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub- Element. This list can also be found in Ordinances 2001-27 and 2007-11, as well as on the County Stormwater Management web page. 4.Growth Management Code References The fourth paragraph of the introduction of the GMP, Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub-Element, states that"the stormwater management system has to be designed so as to ensure that the final outlet point has adequate capacity to handle all discharges from the upstream portion of the watershed under conditions present at the time of design". Policy 1.2 of the GMP, Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub-Element, states that procedures and projects will be designed and implemented in a manner to ensure that adequate stormwater management facility capacity is available at the time a development permit is issued or that such capacity will be available when needed to serve the development. Page 3 of 6 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department �, Cminty Goal 2, Objective 2.1., interim standard d, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element states that limiting discharge rates will be reviewed as part of the Watershed Management Plans and modified accordingly to the analysis and findings of the plans. 5.Basis(Analysis)for Proposed Amendment Four (4) of the recommended maximum allowable post development discharge rates are based on two (2), 2006 completed stormwater management master plans, the Belle Meade Area Storm water Master Plan and the lmmokalee Area Storm water Master Plan. The remainder of the recommended maximum allowable post development discharge rates are based on analysis completed as part of the Watershed Management Plan (2011). Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan From page 4-21 of the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan, by Parsons Inc., dated September 2006, "The Belle Meade Basin allowable discharge rates were determined from the study's model results for the 25-year, 3-day design storm". The allowable discharge represents baseline conditions and is needed to maintain flood protection level of service when future land use modifications are proposed. In establishing an allowable discharge by watershed the Belle Meade model area was divided into two watersheds separated by Sabal Palm Road. The peak 25-Year, 3-day flow from the two watersheds will be divided by the total respective area to determine the allowable discharge. This method, approved by SFWMD personnel, is simple to administer and is consistent with the Environmental Resources Permit Information Manual (Volume IV, 2000) developed by SFWMD Environmental Resources Regulation Division. This method determines the allowable discharge for grouped sub basins and not by individual sub basins." Immokalee Area Stormwater Master Plan The limiting unit discharge rates of 0.05 and 0.10 cfs/acre respectively,for the areas east and west of State Road 29 in Immokalee were developed from the outputs of the Stormwater Management Model (XPSWMM) runs of the lmmokalee Master Plan project. These rates,were however, not documented in the Master Plan report. The model results were subsequently reviewed and summarized by staff from the South Florida Water Management District Big Cypress Basin office after the report was published. The model inputs/outputs are available in SFWMD files and can be reviewed if further verification is needed. Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Management Plan (WMP) was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 13, 2011. One of the efforts involved in completing the plan included a computer generated hydraulic conveyance analysis. MIKE SHE/ MIKE 11 computer model results determined the maximum flow that can be conveyed by the various water management canal segments. Results indicated that various segments of the primary and secondary water management systems do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. As previously stated, in some cases, the canal banks are overtopped even Page 4 of 6 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department co cmnsy during the 10-year design storm event. Conditions would worsen in the future unless management actions are implemented to control for the impact of new development. A detailed description of the analysis is provided in the Surface Water Quantity Assessment section in Volume 4 of the WMP. To check the current allowed maximum discharges, as required by the County ordinance, the maximum flow predicted by the computer model was divided by the extent of the drainage area to obtain the actual maximum allowable discharge rate associated with each canal segment. It was found that maximum discharges for many of the County basins needed updating. That was expected because the original limits were based on preliminary analyses. Page 11 of Volume 3 of the WMP includes Table 3-3, a list of the recommended maximum allowable discharge rates for additional basins. Fourteen (14) basins are identified for recommended modification. Below are three clarifications in reference to this table. (1)Table 3-3 listed the Harvey Canal Basin twice, once as the Harvey Canal Basin and second as the Island Walk Basin. It is the same basin and the correct name is the Harvey Basin. Its discharge rate has been previously set based on the Harvey Basin Master Plan and is currently addressed in Ordinance 2001-27. No changes to this basin's rate are necessary. (2) Table 3-3 references the Henderson Creek Basin. This basin is the same as the Belle Meade Basin. The source for consideration of this basin's discharge rate modification will be the Belle Meade Stormwater Master Plan (BMSMP). The BMSMP split the basin into two parts using Sable Palm Road as the dividing line. (3) Table 3-3 indicates that no modification is recommended to the Upper Immokalee Basin. Modifications for the Immokalee area basins will be considered using the analysis completed by the Immokalee Area Stormwater Master Plan. This master plan split the basin in half using State Road 29 as the dividing line. 6.The Basins and Discharge Rates Current Six Specific Discharge Limitation Basins Rate 1. Airport Road North Sub-Basin 0.04 cfs/acre (North of Vanderbilt Beach Road) 2. Airport Road South Sub-basin 0.06 cfs/acre (South of Vanderbilt Beach Road) 3. Cocohatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 4. Lely Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 5. Harvey Basin 0.055 cfs/acre(Recommend amending/rounding this off to 0.06 cfs/acre) 6. Wiggins Pass Basin 0.13 cfs/acre Page 5 of 6 Stormwater Management Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division Growth Management Department co cokruy Proposed Additional Basins 1. Henderson Creek Belle Meade Basin (North 0.06 cfs/acre* of Sabal Palm Rd.) 2. Henderson Creek Belle Meade Basin(South of Sabal Palm Road) 0.04 cfs/acre *(Belle Meade MP recommended 0.0375 cfs/acre; recommending rounding to hundredths.) 3. Immokalee Master Plan Area (East of SR 29) 0.05 cfs/acre 4. Immokalee Master Plan Area (West of SR 29) 0.10 cfs/acre 5. CR 951 North Canal Basin 0.11 cfs/acre* 6. C4 Basin 0.11 cfs/acre 7. Corkscrew Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre* 8. Cypress Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre* 9. Faka Union Canal Basin(North of 1-75) 0.09 cfs/acre* 10. Gordon River Extension Basin 0.09 cfs/acre 11. 1-75 Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre* 12. Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin 0.12 cfs/acre 13. Lely Manor Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 14. Main Golden Gate Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre* 15. Palm River Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre 16. Pine Ridge Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre *Basins with final outfall to SFWMD/BCB operated canals(8 of 16). 7. Benefits • Improved Levels of Service (LOS) for flood protection provided by South Florida Water Management District and Collier County operated canals • Enhanced Groundwater Recharge • Improved Hydrology and wetlands hydro-period • Reduce Pollution by Source Capture • Water Quality Improvement of receiving waters • Reduction of freshwater flows to the estuaries • Gain consistency in Environmental Resource Permitting(SFWMD and County) • Fulfill Growth Management Plan Commitments 8. Review and Approval Process Staff is proceeding with BCC approval to begin the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) amendment process to remove the existing maximum allowable off-site discharge rates by basin from the GMP; adding the existing six discharge rates and sixteen (16) new discharge rates to the LDC. This process is anticipated to take up to a year and a half. Staff anticipates returning to DSAC two (2) more times with prepared amendments for transmittal and adoption hearings. Issues such as redevelopment thresholds,vested future development rights(permitted but not yet built), and possible incentives for consideration will be examined during this process. Attachments: March 2, 2016 DSAC Meeting PowerPoint Presentation Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING COUNTY-INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, PRIMARILY TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY TEXT AND CORRECT MAP ERRORS AND OMISSIONS SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT; FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP; STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO REMOVE THE DISCHARGE RATES; TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION MAP SERIES; AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. 1PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans;and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments to the following elements of its Growth Management Plan: Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map; Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; Transportation Element and Transportation Map Series; Capital Improvement Element and 15-CMP-00954/177 Page 1 of 3 Batch#2 GMP Transmittal Amendments 6/21/16 Words underlined are additions;Words struek-through are deletions WHEREAS, on , the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed EAR-based amendments to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and has recommended approval of said amendments to the Board of County Commissioners;and WHEREAS, on , the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184,Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty(30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit,in writing,to Collier County its comments within said thirty(30)days pursuant to Section 163.3184,F.S.;and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty(180)days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184,F.S.;and WHEREAS, the DEO,within five (5)days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3),F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendments, prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of ,2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman 15-CMP-00954/177 Page 2 of 3 Batch#2 GMP Transmittal Amendments 6/21/16 Words underlined are additions; Words struelc-tlifeugh are deletions Approved as to form and legality: f-A- 1 C / Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Text and Maps I5-CMP-00954/I77 Page 3 of 3 Batch#2 GMP Transmittal Amendments 6/21/16 Words underlined are additions; Words struek-thfough are deletions Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 PL20130002637/C PSP-2013-11 EXHIBIT"A" CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT(CCME) Update and make current the Table of Contents, along with corresponding titles, heading and other entries—inside and between Elements—to maximize internal consistency. II. GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES GOAL 1: [Reference text only, page 3] TO PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF THE COUNTY'S NATURAL RESOURCES. OBJECTIVE 1.1: [Revised text, page 3] Continue-te-m Maintain a comprehensive environmental management and conservation program to ensure that natural resources, including State and Federally listed animal species within the County are properly, appropriately, and effectively identified, managed, and protected. Policy 1.1.1: Collier County has established and will maintains an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), which advises and assists the appropriate County agencies, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Board of County Commissioners(BCC) in implementing the County's environmental resources management programs. Policy 1.1.2: Collier County has incorporated the gGoals,°Objectives and°Policies of this Conservation and Coastal Management Element... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.3.1: [Revised text, page 4] The NRPA program shall direct incompatible land uses away from significant environmental systems that exist at a landscape scale, contain large systems of connected wetland and upland habitats, and support a wide variety of listed species. The program shall include the following: a. Identification and mapping of NRPAs as an overlay to the Future Land Use Map; (During the Assessment for the Rural Fringe area,the County has determined that CREW Trust lands, Belle Meade, and a portion of the Northern Belle Meade shall be identified as NRPAs. The County also has determined that the South Golden Gate Estates is a NPRA. The specific boundaries have been identified as NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map.) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.3.2 [Revised text, page 5] The overall purpose and description of the Rural Stewardship program is defined in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay found in the in the Future Land Use Element. A Stewardship Credit system has been established that shall serve as the primary basis for the protection of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). The RLSA Overlay also contains policies to that shall direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs, HSAs and WRAs in order to protect wetlands, upland habitats and listed species within the RLSA. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck ough are deleted. 1 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 OBJECTIVE 2.1: [Revised text, page 6] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** a. All new development and re-development projects shall meet 150% of the water quality volumetric requirements of Section 4.2.1(a) of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume II for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District(2014), - • - - - , •• : :- - • - - - - e•:- - -: - - , and the retention and detention requirements, and the allowable off-site discharge rates roquired-by - - - - - •- - : - - - : : - • - e.-, - -- • : provided in the Land Development Code; *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** d. All development located within areas identified on Figure 1 shall be evaluated to... avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs or, when not possible, to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. The County shall adhere to the limiting discharge rates of each basin Management-Plans as provided in the Land Development Code. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.3.6.b: [Revised text, page 9] b. Excluding single family homes, any project impacting five (5) acres or more of wetlands shall provide... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.1.4: [Revised text, page 11] Wellhead protection areas identified on the Future Land Use Map Series shall be protected as follows: 1. Wellhead protection areas shall consist of four (4) Wellfield Risk Management Zones defined as follows: a) Zone W-1 is the land area surrounding the identified potable water wellfield wellheads and extends to the five percent (5%) ground water capture zone boundary line (which approximates the one In year ground water travel time to the wellfield). b) Zone W-2 is the land area between the W-1 boundary line and the ten percent(10%)ground water capture zone boundary line (which approximates the two j2)year ground water travel time to the potable water wellfield). c) Zone W-3 is the land area between the W-2 boundary line and the twenty-five percent(25%) ground water capture zone boundary line(which approximates the five j_5_)year ground water travel time to the potable water wellfield). d) Zone W-4 is the land area between the W-3 boundary line and the 400 one-hundred percent (100%)ground water capture zone boundary line(which approximates the twenty 12Q)year ground water travel time to the potable water wellfield). 2. Land uses are restricted within the wellfield risk management zones as follows: a) Future solid waste disposal facilities=are prohibited in all wellfield risk management zones. b) Future solid waste transfer stations are prohibited in zones W-1, W-2, and W-3. Page 2- of24. DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 2 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT--CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116/16 c) Future solid waste storage, collection, and recycling storing hazardous products and hazardous wastes:are prohibited in zones W-1, W-2, and W-3. d) Future non-residential uses involving hazardous products in quantities exceeding 250 liquid gallons or 1,000 pounds of solids-must provide for absorption or secondary containment in zones W-1, W-2, and W-3. e) Future domestic wastewater treatment plants:are prohibited in zone W-1. f) Future land disposal systems:must meet high level disinfection standards as found in Title 40 CFR part 135. g) Land application of domestic residuals:are required to limit metal concentrations;initrogen based on uptake ability of vegetation), and require a Wellfield sConditionai iUse. - - , 4111 Future on-site disposal systems(septic tanks) requiring a soil absorption area greater than 1,000 square feet are allowed to discharge in zone W-1 subject to complying with construction standards and provision of an automatic dosing device and a low-pressure lateral distribution. j31 On-site sewage disposal systems (septic tanks)serving existing industrial uses and subject to the thresholds in d) and e) above within wellfield zones W-1, W-2, and W-3 shall are required to meet all construction and operating standards contained in 64E-10, F.A.C. as the rule existed on August 31, 1999 and shall to implement a ground water monitoring plan. 3. Wellfield Conditional uses referenced within this pPolicy... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.3.2: [Revised text, page 13] Collier County shall use its three-dimensional computer model to calculate the actual "cones of depression" around the County's existing potable water welifields. After at least 15 days publication of the maps of the proposed"zones of protection"for each such wellfield before each hearing by the EAC, Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the County shall then amend the appropriate elements of this Growth Management Plan to show such "cones of depression" as "zones of protection"within the Countywide Future Land Use Map Series. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 4.2: [Revised text, page 14] Continue to promote conservation of Collier County's potable water supply and will continue to develop, implement and refine a comprehensive conservation strategy through the Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, which will-identify identifies specific goals for reducing per capita potable water consumption. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 5.4: [Revised text, page 16] The County shallm Maintain We the County's program to control soil erosion through its regulations identifying criteria to control and reduce soil erosion and sediment transport from construction and other nonagricultural land disturbing activities. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words staisk-through are deleted. 3 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116/16 GOAL 6: [Reference text only, page 16] TO IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE THE COUNTY'S NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. OBJECTIVE 6.1: [Revised text, page 16] Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective shalt apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.) Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area... pursuant to pPolicies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element. ... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 17] (1) For the purpose of this pPolicy, ...specified in this pPolicy... (2) The preservation of... (3) Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of this pPolicy shall be set aside... consistent with the requirements of this pPolicy. ... (4) Selection of native vegetation to be... a. Wetland or upland areas... the requirements of Policy 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 18] (5) The uses allowable within preserve areas are limited to: a. ...standards that implement this pPolicy shall be... b. ...according to the pPolicies associated with Objective 7.1. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.1.2: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 22] (1) For the purpose of this pPolicy... specified in this pPolicy... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 22] (3) Areas that fulfill ...the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of this pPolicy... consistent with ...the requirements of this pPolicy. ... (4) a. ...the requirements of Policy 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of this eElement. (5) b. ...according to the pPolicies associated with Objective 7.1... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 23] (8) ...required in this pPolicy... (10) ...pursuant to Policy 6.5.2 of this eElement. ...in CCM€Objective 6.5 of this eElement. Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 4 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16116 *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.1.5: [Revised text, page 24] ...in Policies 6.1.1, and 6.1.2 of this eElement... ...the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this eElement... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.1.9: [Revised text, page 25] ...the pPolicies supporting Objective 6.1. OBJECTIVE 6.2: ...the appropriate pPolicies under Goal 6. (The County's wetland protection policies and strategies shall-be are coordinated with the Watershed Management Plans as required by Objective 2.1 of this Element.) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.2.5: [Revised text, page 29] ...of Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement... This pPolicy shall be implemented... (1) ...of Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement... a. The acreage requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement shall be met be ll preserving... ...in paragraph (2) of this pPolicy. ...This pPolicy is... ...by Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement. ...by Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** (3) ...of paragraph (6) of this pPolicy. (4) ...within Policy 6.2.7 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 31] (6)a.4. ...with paragraphs (6)a.1, (6)a.2, and (6)a.3 of this pPolicy ...with this pPolicy... (6)a.5. ...the requirements of Policy 6.2.7 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.2.6 [Revised text, page 311 ...in Policy 6.2.5(5)d of this eElement... Policy 6.2.7: [Revised text, page 32] ...This pPolicy shall be implemented as follows: (2) ...pursuant to pPolicies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element... (3) ...pursuant to pPolicies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.2.9: [Revised text, page 33] ...the pPolicies supporting Objective 6.2. OBJECTIVE 6.3: [Revised text, page 33] Thee Protect and conserve submerged marine habitats. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-t#rough are deleted. 5 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 OBJECTIVE 6.4: [Revised text, page 33] Protect, conserve and appropriately use ecological communities shared with or tangential to State and Federal lands and other local governments. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 6.5: [Revised text, page 33] The-County-shall-p Protect natural reservations from the impact of surrounding development. For the purpose of this Objective and its related pPolicies:, natural reservations shall include only Natural Resource Protection Areas(NRPAs)and designated Conservation Lands on the Future Land Use Map_; emir development-shall Such development includes all projects except for permitting and construction of single-family dwelling units situated on individual lots or parcels. This Objective and its Policies shall apply only to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use dDistrict[except as noted in Policy 6.5.3 below]. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.5.2: [Revised text, page 34] The following criteria shall apply to development contiguous to natural reservations in order to reduce negative impacts to the natural reservations: (1) d. ...in Policy 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** (3) Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, ...as specified in Section 4.2.2(b), of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume ll for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District(2014), . (4) Proposed development ...projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 3.10, 10.2.2.4 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume I, and Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume Il for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District(2014)rer-its-successor. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** GOAL 7: TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE COUNTY'S FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 7.1: [Reference text only, page 36] Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats... Policy 7.1.1: [Revised text, page 36] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** (6) All other EPolicies supporting Objective 7.1 of this eElement. Policy 7.1.2: [Revised text, page 37] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** (2) Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species and for those protected species identified below shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated indicates listed species or the protected species identified below are utilizing the site, or the site contains potential habitat for listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of__ DRAFT Words underlined are added;words std are deleted. 6 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 (2)(a)2. ...subject to the provisions of paragraph (3)of this pPolicy. 3. ...contained in Policy 6.1.1 and Policy 6.1.2 of this eElement. The County shall also consider the recommendations of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3)of this pPolicy. (b) For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), habitat management plans are required and shall give priority to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves. (c) Habitat preservation plans for the Florida scrub jay(Aphelocoma coerulescens)are required and -- •• - _ -- _ - = - -- ' --- - - - - - - - - , - • - • . .. _ , '' • -- -• ""- --:=—=' - - - - e provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plans shall also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. r - - (d) For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), habitat management plans are required and shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nesting season. _- :. .' --- - - -- - _ -- - - - - • - e •- - • .., -_ - _ - - - - - - - (e) For the red-cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis), the-required habitat protection plans are required and shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects cannot be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. -- . .' -• : - -= . _ '. - _ - _ _ .. ... - (f) In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be present, the management plans are required and shall require that garbage be placed in bear-preef __• - •- , - =• - - _-- - __- .e' bear-resistant containers where such containers are available and accepted for use by Collier County. or containers stored in locations not easily accessible to bears. The management plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans. (g) For projects located in Priority I and Priority II Panther Habitat areas,the management plans are required and shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Golf courses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District shall be designed and managed using standards found in that district. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetative communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. - - - - = -• - - -- - - - ' - _ ' - •--e - - - . ... • • - (h) In order to protect loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and other listed sea turtles that nest along Collier County beaches, projects within 300 feet of the MHW line shall limit outdoor lighting DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. page _ ' 7 of____ Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 to that necessary for security and safety. Floodlights and landscape or accent lighting shall be prohibited. - - == • - - - - - -, - _ _ . - -- - - - .. . _ _ *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 7.2.2: [Revised text, page 40] ...of Policies 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of this eElement. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 10.1: [Revised text, page 43] Pcierities4er Give priority to water dependent shoreline land uses uses over water related shoreline land uses, and. all be based on type of water-dependent use, adjacent land use, and surrounding marine and upland habitat considerations. ... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.1.6: [Revised text, page 44] --_ - - - • u- - n u.- rt -••• - - B• • . *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 10.3: [Reference text only, page 45] Maintain undeveloped coastal barriers, mapped as part of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System, predominantly in their natural state and protect, maintain and enhance their natural function. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.3.15: [Revised text, page 46] Development on undeveloped coastal barrier islands within the Special Treatment" ("ST") zoning overlay district shall be reviewed through criteria established in the land development regulations. Applicable Policies under Goal 10 will be used in developing such criteria. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.4.3: [Revised text, page 47] ...Implementation of this pPolicy will be... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 10.5: [Revised text, page 48] Provide improved opportunities for recreational, educational, scientific, and aesthetic enjoyment of coastal resources for undeveloped shorelines- by protecting beaches and dunes and by... Policy 10.5.1: Recreation that is compatible with the natural functions of beaches and dunes is shall be regarded as the highest and best land use. Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. 8 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16116 Policy 10.5.2: The County shall pPrioritize acquisition efforts in order to meet the projected need for additional public beaches. Policy 10.5.3: The County shall pRrohibit activities which would result in man induced shoreline erosion beyond the natural beach erosion cycle or that would deteriorate the beach dune system. Policy 10.5.4: The County shall pProhibit construction of any structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Line. Exceptions shall be allowed for passive recreational structures, access crossovers, and where enforcement would not allow any reasonable economic utilization of such property. In the latter event, require construction that shall minimizes interference with natural functions of such beaches and dunes. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.5.6: [Revised text, page 49] The County shall rRegulate activities so that they will not threaten the stability of the dunes or the beach itself. Policy 10.5.7: The County shall pPursue the acquisition of undeveloped beaches and dunes as the first alternative to development. Policy 10.5.8: The County shall pRrohibit shoreline armoring processes and encourage non-structural methods for stabilizing beaches and dunes. Policy 10.5.9: The County shall Prohibit construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Line except as follows: a. Construction will be allowed for public access; b. For protection and restoration of beach resources; c. In cases of demonstrated land use related hardship or safety concerns as specified in The 1985 Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act, there shall be no shore armoring allowed except in cases of public safety. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.5.12: [Revised text, page 49] For 311 b Beach front land development related projects shall require dune stabilization and restoration improvements, the removal of exotic vegetation, and replacement with native vegetation, as appropriate. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.6.1: [Revised text, page 50] ...applicable pPolicies supporting Objectives 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 above... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 50] 6. The requirements of this pPolicy... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strud through are deleted. 9 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116/16 Policy 11.1.1: [Revised text, page 50] Regulations regarding development and other land alteration activities that shall continue to ensure the conservation, sensitive re-use, preservation of significant historic and archaeological resources, or appropriate mitigation in accordance with State standards. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 12.1: [Revised text, page 51] Maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times as required by state law. An evacuation clearance time shall-bo is defined as having residents and visitors in an appropriate refuge away from storm surge prior to the arrival of sustained Tropical Storm force winds, i.e., winds equal to or greater than 39 mph. To further this eObjective, for future mobile home developments located outside of the storm surge zone, such development shalt is to include on-site sheltering or retro-fitting of an adjacent facility. The Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shalt continues to seek opportunities to increase shelter facilities and associated capacities under the direction of the Department of the Florida Division of Emergency Management. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 12.1.4: [Revised text, page 52] The County shall sentinue-fie maintain hurricane shelter requirements and standards for all new mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, or existing mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions in the process of expanding,which accommodate or contain twenty-six(26)units or more. Such mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions shall be required to provide emergency shelter space on-site, or to provide funding to enhance one or more existing public shelters off-site. The building which provides the on-site shelter space (if this option is chosen)will be of such a size as to provide shelter to park or subdivision residents at the rate of twenty (2Q) square feet per person. For the purposes of this pPolicy, the size of the on-site shelter structure shall be determined by estimating the park or subdivision population during the June-November time frame, based upon methodologies utilized by the Collier County •-= :=-- - •---•• • ::_. . .. . . Bureau of Emergency Services. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 12.1.8: [Revised text, page 53] The County''-s land development regulations shall include mitigation policies addressing flood plains, beach and dune alteration and storm water management. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 12.1.14: [Revised text, page 53] All new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site. The core area will be constructed to meet the Public Shelter Design Criteria that is required for new public schools and public community colleges and universities ("State Requirements for Educational Facilities," 2007 2014). Additionally, this area shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than seventy-two 172)hours. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 12.2: [Revised text, page 54] Ensure that publicly funded buildings and publicly funded development activities are carried out in a manner that demonstrates best practice to minimize the loss of life, property, and re-building cost from the affects from hurricanes, flooding, natural and technological disaster events. Best practice efforts may include, but are not limited to: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-t reug#are deleted. 10 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CONSERVATION&COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 Policy 12.3.1: [Revised text, page 55] The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan shall comply with the pPalicies under this °Objective, and shall contain step-by-step details for post disaster recovery. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Policy 12.3.3: [Revised text, page 55] The Recovery Task Force shall include the Sheriff, the Growth Management Department Head,the Zoning Director,the Bureau of Emergency Services Director and other members as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, such as representatives from municipalities within the County that have received damage from a storm. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 12.4: [Revised text, page 56] Make every reasonable effort to meet the emergency preparedness requirements of Persons with Special Needs such as the elderly, handicapped, the infirmed and those requiring transportation from a threatened area. In the event of a countywide emergency, such as a hurricane or other large-scale disaster, the County Bureau of Emergency Services, in coordination with the County Health Department and other officials= shall opens and operates one or more refuges for persons listed on the County's Special Needs Registry and their caregivers. Medical and support equipment at such refuges will include, but are not necessarily be limited to, respirators, oxygen tanks,first aid equipment, disaster cots and blankets,and defibrillators. PLEASE NOTE: Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes'in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear—within and between Elements—as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un-adopted portions of the document. radeof 7'1 DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-threagh are deleted. 11 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 PL201300026371CPSP-2013-11 EXHIBIT"A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT(CIE) Update and make current the Table of Contents, along with corresponding titles, heading and other entries—inside and between Elements—to maximize internal consistency. Policy 1.1: [Revised text, page 2] The County shall establish standards for levels of service (LOS)for public facilities, as follows: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5: The standards for levels of service of public facilities shall be as follows: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** D. County Potable Water Systems: [Revised text, page 6] County Water District=4.70 150 gallons per capita per day(aped) E. County Sanitary Sewer-Wastewater Treatment Systems: [Revised text, page 7] North Sewer Wastewater Treatment Service Area=420100 gallons per capita per day(gpcd) South Sewer Wastewater Treatment Service Area = 100 gallons per capita per day(gpcd) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.1: [Revised text, page 10] The County shall provide, or arrange for others to provide, the public facilities listed in the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall be reviewed and updated annually as follows: A. •- -- - l l Pursuant to Florida Statutes, 163.3177, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted modified by ordinance not deemed to be an amendment to the Growth Management Plan far Policy 4.2: [Revised text, page 10] The County shall adopt, by reference, into its Capital Improvement Element,the School District's annually updated financially feasible Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards for Public School Facilities. The School District Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan shall identifies the financially feasible school facility capacity projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs based on achieving and maintaining adopted LOS standards for schools. The District Facilities Work Program, prepared by the School District pursuant to Section 1013.35(1)(b), F.S., shall-be is adopted as part of the data and analysis in support of the School District's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Adoption by the County,of the School District's Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program shall occur, without requiring separate action, with approval of the annual update to the Schedule of Capital Improvements of this ef-Collier DRAFT Words underlined are added;words stFusk-through are deleted. 1 Page _ of Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 Element. - - = • •• - • *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 5: (CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT) [Revised text, page 12] Ensure that public facilities, as described in Policy 1.1 above, and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development through a Concurrency Management System. Policy 5.071: [Renumbered text only, page 12] Policy 5.072: [Renumbered text only, page 12] Policy 5.4 3: [Renumbered text only, page 12] Policy 5.2 4: [Renumbered text only, page 12] A. Compliance with any one of the standards set forth in Policy 54 5.3 A, B and C is met; or Policy 5.3 5: [Renumbered text only, page 13] Policy 5.4 6: [Renumbered text only, page 13] Policy 5.5 7: [Renumbered text only, page 14] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.2 4: [Revised text, page 12] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** A. Compliance with any one of the standards set forth in Policy 54 5_3 A, B and C is met; or *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.3 5: [Revised text, page 13] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** D. The necessary facilities and services are under construction or under contract pursuant to a FDOT 5-Year Work Program and are consistent with the Collier County 2025 Long Range Needs Plan or the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), as adopted by the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); or *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Footnotes [Revised text, page 23] These footnotes provide brief explanations of revenue sources and their acronyms found in the Schedule of Capital Improvements, and where to find related supporting data&analysis. 1. Note: Impact Fee (IF) revenues are projected from actual historical revenue and current permitting activity and forecasts. Impact fees and other sources may yield Interest (IN) revenues. Refer to Appendix "I". Certain impact fees are referenced with direct connection to facility type, such as Water Impact Fees (WIF) or Sewer Wastewater Impact Fees (SIF) and may be termed System Development fees. Water and sewer impact fees are also projected based on population projections prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Depactment Section. Deferred Impact Fees (DIE) may generate revenue. 2. Note: Grant and Reimbursement (GR) revenues are based on project-specific funding agreements with the State of Florida, South Florida Water Management District or other agency. Refer to Appendix "I" DRAFT Words underlined are added;words std are deleted. 2 Page , of / Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 3. Note: Developer Contribution Agreement (DC) or advanced reimbursement revenues are based on a project-specific agreement with an active developer doing business in Collier County. 4. Note: Certificate of Adequacy(COA) revenues are projected from historical revenue information. 5. Note: Gas Tax (GA) revenues are projected from historical revenue information. Gas s taxes may yield Interest(IN) revenues. Refer to Appendix '?". 6. Note:Ave Maria (AV) revenues are based on a project-specific Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA)with Ave Maria Development, LLP. Refer to Appendix 1". 7. Note: Carry Forward (CF)Available Cash (AC) (also known as Carry Forward or Beginning Cash) revenues are based on a combination of encumbered and unencumbered funds from prior years that will continue to rollover until they are spent on projects or payment of debt service. 8. Note:Transfer(TR) revenue is money coming in from another fund, and is projected from historical information. Value may be added throuqh commitments and leases. Refer to Appendix '?° 9. Note:General Fund(GE)revenues are projected from historical revenue information. General Fund (001) revenues derive principally from ad valorem taxes levied on properties Countywide, intergovernmental revenues (i.e., Sales Tax and Revenue Sharing), charges for services, interest. and transfers from other funds and Constitutional Officers. MSTU General Fund-Unincorporated Areas Fund (111) revenues derive principally from ad valorem taxes levied on properties in the unincorporated areas of the County, intergovemmental revenues (i.e., Communications Tax), charges for services, interest, and transfers from other funds. Refer to Appendix RI". 10. Note: Revenue Reserve Reduction(RR)revenues are based on a percentage of total new revenue., as required by law, Chapter 129, Florida Statutes. Refer to Appendix `7" 11. Note: Revenue Bond Financing (B) or Bond Proceeds (revenue) are usually received as a lump sum but occasionally can be received in installments, and are not based on historical revenues. In some instances, this item is actually shown as an expense for bond debt service payments, and in other instances, this item shows bond revenue proceeds. Revenue bond covenants and commercial paper documentation are voluminous and do not appear in support documents. The pertinent information is however provided in the Consulting Engineering and Financial Feasibility Report, dated October 25, 2006, and appears in Appendix 1". 12. Note: Capital Account (CA) revenues are projected based on the capital projects spending needs. Refer to Appendix"1': Certain capital accounts are referenced with direct connection to facility type, such as Water Capital Accounts (WCA) and Sewer Wastewater Capital Accounts (SCA). 13. Note: User Fee(UF) revenues are projected from historical revenue information. Refer to Appendix "1" Certain user fees are referenced with direct connection to the user under contract, such as Landfill Tipping Fees (LTF). 14. Note: Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) or Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) revenues are projected from historical revenue information. 15. Note: State Revolving Fund Loan(SRF)revenues are received in installments during the course of a project. Refer to Appendix "1". 16.Note: Commercial Paper (LOC) or local financial institution loan revenue is short-term borrowing usually meant for funding projects underway until such time another funding source is received. These revenues may derived from obligated return on additional senior liens. Commercial paper documentation and revenue bond covenants are voluminous and do not appear in support documents. The pertinent information is however provided in the Consulting Engineering and Financial Feasibility Report, dated October 25, 2006, and appears in Appendix "I". 17. Note: Rate Revenue (REV) revenues are based on historical revenue information combined with the projection of volume change and revenue requirement projections. Refer to Appendix "1" DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strusMbreugh are deleted. 3 Page i of_ {' Staff Proposed GMP Amendments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 18. Note: Additional Roll Forward (ARF) revenues are cash reserves intended for. but previously unspent on, future projects or payment of debt service. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. PROGRAMS TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION [Revised text, page 26] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 6.C. ... the requirements of Policies 5.4 3, 5.2 4, 5.3 5 and 5.4 6 of this Element. PLEASE NOTE:Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Boards consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terns where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear—within and between Elements as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un-adopted portions of the document. Page / of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words 446k-through are deleted. 4 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 P L20130002637/C P S P-2013-11 EXHIBIT"A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT(FLUE) Update and make current the Table of contents, along with corresponding titles, heading and other entries--inside and between Elements—to optimize internal consistency. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Revised text,Table of Contents page iv] Future Land Use Map Mixed Use& Interchange Activity Centers Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9,5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14) Maps [Reference text, page 10] GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION-MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. OBJECTIVE 1: [Revised text, page 10] Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. Policy 1.1: Unless otherwise permitted in this Growth Management Plan, new or revised uses of land shall be consistent with designations outlined on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 1.2: The Future Land Use Map and companion Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts shall be binding on all Development Orders effective with the adoption of this Growth Management Plan. Policy 1.3: Standards and permitted uses for each Future Land Use District and Subdistrict shall be identified in the Designation Description Section. Policy 1.4: Through the magnitude, location and configuration of its components, the Future Land Use Map shall be designed to coordinate land use with the natural environment including topography, soil and other resources; promote a sound economy; coordinate coastal population densities with the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan; and discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl. Paged of /7 DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 1 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 Policy 1.1 through Policy 1.5 renumbered as Policy 1.5 through Policy 1.9. All references to Policies 1.1 through Policy 1.5 in this Element or in another Element or Sub-Element of the GMP are renumbered accordingly. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 2: [Revised text, page 12] Coordinate land uses with the availability of public facilities shall-be, accomplished through the Concurrency Management System of the Capital Improvement Element and implemented through the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of the Land Development Code. Policy 2.1: The County shall maintain the Concurrency Management System in the Capital Improvement Element by implementation of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in the Land Development Code. Policy 2.1 through Policy 2.6 renumbered as Policy 2.2 through Policy 2.7. All references to Policies 2.1 through Policy 2.6 in this Element or in another Element or Sub-Element of the GMP are renumbered accordingly. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.2 3 [Revised text, page 12] Deficiencies or potential deficiencies that have been determined through the Annual Update and Inventory Report on capital public facilities may include the following remedial actions: establish acorea -. - _ - • - - --=-, a TCEA, TCMA, add projects to the Capital Improvement Element, enter into a binding commitment with a Developer to construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made or the level of service is amended to ensure available capacity. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.5 6: [Revised text, page 12] The County has designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. Performance within each TCMA shall be measured based on the percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in Policies 1.3 and 1.44 the TrTTansertation Capital Improvement Element. Standards within TCMAs are provided in Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element. New Development within each TCMA shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in Objective 6, and its supporting Policies 6.1 through 6.5 6_7 of this Element. The following Transportation Concurrency Management Areas are hereby designated: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 3: [Revised text, page 13] - e - _ -_ _ • _ _ _ Ensure protection of natural and historic resources,ensure the availability of land for utility facilities, promote compatible land uses within the airport noise zone, and to provide for management of growth in an efficient and effective manner through Land Development Regulations adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan. Policy 3.1: Land Development Regulations shall be adopted, as necessary,to implement this Growth Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3202. Florida Statutes. Policy 3.1 and Policy 3.2 renumbered as Policy 3.2 and Policy 3.3. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I Paget of +_ DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. 2 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 8116/16 Policy 3.2.j. ...consistency with one or more of Policies :-9 5.11 through 54 5.15. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 4: [Revised text, page 15] Continually refine the Future Land Use Element through detailed planning in 444 order to improve coordination of land uses with natural and historic resources, public facilities, economic development, Housing and urban design, - - - _ - - - - • - - -- -- -- - = • -- = - Policy 4.1: Planning studies must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and further its intent, and may address specific geographic or issue areas. Policy 4.1 through Policy 4.10 renumbered as Policy 4.2 through Policy 4.11. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 5: [Revised text, page 17] Implement land use policies that tn-order-#o promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.1: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall continue to be implemented upon the adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.1 through Policy 5.14 renumbered as Policy 5.3 through Policy 5.16. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.4812: [Revised text, page 19] The zoning on property for which an exemption has been granted based on... this pPolicy shall exempt any development from... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 6: [Revised text, page 22] Designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) ace as geographically compact areas =- *e • - - •- --- - - - • - -e••- _ _ _ _ - " where intensive development exists, or such development is planned. TCMAs are supported by the following Policies. Page , of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strode-through are deleted. 3 Staff Proposed OMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 Policy 6.1: New development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that will ensure an adequate level of mobility (as defined in Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element) and further the achievement of the following identified important state planning goals and policies: discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl, protecting natural resources,protecting historic resources, maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities, and promoting public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Policy 6.2: Transportation Concurrency Management Areas have been established and shall be suoported in the specific geographic areas described in Policy 2.6 of this Element. Policy 6.1 through Policy 6.5 renumbered as Policy 6.3 through Policy 6.7. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 7: [Revised text, page 24] . - - - • _ _ _ - _ . - • , -, =Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Gellier the County, • _ - ---- -. •- _ - - __ _ _ .- - . . . _ _ _ , where applicable:. in support of the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, as follows: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 7.5: [Revised text, page 24] The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This pPolicy shall be implemented through provisions in specific sSubdistricts in this Growth Management Plan. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict: [Revised text, page 34] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** g. For freestanding residential uses, acreage to be... allowed by FLUE, Policy 54 5_3. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict: [Revised text, page 42] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. Residential density is... limited to four Ll dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three 13)dwelling units per acre must be... For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, density shall be limited to sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three al dwelling units per acre and up to eleven (11) dwelling units... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION Page ,/t i� of„ '„ DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-tiarough are deleted. 4 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 14. Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict: [Revised text, page 43] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** To encourage mixed-use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development, when hlocated in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of sixteen (16)dwelling units... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 15.Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict [Revised text, page 43] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** This Subdistrict consists of two parcels... For mixed-use development, residential density shall be limited to sixteen (16)dwelling units per acre. *** *** *** *** **. text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: [Revised text, page 50] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 64 5_3 of the Future Land Use Element. ** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2. Density Bonuses: [Revised text, page 51] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** .** .*. *** *** c. Affordable-Workforce Housing Bonus: ...in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight(8)residential units... ..* *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 4. Density Conditions: [Revised text, page 53] The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating System. a. Maximum Density The maximum allowed density shall not exceed sixteen (16)dwelling units... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 5. Density Blending [Revised text, page 54] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands: DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-trough are deleted Page 4f�° 5 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** (f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows: (1) The Urban portion of... the maximum required 60 sixty percent (60%)of the total Sending Land area... The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two L.1 acres of... In no instance shall less than 40 ten percent (10%) of the required amount of native vegetation... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION C. Urban Commercial District 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict [Revised text, page 57] Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. ...this includes 3 three Interchange Activity Centers... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Mixed-use developments—whether consisting of... the eligible density is sixteen (16)dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center... the eligible density shall be limited to four 01 dwelling units per acre... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are as follows: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two .(1)road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 61] New Mixed Use Activity Centers may be proposed if all of the following criteria are met and an amendment is made to delineate the specific boundaries on the Future Land Use Map series for Mixed Use Activity Centers: • the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center is located consists of an arterial and collector road, or two arterial roads, based upon roadway classifications contained in the Transportation Element. • the Mixed Use Activity Center is no closer than two al miles from any existing Mixed Use Activity Center, as measured from the center point of the intersections around which the existing and proposed Mixed Use Activity Centers are located. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION C. Urban Commercial District 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict [Revised text, page 64] DRAFTWords underlined are added;words strusl rough are deleted. Page_L of LL 6 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 This Subdistrict consists of... The maximum allowed development intensities include 91,000 square feet of professional or medical office use in buildings containing a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet, or 200,000 square feet of indoor self-storage area in buildings containing a maximum of three al stories and at a maximum height of fifty(50)feet. Should a mix of office and indoor self-storage facilities develop on the property,for each two c square feet of indoor self-storage area, one ffl square foot of office area shall be reduced from the maximum allowable office area permitted. ... *t* *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION C. Urban Commercial District 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict [Revised text, page 64] This Subdistrict consists of... The maximum allowed development intensities include a maximum of 52,500 square feet of professional or medical office use in buildings containing a maximum of three )stories, which could include two 121 stories over parking, and at a maximum height of fifty(50)feet. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** II. AGRICULTURAURURAL DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** A) Receiving Lands: [Revised text, page 74] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 4. Emergency Preparedness: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** b) Applicants for new developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the .. . _ - - - - -• •• - - - - •- - - - - , Florida Forest Service and the Managers of any adjacent or nearby public lands, to develop a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan that will reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. This plan will address, at a minimum: project structural design; the use of materials and location of structures so as to reduce wildfire threat;firebreaks and buffers;water features; and, the impacts of prescribed burning on adjacent or nearby lands. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** II. AGRICULTURAURURAL DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** C) Sending Lands: [Revised text, page 82] Ti DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck rough are deleted. Page ` ,o._ 7 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 6. Early Entry TDR Bonus: An Early Entry TDR Bonus shall be available in the form of an additional one TDR Credit for each base TDR Credit severed from Sending Lands from March 5, 200•, - - - - - -- - - • : - - - • - ` - - - •- • - - - • - - - •, of until September 27, 2015 2018. Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits may be used after the termination of the bonus period. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** II, AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. Rural Villages: [Revised text, page 86] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** A) Process for Approval: ' • • - • - -- - • - 1 - - - - - • - • • The Collier County Land Development Code includes provisions for the establishment of Rural Villages. These provisions will establish specific development regulations, standards, and land use mix requirements. Subsequent to the creation of these provisions, applications shall be submitted in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone and, where applicable, in conjunction with a Development of Regional Impact(DRI) application as provided for in Chapter 380 of Florida Statutes, or in conjunction with any other Florida provisions of law that may supersede the DRI process. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** III. ESTATES DESIGNATION [Revised text, page 92] The Estates Land Use Designation encompasses lands which are already subdivided into semi rural residential parcels (2.25 acres as an average) essentially consisting of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision. The area is identified as having potential for population growth far removed from supportive services and facilities. Expansion of the area shall be discouraged. Pursuant to Policy 44 4.2 of the Future Land Use Element, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan encompassing the Estates Designation was adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on February 5, 1991. Refer to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for siting criteria and development standards for specific land uses. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES [Revised text, page 94] A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) was established by the 1974 Florida Legislature. The ACSC CriticalArea is displayed on the Future Land Use Map as an overlay area. The ACSC Cfical-Area encompasses lands designated Conservation, Agricultural/Rural, Estates and Urban (Port of the Islands, Plantation Island and Copeland). Chokoloskee is outside the boundaries of the Big Cypress ACSC. Two areas located within the boundaries of the ACSC are exempt from the ACSC regulations: Everglades City: and, Ochopee, which is described as all of Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34,Township 52 South, Range 30 East. Page - of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words str-usli-thceugh are deleted. 8 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16116 All Development Orders within the Critical Area shall comply with Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, "Boundary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern". The ACSC regulations notwithstanding, there is an existing Development Agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc. and the [then] State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, approved in July 1985, which regulates land uses in the Port of the Islands Urban area; and, there is an Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the (then!, Florida Department of Community Affairs, approved in April 2005, pertaining to development in Plantation Island. - - - == ' = - = -•- - - ' -- - - - - - - - - - . All-Development These-regelatiene The ACSC Regulations include the following: 1. Site Alteration a. Site alteration shall be limited to 10%of the total site size, and installation of non-permeable surfaces shall not exceed 50%of any such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. b. Any non-permeable surface greater than 20,000 square feet shall provide for release of surface run off, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the natural surface. c. Soils exposed during site alteration shall be stabilized and retention ponds or performance equivalent structures or systems maintained in order to retain run off and siltation on the construction site. Restoration of vegetation to site alteration areas shall be substantially completed within 180 days following completion of a development. Re-vegetation shall be accomplished with pre-existing species or other suitable species except that undesirable exotic species shall not be replanted or propagated. Exotic Undesirable exotic species are listed below. Australian Pine - (Casuarina spp.) Bishopwood - (Bischofia javanica) Brazilian Pepper- (Shinus terebinthfolius) Melaleuca (cajeput)- (Melaleuca leucadendra spp.) Castor bean-(Ricinus communis) Common papaya- (Carica papaya) Common snakeplant-(Sanseviera trifasciata) Day Jessamine-(Cestrum diurnum) Hunters robe- (Raphidophora aurea) Queensland umbrella tree-(Schefffera actinophvlla) Trailing wedelia (Wedelia trilobata) All other species included in the definition of"vegetation, prohibited exotic"contained in the Collier County Land Development Code. Ord. No. 04-41, as amended. d. No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include: - _ . . - as-amended: Page. of_! DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strusk-through are deleted. 9 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 Red mangrove- (Rhizophora mangle) Black mangrove- (Avicenna nitida) White mangrove- (Laquncularia racemosa) Needlerush-{Juncus roemerianus) Salt cordqrasses-(Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosuroides, S. spartinae) Seashore saltgrass-(Distichlis spicata) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2. Drainage a. Existing drainage facilities shall not be modified so as to discharge water to any coastal waters, either directly or through existing drainage facilities. Existing drainage facilities shall not be expanded in capacity or length except in conformance with paragraph (2)"b." below; however, modifications may be made to existing facilities that will raise the ground water table or limit salt water intrusion. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. North Belle Meade Overlay *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. RECEIVING AREAS [Revised text, page 99] Within the NBM Overlay, Receiving Areas are... located Sections 21, 28 and the west-% western quarter of Sections 22 and 27, ...and the western quarters of Sections 22 and 27 as a permitted use. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Because of the proximity of Sections 21 and 28 and west'3/4 quarters of eSections 22 and 27 to Golden Gate Estates... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. North Belle Meade Overlay *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 6. SECTION 24 NEUTRAL LANDS *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** e. Cowan Property - Lots 14-16, 25, 26 and 35 Combined (Colored Blue and Labeled "Cowan" and "Blue"on North Belle Meade Overlay Section 24 Map) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2) Clustering: [Revised text, page 107] a) Up to two )clustered developments are allowed, and a maximum of nineteen (19)total dwelling units are allowed in cluster development(s). This dwelling unit figure is based upon the total Cowan ownership in Section 24 of approximately 97.7 acres. rage ` of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 10 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT--CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 b) Lot 35 may contain up to, but no more than, threes clustered dwelling units - in addition to road access for all Cowan property development(s). A second residential cluster outside of Lot 35 may contain the balance of the nineteen (19) clustered dwelling units not built on ILot 35. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Goal: [Revised text, page 116] To address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Collier-County!s-loal-is4o protecttg agricultural activities, to preventin�e the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to directs incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to-enable enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to-disseur-age discouraging urban sprawl, and te-encourage encouraging development that utilizes implements creative land use planning techniques. Objective: •• -- • ` ' -- ' - - - Create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective... Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.6: [Revised text, page 117] ... Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. ... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.22: [Revised text, page 120] The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan... and reviewed by Collier County and the State land planning agency (presently, the Department of Economic Opportunity) upon... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.1: [Revised text, page 122] Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 34,1.00 29,645 acres. FSAs are... Policy 3.2: [Revised text, page 122] Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 40,000 41,455 acres... Analysis of the Index .eage `` of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck are deleted. 1 1 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116/16 Map Series shows that HAS HSA lands score within... The average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is... Policy 3.3: [Revised text, page 123] Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAsj, as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 48,200 18,210 acres. WRAs are... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.11: [Revised text, page 125] In certain locations... This pPolicy does not... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.3: [Revised text, page 126] Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,compliance with the LDC Stewardship District,and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within _ _ :. _ - -- - -_ - - 2 - - _ - _ _ _ - The County shall-adopt has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and previsions for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. Policy 4.4: Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall -_ -: -. - . - . • - - •-- : •- — : ' - '- - ---: - . - - - - e retroactively be incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.16: [Revised text, page 131] A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available... by this pPolicy... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.18: [Revised text, page 132] The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a -:- • :. -: - -- - - - - . : ; : _ public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this pPolicy to accommodate affordable-workforce Housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. Page i of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck are deleted. 12 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT--CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 Policy 4.19: Eight 18)sgredits shall be required for... Policy 4.20: The acreage of... For the purpose of this pPolicy... Policy 4.21: Lands within the... This pPolicy is intended to... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.5: [Revised text, page 133] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species and for those protected species identified below shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated indicates listed species or the protected species identified below are utilizing the site, or the site contains potential habitat for listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. 2.a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. Open space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. • _ ... USFWS, 1987. 3. Ecology and Habitat - - -- - - = - —==' " . _ .' - - •• -• et _ -- -- . . ..• !• • i. Management guidelines contained in publications used by the FFWCC and USFWS for technical assistance shall be used for developing required management plans. ii. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this pPolicy. Page of r ' DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strus14-thcough are deleted. 13 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 iii. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this pPolicy. 2.b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), habitat management plans are required and shall give priority to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves. 2.c. Habitat preservation plans for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) are required and shall -- • - •- - - e - - - -- -2' - - - - --• - -- --e also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plans shall also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. - -- - • - - - -- -- -- - - - ' - • - - ... _ - 2.d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the-required habitat management plans are required and shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nest season. _ - -- _ _ _ • . _ _ _ . . • - • _ ... - _ 2.e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the requirad habitat protection plans are required and shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects cannot be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. •-- -' = -• - - -2 - . = - - - - . - - .. . -- of- s--policy. 2.f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be present, the management plans are required and shall require that garbage be placed in bear- _ __ -e' . . - , - _ _ _ - _ - _-- - - . bear-resistant containers where such containers are available and accepted for use by Collier County, or containers stored in locations not easily accessible to bears. The management plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans. e. - - •• -- - - - •- - - - - --- - - *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 2.g. For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the management plans are required and shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther(Fells concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the Page "I of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strums are deleted. 14 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 opportunity to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. 2.h. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten (10)acres. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.6: [Revised text, page 136] For those lands... of a wetland. This pPolicy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's,thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3. These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs,as provided in Policy 5.3,and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: i. The acreage requirements... in paragraph lb)of this pPolicy. ... -• _ ' - ._ - . - • . •-- , The County shall develop apply specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands utilized used by... iii. Proposed development shall... be designed in accordance with Sections '1.2.2.1, _ _ • •' : _ * _ • _ . - . !! 10.2.2.4 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume 1. and Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume ll for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District (2014). *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 138] c. All direct impacts... of this pPolicy. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 139] f.iv. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs(f)i, ii, and iii of this pPolicy. DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struel-tkx�b are deleted, Page ' o f r _te,. 15 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT--CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this pPalicy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay [Revised text, page 140] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 4. Properties... may be allowed a maximum density of twelve (121 residential units,.. and comply with the standards identified in Pparagraph#no. 8, below, except for... 5. Properties... at a maximum density of eight(8)residential units per acre... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 141] 8. To qualify for twelve (121 dwelling units per acre, as provided for in paragraph # no. 4 above... 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. #4 and #5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of twelve (12)or eight (8) units per acre... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 141] 11. A maximum of... as provided in paragraphs nos. #4 and#5 above. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Revised text, page 144] FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use& Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14) Maps PLEASE NOTE:Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear—within and between Elements—as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un-adopted portions of the document. Page of 1 r DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struelt through are deleted. 16 - 1 te, - 2 wE um . g .52 E 21 ta 2 a . i a, ; i 14;: . E 8eK R., -. El° g. li ra 74 gt le a . . ci a .2 45 0 ts ; 31 11 $ 5 §! i 1 g a < at . ta • ,,,, '"` ,7, g 0, 6 11 A gio2 . K g g si- • A HA gE ; 51 r e la i 5 ••- 1 g _ op z .p - - 0-r .ffig li i m Vi .,,FP r 5 ub 0 = i ',,E1 61' i a e,' i , ili I a .. ig- u. c ..E . . 4 s— usto 1 Li xt,,r, < 2 mc ,E1 S I E 1 N'"4 A gT & i il t 33 sf I 0 g 2 u - '4"' . z a LI 1.. . t: z g 1 g i 1 — m 02 , ' ' k 5 R g isr3 , pi if 2.6E li (12 . v c i - o'f a ge = 7,1E 3 . g . . 11 - E 1831 ; T. 2 — = " ' X .t *I 8 ' ; 'Y, b '!! g g' 0 6 E'ji E 52- # I _I 11 F E 1 I ei g cc ¢ U i = to .k 1 0 a E . 4 "' = g r t la 2 sz. : a il MI 111 E I 8 L le = g i 1 - V 8 , ,Y ','.'r," .Pc° ? 't, 2 . N E .. ' c E .T.2 c i-,•E w.3 A . ' I _ = A m 1 8 2,,, .1 ! i .2 2 , ge 1 : ; g rmi, 2 ',"!, m , IE. a P 'a ME a . 3 i ›. u , o _ -41 1 -E. a b 2 '44 -I, . IAJ 111 0 C 1 T." In Cil g C' 1 i i 1 § 1' 6a ca al u. 1E 41 55 E A k o v- sc‘ — in 14 11.) 4 '" 8 u,. m P itt -1 4 1; “' avn o o BE Z" u ' 5 I Eu , .? t al 0 g 1 li a 12 04 g ; *.z. 6P ° n f / 2. g a ,c( - cu , i 1 --- .= . 1? = ?ii ;1p i !I , re uP . g A .52 2 gi 1 . mE §As Al' 00 E / t4 in . , .. LI! -,-, .9 4-.•. -f, - m P gE Pi&Vi' i E IL 0 u: 3 8 CI A ": UC .1 , , 1. 45..b Es9 . u - ft .§ 31..- 2 k RI g 5.3 R5 2 '5u) 1- i? 0 E'2M 3 . (el , .?E ; E 6 :4 - / 8i .g 0 1 F, —i § g 3 3 . 28 0 .g me 4,t" w x i- . di 2 . y '6,,, 0 z = m — 4'9' g B A a _I #.. 1 0 31A 8 z E emu Iii. tl 'a t ;. ; c • . . g - E 5' i = m •- AB &" "EsiR 30'tVe0k,!,', Lg 0 eui' i 2 11 0!..1 a50, lg , s Ziyg 0§- l mt; ".ak, P6. 2E2-2g 1Z0ag r2t ,ggiVWflifgq,la E , t' =2 2 4i Mcat,. g . i <, .. . um 1-81. & E o m sg i 2 u. Fat r; ii; i z> Aliz- 1 a 'A 1 [ . k it E 1 I i _ LI . -g- '1"64.-Pi Eas . o E02. 5 b VI i If J. Pog“ ....... u g. I 2 ce 7 m . ri E ..-22 . 4 . 1 1 0 E. eE 0 . alBS : Ilii a: ,r, 3 E E, . i ,T, .-= . . . .87, s li 1 m c 2 A ! i > . .41 • • • • m! u) re* te 3 0 m T 48 8 T47 $ T 48 8 1495 1501 T 51S 1523 1538 N r • 1 A7 2A 5ILa iI Raklae•wgg gRIt 5lag sRx 66 R t o �i s i 1 , Rbq a ? 6' a i Q 7 Rgkk 8 .' 1111" I ; ;iVa § I ! TE!~i* ! f 1 5 1- V- x113 V-3113 W tl y — Q F • Y J i f B s P p ;g yp �, �T. a /// r C p J 3 Wt V 6V N� i is S 4u 9F �+ a r /1// W0■®LtaD : I D■i ® i-" f Lad • A C _ Y II E 1.1 cg ` 6., s �ggM A i y g g Y $ _ ® eV E gsYS 9 !< a fl bi_ P E''*g•Os 80- ala : s , 81 - € 3S h�i 6, i e' Sig ic g5. a,;a'ais5a 19111 io sa : ri a 5 _g ' $ 39 1 ai N w V W pgM L en '..!'.!;":'+' ,�y` i ee A z! tp eee. Y E!p E '" g $ yy E •Q ® F :. Y Q ylfi ix tr P g 1 1 g ° 3 P 4 ? 1 I Il T $ r® ll 0 CI e 74 a Imii e _ � + �i 6 t 91 tl� a V) _ 1 W s -----*-1---\67111 I 3 co l' .1. - —....____ ., .11 t 0.— . W 4 N ppy �, "2 „, W < t3 W 6 W w MU' ry L 42d M ea pi x ra 8 f Y .� Z 4 /'I # , I / OM _ t < . eCC co 8 _ten seam.1lea oBe li 61 s� � Ji. �..- 1— : t _ ,i LL a — H CC la 70 stip let , " - 'TIN" . '" I Z' 511 it i:: ce r let ce O _ `/fix//, F.. !/ +a — " la 3 tIll d , s. ! i r II fs o < f. -�sR.--Z C a W a ce '- = a g" s Ni Wage of_�_„ al r ec -, lin. <•0> '! c;ud a f' r. ,le S 96 1 S Lt 1 S 04 1 g g4 1 S 04 1 I S l9 1 S L5 i 3 69 1 I ' EXHIBIT°A" P120130002537ICPSP-2013.11 "....., 0i‘144* *1 COLLIER COUNTY RURAL&AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT - STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP Ili.— P ..fie :111:4k - 1114::a% CM a.. r F ';P R44 C 220 IMMOKALEE�' _ _ CTO Le 4 Mill �- ,,..„, 'in ....40. 4 5 Z 14irC''''''.'llip 111. : w ' 1117,x111:-11e A C ewe :% NW- m ci" I ( lin i t _ ►7 1 , , ; O w.li.: r+{.I . niii;:: to t 00 a , TE e1.100 • i __ 175 rM IMM-iAMUAMe 25./DOT - - - A MM.MP 20M-M1 legend meow-DCroIU w.2005 00000W-5EP1EMOM 13,20)0 10.11 w.5011-20 I Wa.r 00000000 Area Na! IIII we Cyp F*1J00.I FW0/t 0MI-elnumF SOMMatMAI.1.(FSA1 f IAnse omer mate Ooncvn -Retie 5kwantrIA.Arta CASA) =Stwwld tip Mrta omoArea[SRA) .a0M*CD e1 CM/CAD MA?Fe40 0 tnw teem MAMAW;MEArr SVTOM/PCOMMI AND.CMXIO* _.�.--..a rc. �StnroUaNcfitraile Arae IS`MAI MX 0/015 RCF:CtMAAA5d1a-0030W0 . Page of 1±- EXHIBIT'A' PETITION PL201 2637ICPSP-2013.14 I R 25 E I R 26 E i. ISI ®Z•-f S I� tit .o .ty i 1:` I COWER Cb 1 _' 1 i 4 . _._,... , --- 4 „..,, I” 6 ' N • c ssa f20 ' - lIll f2. /1:= 'V1 Y . _ /3 a EL C-R- 246 % 4,' _ a._ C.R;846 _.. - t- -IF Illi MI ■■ 5 I, 1 t1 1r 1 6 s L a► 1 m I- z o 15. 22 ' h 9 s iI \ . --- . I ! zs .-` C F 966 1,4 a .i► ! 2r .' , ir >q !!�� 1 '1 [ro 8565 tea. e4 .■ 1 X181 , II\B�, y La 17 In 0 MIXED use 6 INTERCHANGE ! / IT . •7 lh 0 ACTIVITY CENTERC.R.8'4 I- INDEX MAP I7.. , 47 t I bil 5 NI , 51 \ :. ( :C o S :8 -- SCALE `, u 1 AMENDED - JANUARY 25. 2005 ,. .. >.: ''.- � 2, at ,.. (Ora. No. 2005-03) , ---- - _. AML^7DE2 - JUNE ?. 2005 .-- ---1-:' -" ''le (trD._ ND 2005-25) AM,.NDTg - OCTOBER 14, 2008 f, (0'a No, 2:0'38-,.4, I AMENDE? - SEPTEMBER '3. 2011 I 1 Ul {Gra Nn 2011-26) 1 •c ytcf IA � 0, IF lit fe le _.._—__, :I _ — PREPARED SY. 5.L'.MAPP.I:G SECTION _ PREPARED .. GRGWTN MANAGEMAR1 DEFARSYEKT DATE.' 1/201R ILL ACCE',i-NOL.-2RIR LIwi, I R 25 6 I R 26 E I Page,of f Fil1III y, i < Et it m a Fg W F "iit qtwt ��Nyy i€. m e. G Z € [ i I +�. j y {� '"p ILII lip tai 2 V < 1' + W a a Ky s �bgg = F S E `, 'd III W § *C1!3 a 0 2 o i$'j m i G 10, x g 1 w s v I I Z I� T- I sg J i 7000. WW1 � i ti 1 i M I s . , , „,, I , 1 __ I 1 _� 1, i_______, ... YAW NM r�,.r, V _ {- :: • J�� 1 1 i _ i11 1 now 1 !1 _Tn @ 1 7-)••• II • iir , , a` 1 _ I IN ,.... in ., i !' I sit - HillIP >I [[ _-_{ off!! ,it!if iI I ii li it , a ; � 0 I _ p ,x i m lilt 111 01/0[ 2 ---‘, 8 >__cc :Nvoo _ , j-;-.7(/��1 ----/ JAI.001 (j� 1 - eiroji.....t wipe " Q \ `1 J u ' Page of a m ed M g y 2- : I^ oa'tl- o& A` Gi I H r `` ati oi Z $ go'' - Z 40,3 e I a' 11 >L. , i 0 V,` W g 4; ',, '' _ fir$ 03 E _ aVd2 ` < ma s lv , �J .2 8., ",..Y �I P : a _� . `- Ig ! N. j:. t 1$ 3' I 9 -+ • is 8 i : 100 ,4 ' a 1 • A' - i , , , : . , , iiiii._ , , 11 *N,44♦ Ire 5 1 1$1 lig at ....„„„,..,,,--------N .. . . 0_, , ,.. ,_ ipa ,.. e in:10 . go ii III MI I it ft It 2 0 1111 11 i /14 I..L.vv •-e...P.11. V W.SI., .......I w 11 iri if MO ' _Lill, pF t miiima J2 i r-' ..‘it i• 111.1 i es if r- -a. ii v.- 1-----,:--, .,--_-1._ ..v. _, I off ,__° J - __ S j mx f f — r o i �— ti q --I_- • - --A� D - —. -a — 1C-. � _ I 1 -1 Page T' of z --- N O N diib H t a. o 'g tai . - 6o C. zF sW U C a`„ Ad 3 a .:,E: D ( S- w. a. es gy I iii Y'4, Co w �,., Q W@ ,0 y oW ' ii RoW N m ail = * WI d z j 2� all g g X . > `,i' .+x 2V K @ G i S5t W 2 Ph a r:: x sa.ll < gXaut ii- o j • ill. -1V 1_,.,>\ '--- . ]1 num:. . Q '--1 g _-_ir-17: 7 11 i 2.P a '91I1C m /(1L— i t), ,,,444 , it i lit Ill g +'.y t---Joft — dm l' illie Ave 10,13111 i6 ,"4 \ _/_,ILli i i 1111 Ir -- ,o.Ya,8,Y,l — Mae.114.1.1* I itata,a s li I 1K 2- � 1I lig'' I 1 nil Vida 1 if--- i - = ---L o : o oL 1. a3= a" e � "f a; r ! -mil_._ s.,,...__— Page 0.0.I a "'es 12: g=& # Z Li n !Y mml OI mit,. gR i _1 lar U t a'. N �`.^3.' .e g a O. 1� F.' U ` CO'` Wei J 5 1:%;i MP $ 3§ &. 'k is I { . g Y SII s ;� DC7 i___T 1 i____i__ i w Is.. 6 i 4 I� 1 1 21 r- 11,1. 1 i 1.. , ___1 1 , I ____ —a 72.— + __, . r te.._ I...YAW. _e dil i - ___ _._,__—, F i: i 9 ei era 1 1, 1111 ►. If LAW. 11.1*Llir- ike' Int r ! AA MAI !li I } ! � �'`, a 11 � i y � T s 0I< . (1 ;,./1 i Is < i_.��4 /s I /�1 1i i 1 i 'i i ii I 2; — I ! j ; ' i I aie.�rfw% ..e.rs:wr Page of j r n Kr n n # sago nQ' < = � 5'^a Eli, L 1Y a r u, i Y � o' lith $ � U -` !t v.. j e) IWI 8 6 . x g IV, y y' c Ai, R; %, I in]R WI . c,s c e 2 6'& u j z Y b,v< k$e n S i ' ng*g� 4 t 2 Y 1 i iT1 ' 7 f ' I a -,. \ , — r -� I silk ''a ii Lit% It—_ .� L._ Ldi, a 4 l g e1 ' Hm ® T ....._., , ii Nib N. a u ! ea es* 0 ° '6 =at 'l a I li • liciall ., i i II i *- I v ti as i 7t. <---,m6/1 Ail A I n. �i , "Pi- li - n i i aY ° r MI 1 '� ti ill p '�� 4Y T \ 1 AI � illiim 41 • ,-- g. i g t/ \ OP 1 _ _,-,,,, , 1 \ 1 ,est ,,.,,.. ti . g L ,,,, y----\___ ,.___, ,,,, , . k..-.5 i ,— d _i_, 4; I I !1 'x;1 gj',,.., 1 �{�,�� 1� W`� ¢'c4 I -moi' 11;), Q`-�r _-�`_..--- Page____.- -of. :—.- Pi 4 Pci N z W it. }� _ �a'sVz3 i 1Vifi 11''-:- e 3i;; 0`, , ail W C a �,L___ " -: 3 lit \I\ r _...„...,_______,, I --- 111 I! 11-11 I I _ LI 1 , I F----F=::A---1 i UG ' � i- ' i IBr _ �. e ill ` , i____ ��;; i SN' t g; a Ir.IN 3i Liril f i ' - arr+rna resew r,vrz "UT=...res wa 1.111 11 III I 11. lil - u 1 a i ' Tit . g i / L '----. .//' 11/ . I 11 ..,.‘, ...Hi ic.-1/ I 1, 1 I I \_' / G i A 3 i ' V. $] ;- b i 11 I W rage,1.L.,of, !: i T __ .�F �T (�J y N 6. N r NSa w A& I M Q.-. ''1 N roR R } i '.- M W d wSSppy �� Z i Eg N �- Nht;Q II ,;Wx moo ��Uf k'nl iNFzr NZ� Nnaell 10 pcurie4. :uaa. 4a iV ;g 5€ 'uf $ ; Ellik , ,; LSI&imam OWNd O.i M Z I illlillihidr- s6 `yaw aurL cc 4 241 I I i I I I I �— I G � ti r,11 I j I 4 gl iIA. T� Z I a X` c 1 4 OF � v l 2= ty., �c r I I I 6 I I I 3 I d N.Win a I1" � , � . I I Ii � � 4 I , I l I i � -�_�.-'i;0► j I _J<L '� j N. `-� � � 1 3t4sp i t"ll ar d 6 1 7------\-\_______ -----N\ 3 � *401 �,. �i .. a 4 Oj i ---� �I ISI I r • il ---- i+ 1 0.a i^ " ' n L , .0.1 i...._________-_________., \ ------- ---- -- I O.a 1 i. Page_';Of «� o 1 s __- a °:4 _ g o •us II :1. tY ° y gg` o a R ¢ �R erAL OE ! I1I Z 74 I. W 6g ` `s'O d ''- F Wgaw °O, W41 o 1S 50 ,34 t w ■g3it U i lip ! 2 k C s 5 iii *4 1 *„_, Ng I I _1_1 i i I , I , • . .,114 , _ 4 ..1311•14.1.0e V. 1 _= •amN tril; 4--(ip,-------Th,, iiii i 1 , "... • 0.777._ I --ft— ____! ,/,*1lolor 1, , } ji gi 1, ,-' Y i 1_ 7 t ii. • Vii' atilrik OP '_...:/),/,./7-—11 0 VI A \, i +x' 111' ' Iii MID rliar )4/; 4„,o, ♦ � ,. ,, - -., � I -�- f + 1 i,h 1 rT ..T " ity i _,i+7. -, a ri _ r 1 11- 111 it V 1� .11 .r% iv \� i '�i;Jli w: t r `I Fi le rN «..N.-1Y1.. ,...44"4,—" ........—..--,—V 1.'19 ayYdMT�w,... u - - I G _�M1`t -- if 1 �� 1 91 1 ► , ,, d1 i� ! I ) FA\ 11111U1 _ `f ;r _ I a 1 le �� \ Lu ,T-- - , , -,j it , .-- I -�� — _ ( I i i k y f �i`- - ten'.._ f I 1 11 1 '�'T.IT�'1 '�.1 i 1 / n 1:. —� !-.�]F- Page ' of_L n. * its ,.g t lir a W W 5"-p ilg X31 'ol z u Z dii: s I m lg< ' 8 oe a x_ n1 ice'_ uro ila g (�iA:z� a3 pm I M IR G >m d 1 > m 4+oua, eV m ,. 1;t a 1 I i, 1 ' _i - 1 .;g. 4 i I I j B 33'/1 -I �r A1, d 1 sr? -.. 111 ,,r// ,,_ -4 , .,, , , .- 1 il , , . ,r „ ri /I1 . 1i\ �rf/ '�� \\ lf ills ic T T —11i f -'—'''.., .ii 1 .i - # t Ie 1ftilliIiIi /dtl\.��.` 11101111!",*apti , 1.4. M < � � ` m. < rte , , )1k:) A . i #. L� 4 rim, I --). .—,''' .- r � _ M.1113 $ esVfir th ill E I i d I iil�1 111mu#It s I , 21 $• , i i� lill _ .— X11"IIIA{ tAtl _1 : � (? (_ 1 , �.w n Gii;� '* gr 7, 1 1"ail! ...t� dw!-mil 1 , 4 i n i",E. J rrntenrmnu%1 III nl1 u rn, i j 211 1 iiiuiy' l I noir, .--`" Kalt 1-a tF..r_,0 _-' 0 rp 146_*2 .:P4 E i miLt4111=tri V 2.A U fl ... 4 a. Pt PI PO - !�`' a Y i:41 No I Ii11►/f1N1i14% 1 im 1�i. � eimmis 1 l II c fi d%� \(,,,,,,...: . ' ! .+�"`� 'ii -moi:- ` ��� \\ 1111 �1#N/11!* !r �_' ,ter , Winiii hi 47,4,-: 1 • % ,s, ,3, lit, 4 ,..,,, -. row- ti „„.. _ .,.ea tilos. ': s ill is -.4CA -moi i - 1 44"41 , Page of a _Z w Q a -- '04,8 .3 r1 n e a w $ n uis ��. 51a to 1 JIIi is t iii 7 Q -."°° moi Sit * m e. U a $ A 0.0d$ h t 6 c ' ` �� •a ,A 04,4; f I�� li_. `41,i'• /.14.1.4r: .: 16 jJ , �y p - N)14., s. on-. ! , 1 . v>�.•+,�'' y v' _ ilk ,` it r 4, r f MI ;t — W vip o e.... 4 , 1H r: _.... ;, ill i ' , 1 < yam;ob, f,.+� i �..` .. . �� 1: a i i sli W F r . 1. . IIIa[ n• j dIIII , iliE TT s ..... tit! s iiztLiTT-Trill1,__,,,,,....,11--UT, Pilligil "II--; 4 r t 1 q , i I Paged of 7'i a• 3 —,_ .74 • aF i n g- LI W LIE .i- • dig- ii i 6 r 5fli g 7. 1 i Zsi V 1 1 IV 1 q 1 -. ... fo, i ! iii 1 stii t I I I __.._, i•I id. / /7 ( • \\ E • r-T- tilliT-.- , f P ii. irc____.,r,SzOle,Stki aawkwaroe 1,se,•,:.."1 i, '% ,s. \ I I I , I,j. i /Li ,..... ..__2sta..2. , .0 ! - ,..... yi 1[' I. ______ _ _ ..A InE I- ! •1 NN, ____, \ *AI' ..-------- i 1,,,, • 2I Iimely •••••**NW „„...."'-.."-aa' . I'M UN U 1+,.., A CM s --- , \\,, * • 0 i 0 1 1 N. I 1 i• I a 0 2 i v , 1 4111111/4 ; fg I / 1 01 v 6 i 11S '1 RI Is' 11 ,r4, i . k 8 -6 .......... itd •-• r-N__\\\_ x 0 — 1 6 I 1 mir- II. 1 ---- . I--------,=---- -- Ii—— L.._ ',v....L...0Z fir VW CAMS em—ie-ipee.r. WWI* (IG-s,) CMGS 1.1111d-LSOPPR i 111 . ..• r 1.1 fit I 1 Is all MI i j a 111 i 11911 2 .1 it* .. . g 1 = al a. 6 r lig MB g CZ— 11 a 7 t 1 46 qba. s i • N'ft• J 4-.---LI • i i 4' •• Al, \ /71 1 I 1 I‘ N‘ " .1 ts 1 e .Ii i 1 1111 71 . .i iii 4 i v 1 (,•:,-t___ ‘.'3 P -----'"----- ' _i_LI / =41 ', •74411/7".:' 0. 4 1 : -,7-___, - k__..i ' A f ' i• 1 1 I ' ! ' :-1-1_ Tr , 7____.! rctisLit.,' .\V ' • I, --'1' \`-------_—__ --' „ ,......, ,.,• r--1 1.. \ \\ ! --.,--„ ,,....„- /_ N ' --:'-771 - ,Aihk i r--17. r4s- of i 1 Page.--- mot.........a. en i N z t c 9 + N tV : 1K1 f d '6 1s nIi a _ n 8 tt V i z Y s E c S▪ " 4 �` �� Q ';111,it• L2 1 I $e T. ao , yl j �z ya• o 3s OP F y G d I at „,Sig! d5 21 F n ;'" } n ▪ < I �� 1 ? ei ....-w.y�v` vo.w xenon.A I —41 """U m 1 t3 i ° � # E -I-1101 a 19 i 11 1 1 # { 44 I II "N 71 'a,d ••, 4iii ■ ..-- Ak., # I .... i - .mamoily 1 ~^aa iF _ v not f —7—i 0 i 01 �. liV# . ' 11 @ I' 1---il\_____ II MI III IN # 41111 1. 4 s lk F'---L.' J `r I��I 1$1-c7�v mill" sow F _F-F-"' i m :' IL m _ re 1 I i0 .� a -ill II y9 1 II'4, , , l• L 1 , - q - v 144 i Z MI „,..p!,_-_--.-.'.,...,-----.2 s _t- i: it ��. - I. III _ ,, r I s fzoo �',t`001ky ..mV nye 4 . --, .1 7/ .. ,... 4,11,,,,42064.,1011ria ! tiff grA, 41/t& 3 0 1-- f.--1- 0tlk 44 I L1 , Illf 4 mr 1 *4 ♦ emi %.:1:. � t ' Fs ■ ----.II _-_tt il'€ Z 1 >-1, 0 J <: Page oaf 7,1 d a__ a r ,_ ter * pp a ytl� CI .- .• aW IA* % 1' i ' a , to s II Q.: Y°� ggv. zi i s � :w i ig th6 N .. e It _.E 1 11111L1 _ i zib `; _ z� 111 ���� r. 1,it i t ,. E i , < ____ __:..1 3 y 1 __._ .7_.., --.,--, .., < waa. t. : o : tilsock .$17%46 , [ " e i , -Pi ,..: .A4IIP _ 0 JIM eai _ - ' 11111111 ``., 4. : : 1 ird% 4 i •.--,.1 : 11 IN , ' ' ' 1„ -IP IN tin Ii- 11 1� — L.__ 1 I i ■ er 1~11401 k i t („:_,./.- 3.ai l K _d- _ 1 1,,T. i1 i _ .„ 1 - - ,-,-,4 7 e;s 4st>%\\,,1..:Ii ,I -.04. I an.OP.... I',;. mg i - I—_I ' % 4, o .--- iii. H g i - glif .„....„-, 1 km , , Re_ , . . ,, . „,, , , .,i ,..___, , ..•:,,,,,, i • s ,_ Lii a . ,_, ..",_... ,, , _,......„... , .. _1_r - _11 I . S dot —. — ,•”' 'Wai 3 I = 1 _ , 1 ,, ist---, 1 .1 , 3 tr �I --� I I- I is v ii. �,/► 1 Page of o'. ti an n lt. �� S a C , C_ $ ' m 5 o fVI. 1.1.4, G .•Ail 41 a{ 5 (g5 F. a II Von .1 W; c by n iV lr,, LA" W. g. 1 g g 91, Q Ili" i a �9 < W i-,c,3 as :' 3 W ,gt:_. _ 5' a ' leele F e t E! i I If'-..- ais t� � v S 1 ,-Y s --'aa a i 2 i c � f Is I I_-_- I 1 - 3I a k \ I 81iii �__ i 1 — — — — — —I * t a 6p! ii � r i .: a 1 I a ° e kg aha 2 ow ,se�fl ... 5M111•ffi1.7KOW .'S,'e' ]me M. IL,.,Ota I \ \ .11.4 um 3&us wn 1 \ , , . I F it g I \ I / \ ii .1 1' $ 1, I 1` \ . r----- \ p•-•• } yes wu I [- n''''''--"n ) Ll r 7(! Page I ., of e s £xro m W 8 Nn: wNi 1 2 115 -� C §'.E Vo z � .; „ I 11Ih ! t5''CA,, 1 ° ga"i 1 - ®1m g » _ i-al 1 \::-21-i tit: /PIP Ili:A. 0 vr, --- - .,, \ ',ii„ iiiiwal adaw_cliks% L_L- :__ q,-.) m,i t. of,.„43,,--- ,,,,,,,,, 1.- . \ i_J--- -- 10, ` #f � ' '0111 *ems _, '=Ww06- 1010 I. , °""° � n�iI-Awr #vV ► f-A? l,1 *vv7,s-,.... * ii.v,11* iiik s 5 4 i‘ 44 v.4.• 4_ 4k.V' 40! 0 11 i 1 T —7 ® \\..,,, • T .cnrz,.. lc>sib* Y I 1- ir f"---- V t:Cil,,, Iggi 1P---1 ��i- v * tri+ ...- ., _hi!1 t.V., IIIMPle$7,%\ S . I �I1 1i \ ► 1jw : *V\ . 7 . 1 _ co - E. t ; AL. I - ,, ... . ,:. .,„ ,„ 1 MN iIIP0 � Ill ,..._ . AO* al ° ; aww..uww LL I 111111V• II YY Y�I LVR �_ �., i J ,..„ \ 0:,- 404 4, i- ' -, - i -_ . , '' CI S• 111 ---"'----itwillF" ./\''' W.Itit\ pg,„0„..„ III, ze 0•44... ',..4, r1 4;) , �'��7 14..0#7\\''',,i Page of 7 el a M __.__.___.___ �� 0. to a p7 II� i�y o u; * n N ' a'n r b I , R -,X at,▪ n' i W n mol 3�`�' R m'. Z c. Y .i ,N Q $ 1 Y ��W S1 11. z.�' �- ab¢� a kLL u �i,V N N i W N W43 15 • I mo' ~ 0 .' z i z - tif0 a tut 4, i S LIU :� � o lgNR. nil Eh R C s N __ 'r, 1 0 5 v ' r i rfi a 11G1 t 't e`� ggoi ,�' 8 a V e ft 0 e � / P 1! C � s 11 1 --— ...�. __ i 1 I I ----.-X:./ ' p .0,400.ra.00 i {M { CC 0 )111111111 L i 1# g 1 8.i: ' 4 I-- NS% ' T� c 9IP Iii ! ,, 1U 9 G 3 & Ito• 4(:fr I - i 3 r ali 4, if 1 g: .o i 7 4. ii ,,,,„,._ , , . , , . � K . . ili , g 6 E.: r `, c 7 ......a".' '521111 rijniiisaimem M 0 1 -m, . ,_ tzw Lii „I it - ' ;;;=ligiummimi E LEFE -1111,1 % 11E2 in 19"Flu Ns -� °# ice you �;,'. �:,.,L{.s. T; 1 ■ 111. , I 4 GIMIIIIIIM ar cif17, . :4 L ' 0 V l N ►_.�. NTS al / _t. ■��r .., uI1 1 . . .IN a al •?� a t� 1 o 0 � 1 ,o. '4 f H* 1_1 § _ 2I4..L 31 # -®H# o — Page of__ ei 1 �� a 3 © ahs I g,e I !E1 il ''1cato N.. 1 I S C _ 'a a, w {g CA IA 2 y41gf. $� P ' s.t I u < 0` I ngtos9, g w LI \,/ 4 7/7--" ., . .., J I i s i 411114p— c. 1r ., s v a q< ,r to .12 LL $ te ice__y-a ; i 1;1 \`\\ M t 4 ...rw. _ 0,_ 4, -44.Ft, ssig,-.4—_ _ ,. ..i.,, ,.. \ .. • Ai ..,s ag / 11 444S0d Cr 11111114L 7t 9t Ole \ f+� \r„ u� 5e� � g y' � as iiik �` iglt �- % Z4 ilk, A, _ .. 1' _ . i i , 3 *4.4**,4 zfis 111" '.:* 1111111 s« 1111* ) \ 'VadIP /11 % +4 I \ is p \ * V erlifrfli 1 .. .1___,,f,.._4,--___/-!Os I IL. diria ISO V VW 1414'°' 11111106.. a0 _ _ _ i Y 1° ' I --- \10/Z1 _ . i 0 t fa' a,g .,__4°' u - l / J , � �i y— _ r4-_ - 1 1-- ` ,.� �__ i iU 1 r? Page, of 1 h m ew g 8 " $a� .i i ij AZ 8 W i ill. NN IKN ?,M 2q511 -n i ry ¢p wo CLn Z.I e a Et it li t CL Rs W . ray. a W• , il pa ). gaa! d` a a � m` � 1 qS ^�I d =3 7 "z W 8 1 : 9 �I ° C:2 cc p g o r gf z I l: 4 y 3 ! <` so 9� o N d gs i 1 $8 ` .,‘„,‘,A .., `� iii�i��`i „.a 0' jntl,k ` N t14 Ye. "; ` h sN. t . 9 y Y 77, �=� X11 4. : 0, ' 9 ��411lflBlr 1= r %.'t,% t as SI i Ow ,, i ,'" 0 3 ./Atill111.'*iii .1,i1.111 I I- lir —41--1 ."4 14, 00 Jr; 4/ i (.04 4 / \ 1 1 i ID iii i 1s I i JI �#j 8 J' 01 +wo i . i-- % > i- al IVA%1111 'w 4 r r I f-' .._- _�'ii '' _--- (A. i t. is , _ f 0 i ! i 1 .v LL ai ; 401 * Aar.-ZAI ,_.44ern' ''' -tar , Page of ,_ n oi EV w , mn 9 -1 i o5. 1.. oft a� s'u $ L, ' k > q W9 N9 : 0 E. �, wv is.: iIVI 2 ° k k _ --!-.[ „!.............1 r ,I_ •-•- r,.,_ 0 ILL-I a_f / / E iiiiiIIIL ---j i I i . `�/������ I1 1111111 ,. ^I s101111111Ihr as !'I' . -',x � sini IIIIIE _i___ a .0, „ . k lig, a , --____—=1 t:rifilit4-7-7-1 _ t I \ tj vif ill km ',--- I _ -me" . v eit i 1----.I in_ , ' 4 1 ' ' iiii-IIIIIIN 1 ' I et itt. a. I,; Ciiii:i 11 Mill B III III INIM ' 1 11 .�� 03 , o_ u sif imp"�.�El .ion s1 Via! fi b'' n : NI ',-....-.;•'? r=' i I i b l _ IIII?T s 1 I .i. nim ism%� I= l� �� T�7 f 9 s ON---1 p = ,.1.:_1,11111 -;- -- % v—' 1 if- _ _ r. '`r -11111,1_111 li1(�� 1 ifs I `�- ,. �� s I`.' 'r�� 3 ( 1 p I i ii 11 �2 (.;;,, (; - 1 Page, „of ', t – 1 sBIT .1. 1 i _ ___ , Tz-71 --.-1 '1 I: I r•-. i o CNI J Ip Z Cr oIli 1 u IZ I11 0 „ _}_ ry —� 1 W W Ill l �!_ —. — , N ru LII 1 3 1 # I. I m , M LII U = ga r3 Wtx111 r E - _ Ib T-1 lr l rt i, J t — I a g II.; § Z Cr ! Lei II ' x 2' W ' 1 � . I1r+iY1lw11.7 Z 0 Z. a ri'31f'll- id �'�irlsrl W ' _ —i U3` r.. U © rr Eesti r; Ili � — Nt i[ • _ " -.'e'"' in ' na ni tr C _ �= :rte ; `" n' , t1 I �% ` � � i 7 3 3 1 — — `-'' ".4 , •C -,,, ... ..„"-Illij ,i.witii .1-e:0- , V , ..° s 412 ,,I 4z- . 4,46;., rte i I a_ o I il�`, "'' Page of -' 1 1 '''a ' I7 Seo f a N ��9 .01 i �'� �_ ___ Bei 1 . zE 11 '- C �noeli 8 '= a - 4ly! ]n - :, LY' 1E IV " 0 ' I re el lawrAn"rm'zimircalrang UP . g 10:4, .,, in in m a .�m..�� a Ihit I �IIIPIdI[IG�I I : ,a a la ^- -'• lam .,.., it °. s �.111 • ��— , —� c LL M r = Q .�I .. I ,' It Is ® it gi S 7-1 21 ,il 2-,,,:,_}...,,A__,-5[,____,'H---,-.,,4t,,:t- ,i211,'_.--:.it:',-;-_-_,:, cm ',. '1 7... ..::-:: o ::::,11110. 0,,,i7irim,=.7 -. 6 117:'''; . ° N i f.. it .0 �� 'e exr A ui UP ni —mss ` „rem, Ilea ■ 04. y tll 1mdrjl ., llo■■ I ill: i I__ . T4! 5 [ Page - -�mf I 5 05 J. K-} E Cti1 a.0 U N. M ic _- C i - — Z W i j nei1 p III N IQ i, �i • � I Y I 4� T • I N N. M t ! E : ids ,,s„, - 0 ib OZ ONS t W W w , �, ! v Z "i.=, i �ff►MH1 --Q ,rd ' . ." `z U. y Z � � �` t rnu ) • ,a i ! pt* • ej '.. V in '.r' T gym, `'.�� -► t.. M W1xa F- W ,� : g 1..:, - . > `i , may tl �' Z 0Z t n1 y� ` Z moi# -w.li -e 0" 1 ■• 1 y z • .,A ; W ! r :Cllr l t: f IA 111 1k\' c! ✓ ' a1 N ru ru W , Vie., ` 6j f ♦ � _` iEre � k — r f4 4i�i. j r r.'� ' T r! ot.-tiy! r ,3 -Ms �; !1E ' 4fa e a t lsf 1 lig 6 2� tl iS isiaPage D -,, 0000 t*i S I9 1 n 1 j 1 a Z PI4't ni n y . * �a ' ( _ III lTiI tfl n• w 161 I x II : I »{ , n W a :, _1_ i ii f� 1 w Io a tb ni 03 0 III -' 'L---"r --- ..,-.: r IC ' LL 4. j I m `� { tr X .ge I. 110 hi I - 0 - _ d ( 5J 1 Z• J ' - f _ -' S I • ° I _tit'? • u -- _ _ 10 irl- W N 4_U N N 1Z -cu n ? i 1. - an4. a e ,c1 3_1 s $ �)f r$i !ill Page ' ,0f = q rii I! 1 I I ill II II IIrt¢ Staff Proposed GMP Amendments GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116/16 PL20130002637/C PS P-2013-11 EXHIBIT "A" GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Updated map, following GGAMP text] [Include the updated Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map labeled as, and included in, this Exhibit"A".] PLEASE NOTE: Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Board:r consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear—within and between Elements—as appropriate to maximize internal consistency Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un-adopted portions of the document. Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-thy are deleted. 1 1.11111011 21 1-1L-111 I1211 rItu lJvuULVJ)171(-.23-GU IJ.11 LEGEND - I OMAN OVIKNOTY2N EITAT03 OEl1GNATIO1I AGRICtLTIIAI/RLIRAL L€1IGGATN014 0 ma.Y.swan am MI 9.1.6, ' ❑..c C.R WtiN66>�. .91.6 A1:�14•� 1.2• :.,.,.<:.�_�„nr, �. 32•1311 21552.10•24. ``�'�' ` W�T9A GOLDEN GATE AREA xr�1r.an .mc' 41'EaY.4 FE11_TIIf rta ZY1W.c#sm 00545050.77,a, •Ar10AefP1 06X!r5[S*ar3 1^ rte 1.g1-.M:, 4°:POKY NY&4t!atl rat X4,1. 37,15 "'�°"'�""] ■- j FUTURE LAND USE MAP ■#n, A1^.,.M.,..�,.L, �=�6. ,. 14. .:.-A:%.�-.tlpnvL �,_314.4_ t 03.0 SW T ( %n,14 4444: 4r-e.32102525.1 022.32.3.2.20062 E ®"� `.114,.001 :1.x1 .33TSaC.d;4%afFW2“, o ttStMm 2 rK FLOW 22 31212111 14 NN 222 i e..Are„wre: r %6AT01 c Duos 11122 220 5. VW ROAD u 4.1.2..22 20022924.5.231121 I 111=KA.11312,11.1,4125 ... I --, , 0 eas11c- 0 aa.021 Huls....cu f imp rt:.2.0901x3 ■14424 5 OTrt 2665744! • • 161E nes Y.]444.61 12 14172222072 43230 114 0042 0222r. 2026 444 ' 140140 64492550.0641/36/5 404,.02 1E MAN 2210 4004 144112 4.44 co < co OIL WELL ROAD C• 7 m IMMI GKALEE ROAD 1 n _I... z1) RANDALL BOULEVARD SUBJECT I SITE Gi ' 3 [PSP-2613-11 \\ 5 VANDERd1LT V r BEACH ROAD J i . _-----� A a 8 GOLDEN GATE A BOULEVARD < ci 0 PILE RIDGE RD. .Oi WHITE BLVD- C ao 96 z % m mj E G,C.IPKWY. o 0 1 x 4 < M TER9TA TE-25 7 o ` S.R.B4 [ r/ - __ DAVIS BOULEVARD°1 - - -_- S.R.BI (- < a cn foo 94 0 a - �.f$ • j t GOLDEN GATE FUTURE LAND USE MAP mem, - 1EI NYAP7.toil 0470:40 OECLA19C4 4.2001 - --. --- -_- __..._-.. -____._ _. MD.Ile=07-11 --= 412146W - VAT I9,I802 -._-__- - 09014076 - DCTOBfl]14 3Gi9 _.- -•ot - -_-- _-._..-_'. AYE147ED - MAT 26.1093 LAB.NO 2009-54 __.______.-_..._ -___ __._.-. _..___.-.' aWNLY.V - .1/e ll 37,1993 AYE1I00 - AA].24 2010 - - - j .- ..._ - Dr N4 2014-!' 4PP4 1(,1690 .YxNg6 . A.l"R 270 01 - Yarn!.,1894 »110]?t9 2)keD a_ --.-,...7 14.213 k-. wf MY, - 502411-74 l.,Ml, I OE/00 - 601081_S).1991 DM NG 2051-39 _. 0 -..._. ._-. i 2142101_ ia.'992 01406000 tK]aEIp.76,0 y O.0 D.2014-0,4-., -. _. ... _.-_...__. /1/11102.5 - V2 221235.0 4,490 -- C.t #7'14004.70-e6'1(114[.l4.:Tf L"............... .....---- - .... _. YFn[9'1 1EM4AR 3{..7919 He`.414]-&'1 '11 A 11432.12120 WY 4 2000 wCA0a0 *031414 ll 3 ! j11::111 1 04[60_. 243 4.2000 -_- MIK - 41114Yl4 1.1 zoo A400 SCALE 640 54 2403-0 I Q�} p. X6"11 .1 .0 - al:1921,6 20.0•S. x j Page AJ ` �I/*� I OPD NO.20001-)! 1 0 l 141 2 M, 3 MI 4 VI 6 W. 031]087 - 4WYNi125.20CC • - - 4.0 2004.-! PRC.PARCO @n 039/.4..0.3 44274v104 57[741 OM= - )AWAR1 25.200] GROWTH*4 1AG:Iff41 4'-P ARNNAT OPD AC 266)-,9 DATE. 1/2018 r:.C.=P5>-23.3 -7454 R26E f 827E I R2$ E Staff Proposed GMP Amendments STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/5/16 PL20130002637ICPSP-2013-11 EXHIBIT"A" PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT(SM) Update and make current the Table of Contents, along with corresponding titles, heading and other entries-inside and between Elements-to maximize internal consistency. II. GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES GOAL 1: [Reference text only, page 2] TO PROVIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PROTECTION FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, MINIMIZE THE DEGRADATION OF QUALITY OF RECEIVING WATERS AND SURROUNDING NATURAL AREAS AND PROTECT THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 6: [Revised text, page 4] Protect the functions of natural drainage features through the application of standards that address the quality and quantity of discharge from stormwater management systems. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.2: [Revised text, page 5] Collier County's retention and detention criteria shall be one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the water quality volumetric requirements provided in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume II for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District(2014 , - ' - - , - ' - ' _ - - Policy 6.3: Allowable off-site discharge rates shall be computed using a storm event of 3 day duration and 25 year return frequency. The Land Development Code includes a list of off-site discharge rates by basin. : _ : _ :• -' _ ` : a 0.11 cfslacro 13, Airport-Read-Nefth-Ganat 0.04 cfslacro Sub-basin 67 0 sfslacre Sub-basin d C-4-Basin 0.11 cfslacro e 0.04-efslacre f 0:04-sfelacre g 0.06 Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struolec.theough are deleted. I Staff Proposed GMP Amendments STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 615116 14, Faka-Un4on--Ganal-43asiR 0.09 cfslacrc - (North of I 75) 0:09-cfs/acre 0.011 cfs/acre Henderson Creek Basin 0.95-cfs/aGfe 1 175 Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre m 0.12 cfs/acro n, 4slaftd-Walk-BaiSiR 0.055•cfslasfe in 0.06 cfs/acro 0 cfs/acre €1, Ma4-Gokilep--Gate-GaRal-Basi44 0.04 cfslasre 0.13 cfsiacrc s-.- 12441e-Ridge-Ganal-Basin 0.13 cfs/acre t All other areas 0 -cfslacre apPlies4- those li tea bove cnvvc-iT�c�.t7 avv�c. • -- - - •••• . - - --- - - - - + - - - - - -- - , - - -' aphy c. Vegetation types - - - - - f. Depression storage capacity h. Other re!erlt, appropr!:tc, and prefcscionaity-acceptedhydroiogic--af d-hydraulic data. PLEASE NOTE: Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear - within and between Elements - as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to un- adopted portions of the document. Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words Mr-tisk-Mr-Gap are deleted. 2 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 PL20130002637/C PSP-2013-11 EXHIBIT "A" TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (TE) Update and make current the Table of Contents, along with corresponding titles, heading and other entries—inside and between Elements—to maximize internal consistency. LIST OF TABLES/MAPS/FIGURES [For informational purposes only, introductory page iv] TR-1 * Financially Cost Feasible Transportation Plan Network Map — Year 2035 2040 TR-2 * Needs Plan Assessment Projects Map—Year 2035 2040 TR-3 * Collier 2003 2013 Functional Classification—Countywide Map TR 3A 3.1 * Collier 2025 2013 Functional Classification— Inset Map (Coastal North) TR-3.2 * Collier 2013 Functional Classification —Inset Map (Orangetree Area) TR-3.3 * Collier 2013 Functional Classification —Inset Map (Immokalee Area) TR-3.4* Collier 2013 Functional Classification—Inset Map (Coastal Central) TR-3.5* Collier 2013 Functional Classification—Inset Map (Coastal South— Marco Island Area) TR-4 * South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) Map TR-5 * Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Map TR-6* East Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Map TR-7 * Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Routes Map TR-8 * Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Facilities Map TR-9 * Regional Transportation Network Map *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** A. FUTURE SYSTEM NEEDS [Revised text, page 1] 1. Travel Demand The Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)2040 Long Range Transportation Plan's Financially Cost Feasible Plan and Needs Assessment Plan as adopted on December 10, 2010 11 2015, are hereby incorporated to define the major roadway needs for Collier County. The 2035 2040 Financially Cost Feasible Plan is presented as Map TR-1 and shows the needed roadway improvements that can be funded through the year 2035 2040. Map TR-2 shows the total projected roadway improvements needed by 2035 2040. • - - -- . .. - - - - - - 2" -2 - - -- 2: - -- - While the total 2035 2040 needs are estimated to require funding of approximately 4 6 2.3 billion dollars, the cost feasible plan reflects funding of approximately 602-million 1.2 billion dollars. • . • _ - - - - - - - - ' Map TR-3 and Inset Maps TR-3.1 through TR-3.5 shows the existing functional classification of the roadways " - a .t. •- - - - - -- --- - -- '- in the County. The refinement of these plans maps to incorporate updates to the MPO's Plan, development of a collector road system and results of corridor specific studies, shall occur on a regular basis upon approval of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC). DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. Page of 1 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. Five-year Capital Facility Program [Revised text, page 2] The Collier County Transportation Work Program is reported annually in the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)for future five-year planning periods. The improvements shown in the AUIR represent a sub-set of the needs identified in the Collier County 2035 2040 Needs Plan Assessment Projects (Map TR-2) and are included in the current Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Schedule of Capital Improvements, as amended annually, for funding within the next five years. 4. Future Traffic Circulation Map Series- Section 163.3177(6)(b)(1), Florida Statutes requires a map or map series showing the general location of the existing and proposed transportation system features. This map series present the following: number of future funded road lanes and other improvements en--each-fae ; roadway functional classifications; and multi-modal facilities (ports, airports, and rail lines). Map TR--11 ( the 2035 2040 Financially Cost Feasible Network,) the 2035 showsing the funded road improvements through 2040, including number of road lanes, sidewalks and bike lanes • _ ..-- _ . • _ -: -; - - - . Map TR-3 shows the 2025 existing roadway functional classifications,and Map TR-8 shows the multi-modal facilities in the County. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** S. INTERMODAL & MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION [Revised text, page 3] 1. Non-Motorized Travel *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** The Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan, developed by the Naples---(Collier Cep Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff, was adopted by the... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. Mass Transit [Revised text, page 6] a. Purpose *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** The Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) program is coordinated by Collier County, which has been designated as the Coordinated Provider by the Nam Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The TD services offer home pick up and delivery transportation for the elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged in the County. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** C. PERSPECTIVES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 3. Inter-agency Coordination Cooperation [Revised text, page 8] In Collier County, the responsibility for providing transportation facilities rests with several different agencies. Long range transportation planning is the primary charge of the Naples-(Collier Cel) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Introduction: [Revised text, page 11] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strisk4hrt are deleted. 2 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16/16 The Collier County Transportation Element meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes(FS), the"Community Planning Act". The County has coordinated this Transportation Element with the Long Range Transportation Plan of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** ** *** *** OBJECTIVE 3: [Revised text, page 13] Provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future rights-of-way based upon improvement projects identified within the Five Year Work Program, development agreements, andler the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's)adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan and/or other similar studies, plans and programs. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.1: [Revised text, page 13] The County shall maintains an advanced Right-of-Way Preservation and Acquisition Program. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.5: [Revised text, page 14] A. The County is considering the viability of a Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan (TCPP)ordinance and land development regulations that: 1. identify, in detail, corridors necessary to develop the County roadway network shown on the County's Long Range Transportation Plan and other development agreements, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's)adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan and/or other similar studies, plans and programs; and *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** All of the above must be consistent with the currently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan and/or other similar studies, agreements, plans and programs, and Chapter 336.02, Florida Statutes. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.5: [Revised text, page 17] Commercial developments within the South US 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification to the Tra cportatin Planning 14epa#mac t County transportation planning agency (presently, the Transportation Planning Section of the Growth Management Department) that at least four al of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Residential developments within the South US 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation shall provide documentation to the Transportation Planning Section that at least three ) of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development ( in coordination with Collier County Area Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d) Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties with shared commercial and residential parking. Page of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words strusk-through are deleted. 3 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT—CCPC Transmittal Draft 6/16116 An applicant seeking an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation through the certification mentioned above shall submit an application to the - • e-- - .e" P. '-'=- ° : -- -` Manager of the County transportation planning agency(presently, the Transportation Planning Section of the Growth Management Department) on forms provided by the Divisie+a agency. Binding commitments to utilize any of the above techniques relied upon to obtain certification shall be required as a condition of development approval. Monitoring of the use and effectiveness of the TDM strategies selected shalt be included in the required annual monitoring report. Developments not required to submit an annual monitoring report shall, for three (3) years following completion of the development, provide an assessment as to the use and effectiveness of the selected strategies in a form provided by the County. Modifications to the applied TOM strategies may be made within the first three (3) years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Modifications to the new TDM strategies may be made within this second three year period and subsequent three year periods if the TDM strategies are deemed ineffective. Another assessment shall be completed within three years and in three (3) year increments until the TDM strategies are deemed effective. Policy 5.6: The County shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. Performance within each TCMA shall be measured based on the percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in this Transportation Element, and Policies 44 1.5.A and 4-4 1.5.B of this the Capital Improvement Element. The following Transportation Concurrency Management Areas are designated: A. Northwest TCMA—This area is bounded by the Collier—Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (Map TR-5). B. East Central TCMA — This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on the north side; Collier Boulevard on the east side; Davis Boulevard on the south side, and; Livingston Road(extended) on the west side (Map TR-6). In order to be exempt from link-specific concurrency, developments within the TCMA must provide documentation to the Transportation Planning Department that at least two (2)Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies utilized meet the criteria of the LOC. Monitoring of the use and effectiveness of the TDM strategies selected shall be included in the required annual monitoring report. Developments not required to submit an annual monitoring report shall, for three (3) years following completion of the development, provide an assessment as to the use and effectiveness of the selected strategies in a form provided by the County. Modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three (3) years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Modifications to the new TDM strategies may be made within this second three year period and subsequent three year periods if the TDM strategies are deemed ineffective. Another assessment shall be completed within three (3) years and in three year increments until the TDM strategies are deemed effective. Policy 5.7: Each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 4,3 1.5.A and 1,4 1.5.B of this.the Capital Improvement Element. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 6.1: [Revised text, page 19] The Transportation Element shall incorporate to the greatest degree possible, the long range plans of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Page ` of DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck rough are deleted. 4 Staff Proposed GMP Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT-CCPC Transmittal Draft 6116116 Policy 11.3: [Revised text, page 24] The Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has assisted... *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 12.1: [Revised text, page 24] The Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization, through the Transportation Disadvantaged Program shall assist... Policy 12.2: The County Transportation Division and the Collier geti,inty Metropolitan Planning Organization shall coordinate... *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Tables d.Maps/ Figures [Updated maps, following TE text] Transportation Map Series, maps TR— 1 through TR—6, TR—8. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [Include the actual updated maps labeled as, and included in, this Exhibit"A".] PLEASE NOTE: Approval of amendments to this Element is intended to confer the Board's consent to make similar and related changes in references or cross-references to Objectives, Policies and other formal terms where re-formatting creates new or re-numbers Objectives, Policies and terms, wherever they appear—within and between Elements—as appropriate to maximize internal consistency. Approval is also intended to confer the Boards consent to make similar and related changes to un-adopted portions of the document. Page of • DRAFT Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. 5 Ci I �m Lr N .w e. r....._.�. ..._� ' r 1 dM'M% •• •want-sas.E ,�\ p 1` °z, w .au i c S a w11 z ro 00. s ..4 d fn a W < O NOI6ONU11 i t Notes J { , 1. I Q s S S ON 22211i-31131000') I IN1i 0 -U CO /1 2 2 UJ a 1 11 c E m 1 c g E 1- ' a g'. AIii ii ,g 92 sz Ei , 1 °z " i u N1.1 u'i > '� 9a g '' Z ' X 111 r LJ10 '` 2I 11 LL i r ' qnq ' 1Li1 4.1 W Ir7 II3 1 >a . pr-YAe t A1N.VGT j_. . 1 5 tx , - ,_ 011iliP. All 1_ w rc f W 2 W u' 2 °s a It • ,i.a.l . CO LL ell a, : ,,,,.- -Q.44,. CO a oqt 1 ..: ■tt left t W :IF `' ..... 111. me eill P. V ,#� _:INIAR+ 4 N Q i a • z a 'M� Q . m 1,nw,u4 w 1.- I a page ' Of .� 4±V ,..., 1 I Cs1 A — CI l CIA111----331110:1—1-1 ' - al a. • RI 2 , 4 re w 46 1 tol it g o• ••"1 r . st, 1 1 1 14 ei a- A 2 LU D 2 _ IIIIIIIo ., 5 o (ow O D 1 1 L 1 I 1 1 1 No,a;i, ' '• ,, -,..Aware : / ILI• 1 w= ..73 „. r..... O 0 O 1 la / ow — watuamoce Y _, / , i CP -U I tin.1111321313NVA GULF SW46 r''l ! c• , / , , z i ' 1 w i o . III ' t 1 f ° ...... 1 ,z; Is z1 i w 13 SI NII I:, 1_. 41 g 6 , — — _ ... Ow 3N11 AMMO CO . . 141 a / / g 1 , .. 1.... 1,- . z w US 1 t a la ' i I ( 2 0 . a ,, co _ • _ 7 ILI • • g II 1 I , *IC •- p 1 • 4 , •i CO 9 ) 8 I V:00, C:1 (41 c t• w 2 ..1 Ir. •mi NJ v.-- a i 2 •1- z, , -- 0 I - immon• -1 10 I all .... 1 ' —I- — . I" P • lipt* ' age ___,' of — - - ___ rlIel L i a s I as 8 ill p°, ,„,...., M n s "' `` ei 2r.... 0 ro V 1� H k- .r� aac N ‘4 if.' v a hIIIiiF Qas.Z � Ii Hi 00 _11 1 ix 1 Z ' UNf10S M3Y311 W,Yd ! AAA°,aoYo-r01./M 'n r _r ___r_ _sAwa•AINr103a 1Y�1gr er___' rw...s...:..�w.w.. •..• tor) A.INf1G?MOORS AANf O3 Y111110] A1Nf103 llliltp] CC W CC OC Irl Ci Iii z o1 a a � wm Z 1 � ° o " it 1 ® t a t i 8 NOM t� Li. . •• .• . . . f ...1 t Z S mow: o 30. N • y � Zr m ed '.. ii i lel i '` L„ t tn.. . Imo, I '11. i 1= OHS PAS y o00 LUr Y �.. wow I'1.1. ... i V •/• 9 N e`.r I !•it/ . • • i i �.. 3 .t `—, :• Page of 7'! i ILI CU 14 F € r7 € a U W N 1 1 ¢ z . • i' pm t0 ill WlamY IL a a. 43 43 -— a g Q s sir as i. 14 US Z a ` 3 um, z 4 M a t ct 8 14 J Cr il 0A18 e43m00 CC sW Q m W to i < W a 4 13 aZ one NV001, ari w D w _ 0 Lis m J ` o 5 4 0 .� , 8 0, _ an,®sI4vo„/l g , asf au N > O18#NeAn ° 2 1,— F OH 1NOdMir Y. 1 + 0 OW)$N 3113,0000 a Z o t 0 z ua t,NNaaaNrn M U. 1 g 1m G wILI � ` I W 1000.4400.11101.111.11... 1 I Page ' of . I L s --. --- m W 1.11 L L U OW N i I -4 b Cry � a J 1 ��a 1vv 'tn 1. i ! ! ! ! ibEi 11_ t W Z i , a V C: W Q= I V i V M Q CO S if; w d O W a N Z m 03 0 i 1 . 0 U cc aAZe s3OY1Oa3A3 3 0 W F W $ p m Z ' a J at 0 g 0 atl 331010/011 Q 6 OM NOSIIM Z U. ..1 g MO lia'LlW L6 I G o A.wnoo damooco AINnoo 331 a O J Page_a_LI.„ 6air t I 11 yC9 < 0 I 1 a rEyS�S a 0 E -i i -.....,..__-.:7....- -.,- ... © CA 11.* d 1 i g 0 § . III 011 `" . IA Z t i u CC W i V a d12s A.A. Q a O . W a U � m z w o if i 0 299 � — Oki 33711MOIMI OH 811113NdPIY3 Is9 i - ll" s Q 1 1 Wall 1 J i Y 3 Zi. a . 0 , f ,1 . I F 01 ,i Page _ of. f 6 in im o Is 1 v!1 I I pi 1 i i N ..... a a 1 1 s 1 1 i . .1 i . . . •:.,,....„ itiiiiii 'I Li HI Def 64. , 1a i mi f u tat: 0 1 o- 0 in 0° CC i a. a .. Io t W °o m an19 tl3nio3 4Me Y3ill0� 0 0: 'c " odA Y ante Nv001an9 vvuve YAWS � =0 0 G Q a Z J — ix .4 a I J Q a Q C W f JV `a1!NOISDMIn11 ) cc Q s oZ / 0 ce oruilna Lodu$V g Z J Id 3/1310000 til _ 711111•11.1M , 1504 alt 6 . W f — is I� I N cn tg i i i 4 N1 11 . . I 1 O 0/ 112 '��► �u 777 r G i i6 a e11 1 L i 6 CI Z Z ' } 14) I W ' 0 1 r3 al � CC, a et 43 � m © Z , 4 0/013 1111103 ra 41- Q .. tl! 7 M 0� A Owarnoa S (,a 0,1,0 —1 G 11:1:: . Z � I { cion ii► o 6. ..• Page f _of i I, ilI I / + B _:: M I \ 'C. ,, IS ' �' a o' I c 1 I I I COUNTY BARN RD I 0.50 1. , o � c ; ? _ o illi a a H 6 �� a /• _. ! ;O11 O 2 �g p Q5 p1 - ` >t II U 1 �{ - r• cy d' 11 UJ + raa 1 11+ , lull - I H i 1 ,,- v-,/ ti I � � + 1 / ,. ,... 1 m1,49 4 1 (NI 1 fa I , —- C J r 1 en 8 I �_ - o 1- �'1 .1 , w 1_ d. I /_, r_I ( r 11 IH 0 1 I I 11,E +r�" �a- I . ¢ ' 1111' ` n'1, b' a f k • _ AT I17.hi . CO >, .1 I AIRPORT PULLING RD+'' I it, , h , _ -- 1 I " V 11 � .l ,,Ill ll,l i. - it+ 11,a + I 1 ( , , = C ;fi t '�+,i `'i' 1 BAYSHOREDR 1 i i+` I I Ca G jr l 1,1 1-,rt .., I ,-._- 1, ) C p I,_ U rflI mow• II 1 ' 1—y f ar_ % i ' S AB I I I- W R I 1 I _I- { 11 I r Ir r ' 4iiiii so a . 0). ia. i 01111 � l — eiiinia 7 Page of r F, W F- 1 i Q ct.N ' 9 al U A ! B I i 1 WI C .61 a Z i t o rEL ii al 1 -• .-�'� N 0A19 NVSO1 s I f z I X 1 ID co J & .7.'." s �'< C Qa NOl$ONIAII p ` 'Qa ONI11f1d laOdalV ;24 is N N\ A W W au �: k i h\: ' O, }INVMd-31i31QOOO , Q i M, ,:amu Eil Q d `t.;N lHli 11N'dI INif1 ;W co a Z6 W OA GI d a `0 141000000001.0006.0 1119a3QNVA a U 1 O w :1 Z m N Z m b W z ``N 1 I1 ME O 1 3 ',," GUI^f OF X�G z t s an ` ® 3 11 c $ s I 3i — u � u s O 1 -01111 Page ? of_ _, Mr ta un a) t inR° COto 4 E fs Edi m iw l r /1` c 2 $a In a ikk N p g t OA-le 2:12I11O0 „ill! 7. _ , TJ" q i' 1'¢ r an l., 4 h LWII I I mn. I n I i /I1 P1''jr �1 ' I,,viL: V i11 JIB k ❑ ' J I a — I w r C I I m -. ",,;4 ' a -: : ; �•,11•' w,e IIA IW , a. in LII CI - I. W .11 I ° I '1 I Mil A I/ '- r 'anal 4 t 1, Q �.�� �p -11 �. 1�.. - JI°IIC AYa I HrdF " 11 .+. +�\\I'll/ii +.� Il. G \.1 as = I I la'I I an18 V JV8 id9 VI-NYS ... is �- „ _ x 0� F -_ h • =— { II to co I40 t i - -� I _ �.I 0. C T al') f. a w I ' I P 1.'11 ' : �p Z 11 . - I '1 11- I I 10 C : I , �` �I- ' ' I � w 11 -i III �l" � � � al ,� I, E �I I_. I j, 40C O, li ' lI- I 9 ' . �r I � F U p - NO CC as Nols�N�nn _ ! a e l W , Lu I Z ° w ; illks , I — ON 9N11111a.La TA I ci a o v $ 8 I.,E v F Gt91 � ti ON 311310OOO 1 1 'D 1, C - Page of EXHIBIT`A' PL2O130042637-CPSP-2013.11 TR - 8 SIS Facilities Map - FDOT District 1 A c ..--- ,j—r—1 1 fi et. 1 , rs) District: 7 t'.C> ` ''` t,) 1 , Ali Cl". w,11 tr ?t`'') -moi District: 5 0 I' ‘‘\...0 Saint Pett 1 SIS Seaport �Sl 4 EMERGING SIS , , __ Pori Manatee II SiS ,I + ;`di, _ 11111111121 SIS Freight Terminal 4 TO 417 EMERGING SIS w Sarasotaf&adenton 13 SIS Imam attonat Airport SIS Airport CI EMERGING SIS ! ' 75 in 'JI S1Sa 1 A District: 1 SIS Passenger Terminal w EMERGING SISCAt 12 SIS --�-_.-.. 0 Lee(Tian Intermodal SIS Highway Center(Fort Myers) — SIS Highway Corridor .` '- InterFlonda int Emerging SIS Highway Corridor au, SIS Highway Connector / ! r... {+29 j 4 Military Access Facility i SIS Railway s 175 . EMERGING SIS, -+-'- SIS SIS Waterway Z . EMERGING SIS '11 ,..iv.... SIS `L — � Page n-_ of I tl FDOT D1 \I District: 6 e Other FDOT Districts \ 0 12.5 25 50 Miles EDOT t(S FadlNlea 2014 County Boundary 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 ESRI:County Boundary,basemap 2015