CCPC Agenda 12/15/2016 COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
DECEMBER 15, 2016
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., DECEMBER 15, 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—November 17,2016
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. PUDZ-PL20150002737: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an
Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD)
zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and
equipment storage and repair facilities for a project to be known as Collier County Resource
Recovery Business Park IPUD on property located 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard
and one mile north of White Lake Boulevard in Section 25,Township 49 South,Range 26
East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 344±acres;providing for repeal of Resolution No.
09-275; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM,
Principal Planner]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PUDZ-PL20160001255: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a
Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district for the project known as Hamilton Place RPUD to allow development of up
to 66 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located east of Livingston
Road and south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.75+/- acres; and by providing an effective date.
[Coordinator:Eric L Johnson,AICP,CFM,Principal Planner]
B. An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending
Ordinance Number 04-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section
Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,more specifically amending
the following: Chapter Two—Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned
Unit Development Districts; Chapter Five— Supplemental Standards, adding section 5.05.15
Conversion of Golf Courses;Chapter Six—Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public
Facilities Requirements, including section 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements, adding
section 6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units, Two-Family Dwelling
Units, and Duplexes; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the
Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator:
Caroline Cilek,Manager,LDC,Development Review]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
November 17, 2016
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples,Florida,November 17,2016
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Karen Homiak
Joe Schmitt
Patrick Dearborn
ABSENT: Diane Ebert
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Eric Johnson,Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page 1 of 48
November 17, 2016
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. If everybody will please quiet down. Welcome
to the Thursday,November 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will
please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with roll call.
Mr.Eastman?
MR.EASTMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms.Ebert called in. She will not make it today.
The chairman's here.
Ms.Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Addenda to the agenda. Before we go into that,I wish to introduce everybody to our new Planning
Commission member,Mr.Patrick Dearborn,who represents District 2,North Naples,and welcome aboard,
sir.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to make it very entertaining.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did a lot of your friends come this morning?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just because Patrick's here,yeah.
Addenda to the agenda;we have a request for continuance of the Regency Autohaus PUDA. It was
sent out a couple days ago. The applicant is requesting to be continued to the December 1st meeting. It will
be,then,the first item up at that meeting. Is there a motion to approve their--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to continue to December 1st. Is there a second? Somebody?
Stan?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe seconds.
All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
So if you're here for the Regency Autohaus--has anybody come in for that particular item? It's the
third item up today.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those watching,that will be moved to the December 1st
meeting.
Planning Commission absences;our next meeting is December 1st. Does anybody here today know
if they will not be here on December 1st?
(No response.)
Page 2 of 48
November 17,2016
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray,do we have anything scheduled for the second meeting in
December?
MR.BELLOWS: The second meeting in December,I believe we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Sometimes in the holiday months we
don't get everything scheduled.
Bob,you can take a seat a minute if you want.We're going to be a while before we get to you.
MR.MULHERE: All right. I'll just stand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes. We all were sent electronically the
October 20th minutes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't get any.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I didn't get them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will postpone the approval of the minutes until the next
meeting. So we'll move the October 20th minutes for approval to the next meeting.
BCC report and recaps,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: Yes. On November 15th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD
amendment for Granada Shoppes. That was approved on their summary agenda. They also heard the PUD
amendment and rezone for the Marco Island Airport and Marco Shores project,and that was approved--also
approved on the summary agenda subject to the CCPC recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you.
MR.BELLOWS: And if you'd like,I can tell you what items are on the second meeting in
December.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. That will be great. Thank you.
MR.BELLOWS: We have the Hamilton Harbor--or Hamilton Place rezone,we have LDC
amendments,and we have a Tradewinds Avenue. Looks like that's a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a variance.
MR.BELLOWS: --variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rear setback variance.Okay. Good. That's good to know,because on the
1st if we have to have a consent or continuance,we've still got another opportunity during the month to get
that accomplished.
MR.BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Chairman's report;I don't have anything new to report today.
We'll move right into our regular meeting.The first item up is consent,and we don't have any items
up of consent. So we'll move to 9A.
***9A is PUDZ-PL20150001416. It's the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD located on
the south of Davis Boulevard and the west of Collier Boulevard.
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 speak on this item,you have to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This particular project was remanded back to us by the Board of
County Commissioners because of some objections that came up after this board had heard it.
Before we go into the actual business of the item,we'll have to do disclosures,but I wanted to make
the Board aware that if it looked familiar,it's because we did hear on it,we did vote on it previously. Some
things came to light after the meeting,and the Board thought it best to send it back to us before it goes back
on to them.
So with that,we'll do disclosures.Mr.Eastman?
MR.EASTMAN: No contacts other than receiving emails which are part of the public record.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have had communications with numerous residents of Colonial Court
either by email,by phone,or even before the meeting today;equally so with the applicant's representative,
Mr.Mulhere. I don't know if I've talked to anybody else in your group,Bob,but that's the best I can
Page 3 of 48
November 17,2016
remember right now.
I've also gone through the files extensively,a lot of which we'll be discussing today.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I also spoke to Mr.Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Patrick,we have to disclose any ex parte communications we
had,so you'll get used to this as we get going. And if you have talked to anybody about this project,you have
to acknowledge it now at this time.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,I'd like to correct something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I did get one email from a resident inside the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just for the watching community,Nora Frances,I hope you're
watching. We're going to try to keep your husband in line today. Nobody knows who that is,but Nora
deserves to have a"hello" said to her.
So with that,we will move directly into the item.
Bob, it's yours for presentation at this point.
MR.MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning.Here--Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here on
behalf of the applicant this morning.
With me this morning,Patrick Doorbad,who is the general manager and COO of Naples Heritage;
also Dick Rogan,who is the former president of the homeowners association and was chairing the
Long-Range Planning Committee. He'll speak to the history of the acquisition of this property and the
assessment of potential uses.
Also,I have Rich Yovanovich with me. He'll speak as necessary;and Craig Smith,who is the
ecologist that worked on this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich Yovanovich is going to speak as necessary? That's a neat way
of--can you do that for every project you bring forward?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had to pause on that one,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow.
MR.MULHERE: Craig Smith,who will--who I will ask to come up and speak. Both Dick and
Craig will speak;Dick,as I said,on the history of the acquisition,and Craig on the alternative site analysis
that was done;and also Gina Green who is the PE. I'm sure that Gina will have to respond to some questions.
I don't intend to have Gina make a presentation.
As Mr. Strain indicated,this was heard by the Planning Commission in May and recommended for
approval,but at that time we didn't have anyone who had objected in writing nor at the meeting. Subsequent
to the Planning Commission,residents of Colonial Court expressed--several residents of Colonial Court
expressed some concerns,and we began a process of dialogue both via email,telephone call,and there were
also several in-person meetings even as recently as just a couple of days ago.
So the concerns that were raised--and I'll stick to those as part of my presentation--generally
centered on a number of things: The history of the acquisition and whether or not it was ever intended for
this type of improvement of the five acres--and let me show you where that is.
So on the visualizer you have a map of Naples Heritage,which is right here,and down in this corner,
there's a five-acre parcel right here that is immediately adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD that we are
proposing to add to the PUD and,in part,to improve it with a tennis center and,in part,to place some of that
property in the southern portion of it in conservation.
The concerns--in addition to that history and whether or not other alternatives existed besides this
alternative,the other concerns related to whether or not the courts would be open for night play,whether or
not there would be lights on the courts,noise generation,setbacks,landscape buffers,the size of the--what
would be the tennis center building which originally had been proposed to have a snack bar was a larger
Page 4 of 48
November 17, 2016
building.
And so as those issues came up and were raised and as part of that dialogue,we began to try to
address those issues so that we could be the best neighbors that we could possibly be in terms of the
adjacency to the Colonial Court residents.
And I want to put an exhibit on the visualizer now. This is the site plan that you have that you have
in your packet. You can see there's six tennis courts here. And you can see Colonial Court comes down here.
There's access to the site,a parking area,and then these are the lots on Colonial Court.
This particular lot owned by Mr.Huber is the closest to the tennis court facility. It actually abuts the
property because the cul-de-sac ends here,and he has access to his property right off of the cul-de-sac.
So this was the--and this site plan reflects the site plan that has had numerous revisions made to it
during that post CCPC process but still generally was the same in that it had,you know,the six tennis court
configuration.
So a couple of things I want to point out is that we propose to have a pretty significant setback. It
was 78-and-a-half-feet to the closest point of the tennis court--of the structure here;I'm sorry,the building
here;about 90--about an additional 20 feet to the edge of the first tennis court, so about 98 feet. Proposed to
put a 25-foot enhanced landscape buffer,which is also part of your package. Right here and right here.
We moved it over here because this--this little strip here is a 25-foot conservation easement that we
are vacating,and this portion of that 25-foot conservation area was already cleared.We don't really know
when it got cleared,but best we can figure is when the house got built on this lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let me make a correction. I did check that out after you and I spoke.
MR.MULHERE: Partially cleared.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like it was cleared when the developer went in and cleared for the
right-of-way of the Colonial Court.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you compare the aerials from that time to now,that was cleared prior to
the house being built from what I can see.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. So that's--and so although it's in a conservation area,it's been cleared.
And since we were vacating it,one of--in discussions--and I didn't have these discussions firsthand
so--others did. But in discussions,I think,with Mr.Huber,it was indicated that that could be retained in its
clear area and that we would move the landscape buffer over here since we were vacating that part of the
conservation easement anyway.
We've made a number of changes to the ordinance,which I want to go over first,to address those
concerns. And these changes that are reflected in this document are in your packet. The concern over
lighting,after discussing that with my clients,we agreed that there would be no night play,and we put some
language in the PUD that says lighting shall be limited to that necessary for public safety and security, shall
be a full cutoff shield to prevent glare and spillage,and utilize motion sensors for activation,and that they
would be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet.
We've said that the building--we eliminated the snack bar. It's only going to be for restrooms and a
small storage area,and we limited the height of that,because that was also a concern. There was some
discussion of a two-story building,but either way we've limited it to a 12-story(sic)building zoned and
15-foot actual.
We limited the operation of the tennis facility from 7 a.m.to dusk,and we've prohibited any form of
amplified sound.
Now,after we made these commitments,some additional concerns were raised,and one of
those--one of the suggestions was that we consider revising the site plan. And I'm looking for the alternative
site plan right now. Right here. That we consider revising the site plan to achieve a greater buffer than the 75
feet or 90 feet--75 feet to the building;90 to the tennis courts. I think it was Mr.Huber that suggested
that--so that--his suggestion was to reduce the number of courts to four.
And my clients still want to retain six tennis courts,but we did take a look at the site plan and revise
it. You do not have this in your packet.This just happened fairly recently.
So we've taken a look at and moved--where we had four tennis courts before,we've taken those two
Page 5 of 48
November 17,2016
and moved them to the north,revised the site plan slightly. The result of that is that we now do achieve the
150--it's actually quite a bit more. It's 140.1 feet to the edge of the building and then another 20 feet to the
tennis courts. So the desired setback of plus or minus 150 feet,we actually exceed that now with that design.
And then the remaining--I should point out that this area in here that will be used for holding water,
once we take out the exotics,we will retain the native vegetation that's in that site,so it would create an
additional buffer besides the 25-foot buffer that we're proposing right here and right here. And the same
holds true for this area up here.
And down here,this would be dedicated as part of the conservation easement.
The meeting that we had--I've been busy. I think it was the day before yesterday. Tuesday,thank
you.
One other issue came up that I know some of the residents have concerns about,and that was relative
to parking,and particularly as it might be during tournaments that are held occasionally,I think three or four
times a year,and the possibility that folks would not have sufficient parking on the site and then would park
on the street in front of these houses.
And our commitment was that we would manage that. There are relatively few tournaments that are
held. There's no reason in those circumstances why folks coming into Naples Heritage to participate in these
tournaments could not park at the clubhouse center and then be shuttled down here,assuming there would be
a parking problem.We feel,certainly,that there's adequate parking.It exceeds the county's requirement for
these types of facilities.
So we feel like there's more than adequate parking,but if there is some demand in these relatively
few occasions,again,that will be during the day--because we don't have night play--we'll manage that by
shuttling folks from the clubhouse center.
I did want to talk a little bit about the county's history as it relates to allowing these types of
recreational facilities in proximity to residential development.
The county code sets forth a number of required development standards for these types of things,
most particularly setbacks from adjacent residential development. Most of the time in residential districts
these types of facilities are permitted as accessory uses to the residential development. Sometimes they
require a conditional use.
We're going through a public hearing that would be the same as the hearing process that we would go
through if it were in that case.
I think it was 15 years ago, it may have been longer,the county actually went in and changed the
code to enhance the buffer requirements because there were some issues that occurred over the years about
inadequate buffering adjacent to residential between these recreational facilities and residential development.
We far exceed that buffer. That 25-foot enhanced buffer is considerably more than is otherwise
required. I think it's 15 feet,typically.
I do want to spend a few minute going over--or,actually,I'm going to bring Mr.Rogan up and ask
him to go over the process of when the community acquired this,what the thoughts were,and how they went
through a process of looking at this site,not from the ecological perspective,not from the permitting
perspective--because Craig will talk about that right after Mr.Rogan speaks,but really more from--because
there were questions about what the intent of buying this piece of property were.
And I know that originally the intent was--at least in part was to buy this piece of property to
eliminate any likelihood of someone from the outside buying it and then trying to create some sort of a
vehicular connection to Naples Heritage.I think--I don't believe that would have ever happened anyway,but
I do want to ask Mr.Rogan to come up because almost immediately,as soon as it was purchased,there was
discussions about what other uses,since we've invested in this property,can we use this property for.
And,by the way,this is being driven,this process is being driven by a couple of things.Number one,
there is a deficiency of parking in and around the clubhouse during the season. People are parking in the
right-of-ways,and there's just not enough parking. So the Long-Range Planning Committee plan began to
look at what they could do to alleviate that and,at the same time,the residents are also looking for some
improved fitness facilities and other facilities.
So it was looked at comprehensively to try to address the long-range plans of this community both
Page 6 of 48
November 17, 2016
for parking and for other reasons.
With that,I'd like you to come up,Dick,and speak to those issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to pull the mike closer to you.
MR.ROGAN: What I'd like to do this morning is read the letter that I sent to all of you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you start by stating your name and spelling your last name for the
court reporter.
MR.ROGAN: Sure. My name is Richard,middle initial is M,and the last name is Rogan,
R-o-g-a-n.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.ROGAN: Okay. As I say,I'd like to read the letter that I sent all of you on the 26th of October,
except you,sir;I don't think you've seen it.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have not.
MR.ROGAN: It's important,I think,because it does set the context for today's discussion and,plus,
there's a number of people here who hadn't had the benefit of my thoughts on the letters. So I'll start--I'll
read it,and then certainly answer any questions that you have.
The above-referenced item was to be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for October 11th,2016,
but was sent back to the Planning Commission to further review its unanimous favorable recommendation.
Presumably this action was in response to letters written by three residents of Naples Heritage Golf
and Country Club objecting to the relocation of the community's main tennis courts.
While they raise a number of valid concerns,which have been addressed, it is also apparent that a
great deal of perspective has been lost since the original plan was presented to the Planning Commission on
May 5th of 2016.
Of particular concern are the interests of 464 Naples Heritage owners,homeowners,who have voted
to approve a club expansion project,of which this tennis court relocation is a part.
I'm former president of Naples Heritage Board--Naples Heritage Board of Trustees and in 2015
served as the chair of the Long-Range Planning Committee which was responsible for developing the campus
expansion plan.
I'm also past president of Cypress Point Homeowners Association;that's the single-family
neighborhood within Naples Heritage consisting of 101 single-family homes,six of which are located on
Colonial Court and face the site slated to house the new tennis courts.
I've got a note here that I ask myself why I put it in,but since it's here,I'll read it. I live within five
homes of the construction site,so I'm not exactly on the other side of the community second guessing.
In 2004 the Naples Heritage Board of Trustees was approached by a developer who was planning to
build some 140 multifamily units on several pieces of property adjacent to Colonial Court.
The proposal contemplated providing access to these units through Naples Heritage main entrance on
Davis Boulevard down Naples Heritage Drive through Colonial Court.
You know,I think,Bob,we might want to show that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,you'll have to use that walk-around mike if you're going to address us,
please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob,can you back that out a bit on the screen as well. Thank you.
MR.MULHERE: Yeah. Thank you.
MR.ROGAN: There we go.
So the entrance to the community is here,and the proposal by these outside developers is that their
residents would come in this way,down Naples Heritage,and to Colonial Court.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to move the map up. We still can't see it.
MR.ROGAN: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go.
MR.ROGAN: All right. Let me try it again.Here's the entrance to the community. The residents of
that new development would come in this way all the way down here and then down to Colonial Court. So
that was the expectation associated with the developer's proposal.
It was the judgment of the board that the proposal offered no significant advantages to current
Page 7 of 48
November 17,2016
residents and,indeed,would place added strain on the community resources already in place.
Subsequent to turning down the proposal,the owner of one adjacent five-acre parcel offered to sell it
to Naples Heritage. In light of--in light of everything that had taken place, it made sense to go ahead and
make the purchase,which was approved in September of 2004.
The closing,by the way for--just for timeline purpose,the closing on the property was November
15th,2004.
I'm going to make one comment that's not in the letter,and then I'll go back to the letter.
In January of 2005,all right, so less than 90 days after the closing,the Long-Range Planning
Committee at that time began to discuss alternative uses. I have a copy of their minutes. And the first
alternative use they listed was tennis courts. So the notion that we would have bought this property to do
nothing with it just doesn't ring true.
As is documented in the minutes of the board of trustees as early as January 2005,discussions
concerning potential uses of the newly-acquired property were begun. In the intervening years,a number of
conversation were held about possible uses of this site as well as other sites within Naples Heritage.
A frequently discussed prospect was the movement of the club's main tennis courts to a site near the
driving range which was dedicated preserve. On several occasions inquiries made of the Corps of Engineers
resulted in strong admonitions about attempting to convert property already designated as preserve;this,
regardless of any offers to swap other land.
Then in July 2014 the Corps of Engineers demonstrated its resolve by refusing to issue a permit to
Quail West Country Club to convert dedicated preserve for use as tennis courts,a situation identical to ours.
We concluded that going forward with an identical proposal would not likely succeed.Taking the
Corps to court was not only futile,but also expensive.
The suggestion's been made that there has not been a good-faith effort to find alternative sites for the
tennis courts. The fact is,no fewer than 16 alternative sites were evaluated and documented in an alternatives
analysis submitted as part of our application to the Corps of Engineers.
The analysis,which goes on for 24 pages,reduces the practical sites to three. They are the five-acre
site adjacent to Colonial Court,the site near the driving range,which I mentioned above,and a site west of
the existing clubhouse parking lot,a portion of which would be used for additional parking spaces.
When these three sites are subjected to further analysis,the five-acre site comes out as being the least
environmentally damaging. With respect to wildlife,all three sites contain no listed species. As to loss of
wetlands,development on the five-acre site is rated as the least damaging by a factor of over three times
when compared to the driving range site and by a factor of 1.25 when compared to the site west of the
existing parking lot.
I'm not exactly sure what would--let me try it again. I'm not exactly sure how one would go about
defining good-faith effort,but I'm sure that however you define it,we did it.
When Naples Heritage was planned in 1996,the Collier County Land Development Code dictated
that only 185 parking spaces were required at the clubhouse. Since then,the demographics of the residents
have changed increasing the activity and usage of club facilities.
Predictably,problems caused by the lack of parking are magnified during season and when Naples
Heritage hosts events open to members and their guests as well as when inner club events take place. The
lack of space often leads to overflow parking along nearby roadways and other areas.This creates an unsafe
condition for the residents and complicates access for emergency vehicles. As far back as 2012,both the
club's insurance carrier and the East Naples Fire Districthave served notice that parking available to support
the main clubhouse is inadequate.
The plan under consideration adds 66 parking spaces and increases it 35 percent. To suggest that this
is not a problem is to demonstrate total disinterest in the welfare of the community.
In addition to responding to a growing problem with parking,the planned expansion addresses the
increased interest in health and wellness by including a new fitness center and an enlarged main pool.
Finally,some modifications to the clubhouse are being made to accommodate additional activities.
In March 2015,the Naples Heritage Long-Range Planning Committee was charged with the
responsibility of developing a plan that would positively impact as many residents of the 799 homes as
Page 8 of 48
November 17,2016
possible and to do so in a cost-effective manner.
Between April and October,a plan was crafted following a broad-based examination of what other
comparable clubs and newer communities were offering the residents. Between early October and mid
November,22 neighborhood meetings were conducted to present the initial concept and to gain input that
was used to make modifications.
Between January and early February of 2016,three town hall meetings were held to present a mostly
finished plan and to gather additional feedback. Approximately a thousand people attended the small group
and town hall meetings. It is inconceivable to suggest that there was insufficient notice to the community.
As a sidenote,one of the 22 meetings was actually a presentation made to the Naples Heritage
Tennis Association Annual Dinner.
If,as mentioned in one of the complaining correspondence,and I quote,many of the tennis players
were opposed to locating the tennis facility as proposed,it wasn't at all evident at that meeting. In fact,there
was some concern about having spent a considerable sum to upgrade the existing tennis courts to address
safety concerns just two years before,two years at that time.
Otherwise,the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. They would finally have a facility worthy of
hosting inner club competitions. But since there is no objective data supporting either position,I suppose
we're left to dueling anecdotes.
On March 25th,2016,the results of the community-wide vote was published;464 households voted
yes. Naples Heritage documents require that a project like this must be approved by 50 percent yes votes,
and non-votes are counted as no votes.
Against that stringent standard,the project was approved by 58 percent of the 799 homeowners.
Many other clubs require only that a majority of those voting is necessary for approval. Against that
standard,the project was approved by 64.7 of the voters.
Within Naples Heritage there are nine voting districts based on type of home; single-family,terraces,
verandas,and villas. When the 464 votes are broken down by voting district,every single district,including
the one composed of single-family homes,voted in favor of the project.The point here is that the board of
trustees has the responsibility to serve the membership at large,invariably leaving some people disappointed.
Nonetheless,the residents in 464 homes have a legitimate expectation that this project will go forward as has
been presented to them. After all,their approval also includes a commitment to fund the project.
One or more of the complaints made some reference to the impact on the resale value of homes on
Colonial Court. Keeping pace with the marketplace begins with the community.
Prospective buyers are not even going to look at individual homes if the community does not offer
the features and amenities that they expect. There are 799 homes in Naples Heritage,all of which would
suffer if we cannot keep pace with other communities.
As you're aware from the written exchanges with the residents of Colonial Court,their concerns have
been more than adequately addressed.Giving appropriate consideration to the wishes of the community at
large is well overdue. I urge you to conclude your review and to move on.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Bob,that--
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please,I've got to ask you to refrain from clapping
and responding to speakers. This is not the proper forum for that.
Thank you.
MR.MULHERE: And I know there were questions--I'm sorry,Mr.Chairman. Bob Mulhere
again.
I know there were questions relative to the site selection that may be more science-based or more
permit-driven,and I'd like for Craig to come up and talk a little bit about that process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd like the rest of your presentation to stick to the typical factual
presentations relevant to the Land Development Code. I understand the gentleman who just spoke is a
member of the community. A lot of the issues he said are outside of our purview,so...
MR.MULHERE: Agreed,but I wanted you to have the history of the acquisition and,really,I felt
Page 9 of 48
November 17, 2016
that he was the best--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which we'll have questions about. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Should we wait till he's done,or can I ask a question now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. Do you,Bob?
MR.MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a gate at the entrance,right?
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you can't get in with it--
MR.MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a private road,right?
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What made anybody think--
MR.MULHERE: CDD? Well,it's gated,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't--please,not from the audience. If you've got to speak,you've
got to use the microphone.
MR.MULHERE: It's a community development district. There's some legal discussion as to
whether those are actually private or public roads.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I'm familiar with that.
MR.MULHERE: However,having said that,it is gated. I mean,if your question is whether or not
somebody from the outside could otherwise come through without the approval of the community,I think the
answer to that is no.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what made anybody think that they needed to buy that
parcel to get access to their parcel?
MR.MULHERE: Well,they had--they had someone already suggesting it. That made them begin
to look at these issues,and then once the offer came up,they said,let's buy this land to make sure that
something doesn't happen adjacent to us.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When they looked at the issue,they should have determined
that this will never happen,right?
MR.MULHERE: Well--
MS.GREEN: Gina Green,for the record.
The roads in there are handled by the CDD,but they are held privately within the community. It's a
gated community,and any outside person that would want to develop and come through would have to go to
that CDD board and ask for access across,and that could be approved or not.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as a matter of clarification,CDDs--and I happen to have participated
in the creation of two of them in the county,the road system,was it paid for by the CDD,the asphalt and the
subbase and the limerock?If it was,then the CDD has to open--it's open to the public. All they have to do is
come through the gate and say they want to drive on a CDD road,and if the gate stops them,they're violating
the law.
So,now,from that perspective,then,the community is to--those roads are open to the public in
some manner. Certainly,there are issues involving accessways for mutual--if a developer were to use that
for his facility,he'd have to provide some means to maintain them and like that.
MR.MULHERE: Shared costs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I understand better. I didn't know that was a CDD. So if that is a CDD
and those roads were paid for by the CDD,there is a public involvement in that.
But,Bob,since we're on the subject,back at the last meeting you said this five-acre parcel which is
immediately adjacent to the PUD, 5.2-acre parcel that we are incorporating into the PUD,was purchased for
the purpose of relocating their tennis facilities,make it a tennis center,and then that area where the tennis
Page 10 of 48
November 17,2016
courts are currently located will be additional parking and other amenity improvements and enhancements.
So the testimony,though,we heard today seems to indicate it was not purchased for that purpose.It
was purchased to prevent people from connecting to their road system. So is your previous testimony in
error,then?
MR.MULHERE: I don't know if it's in error,because--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR.MULHERE: Well,I mean--maybe I shouldn't have said that exclusively,because they
certainly did purchase that property to,A,prevent people that they perceived might otherwise be able to come
into their community and,B,to ensure that there wouldn't be residential development immediately adjacent to
the property,but they immediately,very quickly,began to look at other uses.
So to my knowledge,that was the basis,but I agree with you that it was broader than that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care about what happened after the fact. The community,to
purchase something,probably had to go out to all the community members because it would have been
something they probably had done with HOA money or something--
MR.MULHERE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or even CDD money,however they purchased it. But if it was purchased
for the intention of strictly prohibiting access and not allowing any other development on it,that's one thing,
and that seems to be what the gentleman previously initially said was the purpose for the purchase.
You had said it was purchased for the purpose of relocating the tennis facilities,which it doesn't
sound like that happened till months after the purchase was completed. And it looks like we found a
necessary reason for Mr.Yovanovich to come up. I was trying real hard to make sure I found something you
could comment on,Rich.
MR.YOVANOVICH: For the record,Rich Yovanovich. I was hoping you wouldn't.
I have--and I was not around in 2004,and Patrick was not around either,but we have minutes from
2004. They're very summary minutes. But those minutes clearly indicate that they would be improving that
property at the time they acquired it. It doesn't say specifically what those improvements were. But at the
public meeting when the HOA decided to purchase the property,it talked about future improvements to that
property.
So it wasn't purely an access issue. They intended always to improve that property. But,again,these
are--these are summary minutes. We don't have verbatim minutes from that time,but there was always the
intent to improve the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the portion of the summary minutes on the overhead so we
can read the language.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right here,where it says we're going to improve the property. Mr. Strain,
right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,I'm reading it now.The purchase of this property is considerably
cheaper than the mitigated land we tried to buy early. What was--what has that got to do--were you
looking at this property as mitigation?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Again,I wasn't around. Your question was,were they talking about solely
as an access play,and it was not. There's indication in those minutes that they planned on improving the
property. It wasn't going to be sitting as,you know,native vegetation--retention area of native vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the CDD is actually the entity that paid for the property.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I looked at the records.It's owned by the HOA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's owned by the HOA for the purchase by the CDD?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know any of the details of the acquisition. I can only--I can pull the
deed up if you'd like. I have it on my iPad,but it is owned by the HOA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. I've got the deed as well. It was a 2004 purchase.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
MR.MULHERE: So,again,with respect to the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slide that up a little bit so we can read what's on the second part
of that.
Page 11 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.YOVANOVICH: Does that work?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,that's fine. You loaned the money to the CDD to purchase it. The
CDD purchases it. You put the deed in your name,and then you pay back the CDD for the money?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Again,Mr. Strain,I don't know how--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,those are taxpayers'funds. I just was curious how you handled
them.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know. I wasn't the CDD's lawyer. I'm just--specifically the question
was,did we buy this purely just to avoid access for the developer. I just wanted to show you that there were
always plans to improve the property.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What I read into that first comment,they think that if they
leave the property untouched,somebody could build a road through it,but if we improve the property,
nobody will ever build a road through it. That's what I read into that comment.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Keeping in mind that there was another piece of property that they--I
believe they were not acquiring adjacent to it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you.
MR.MULHERE: And I did want to say that. So as a result of the concerns,comments that came
about after the Planning Commission,certainly I've learned more than I knew with respect to the history of
the acquisition of this process. So you know,my statement is probably too narrow at that time. I understand
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I understand what you're saying. No problem. And anything else,
Stan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we continue with your presentation,then we'll have questions
afterwards.
MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record,my name is Craig Smith. And for the court reporter,
that's S-m-i-t-h. No E's,no Y's. My family wasn't that rich.
I became first involved with this project back in November of 2004 when they purchased it just to
take a look at the property to be able to be seen from an environmental standpoint what could be done with it,
what the wetland/upland issues were with that project.
We actually had a--some concerns have been expressed that we never seriously evaluated moving
the tennis courts over towards the driving range.We actually had a pre-application meeting with the Army
Corps of Engineers on November 21st,2012.
And that map shows the map that we gave to the Corps and spoke from showing where the existing
courts were and where we were thinking of moving them,which is immediately adjacent to the driving range.
The upshot from that meeting was the Corps said, if you want to do that,you'll need to demonstrate
to us that there is no upland alternative available to you since that site is entirely wetland and,since it is an
existing mitigation area,we may well not approve a permit for that location.
Subsequent to that,we prepared the ERP application which gets transmitted to the Corps.The Corps
requires,as you are well aware,a detailed alternative sites analysis when you are impacting wetlands.
And this is just the cover page of the methodology that the Corps requires current projects to use as
far as evaluating a site if you were impacting wetlands and your project is not water dependent. It's basically
a three-step process. The first process is you screen in to the area of your geographic concerns. Obviously
increasing parking out in Golden Gate Estates somewhere would not work for this project, so you narrow it
down. Once you do that,you look for potentially practicable sites.
And for this particular project,not only did we look for practicable sites on the property,we looked
at all the adjacent ownerships because,obviously, if we're going to do parking for the clubhouse,it needs to
be close to the existing property.
That map shows the 16 different sites we looked at. Most of them were determined not to be
practicable because,for instance,the offsite locations we would have to buy a neighbor's golf course or
Page 12 of 48
November 17, 2016
neighbor's wetland preserve,which I think we can all agree upon that,that would not be practicable.
We looked at all the other non-developed or nonresidential components in Naples Heritage,
determined that those sites also would not be practicable. For instance,one possible location is where the
maintenance facility is up along Collier Boulevard. In order to use that,you'd have to relocate the
maintenance facility someplace else or do away with it,plus you had access issues of trying to get back into
it.
That analysis led us to three sites that are practicable;in other words,there's a potential that you
could actually do them given logistics,costs,and existing technology.
The methodology then requires you to evaluate each one of those three sites in terms of wetland
impacts and impacts to listed species. None of the three sites would have any significant listed species
impact,so that wasn't an issue.
In order to look at wetland impacts,you prepare a conceptual site plan for each site,determine not
only the acreage of wetland impacts by each site plan,but also the functional value of those wetlands,and
that's required to be done using the UMAM process.
We ran through those numbers,and once you run through those numbers,the site that has the lowest
credit requirement is considered by the Corps to be the least damaging practicable alternative site.Based on
the numbers,the 5.2-acre site was that site.
Just recently I prepared, in the last couple of days, sort of a preliminary cost analysis to also shed
some light on those three different sites. And if you look on the top one,that is the proposed site plan,and all
three sites were evaluated exactly the same,the same UMAM analysis,the whole nine yards. And basically
what you come up with is you have a UMAM requirement of.98 for the proposed site plan. The UMAM is
higher for both of the other two sites. In addition,we have the issue of the other two sites being located
within dedicated mitigation areas. Both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Management District
are not receptive to proposals that will impact existing mitigation areas,especially when those mitigation
areas are functionally working;have been up and running for many years.
The district also will require not only mitigation for--if we were to choose one of those two sites, if
it was permittable,not only would we have to mitigate from the direct impacts to the wetlands that are there,
we would also have to mitigate for the wetland impacts which those mitigation areas were designed to replace
many years ago.
So when you look at the--just from a cost perspective,assuming you could get a permit for any of
the three sites,the cost goes up substantially from 81,000 to 157,000 to 378,000 when you finally get to the
driving range alternative.
I've had conversations with the project reviewer at the local Corps office,and he has reviewed my
20-some-page analysis that was submitted to him. He agrees with those findings.
So that's how we got to the site we are at,and that's the process that we went through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe's got some questions.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To start with.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Smith,do you have the public notice that was sent regarding
this permit? Because here's where I'm confused. And I was not here the day that this previously came before
the Planning Commission. I was not a Planning Commission member. And where I'm confused is this
permit for purposes of expanding the parking lot. As you so note on Page 2 of your alternative analysis
where you say"project need"--
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --you get into clear detail about expanding the parking lot.
MR. SMITH: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So when I look at the alternative analysis,I'm looking at the
alternative analysis not for the mere fact of building tennis courts. It's for expanding the parking lot.
Now,on Page 1,you state,you're going to have associated parking,landscaping,and increased
parking and build a tennis facility. So which is it? Are you--are you--was the study predicated on
expanding the parking lot to meet the parking lot needs--
Page 13 of 48
November 17, 2016
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --or was it predicated on we want a new tennis center,we need to
expand the clubhouse and so,therefore,we want to expand the parking because--
MR. SMITH: They originally came to me and said,we need more parking and--
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Let's--
MR. SMITH: --that's what we wanted to do at the clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's focus on that. So your analysis is based--you just did the cost
analysis.
MR. SMITH: Yes. That's strictly environmental cost. Has no construction cost in it whatsoever.
Strictly environmental purposes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that environmental cost including relocating tennis courts or
just the expansion of the parking lot?
MR. SMITH: No. This is strictly to get the cost. If each one of those options were permitted by the
state and federal agencies,that is the mitigation environmental cost. It has nothing to do with physical
construction activities.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to rephrase my question: Alternative 10.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Shows the expansion of the parking lot to the west.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Let's just focus on the parking lot,not the tennis courts. Tennis
courts stay where they are. You just provide additional parking,which is what that alternative suggests; is
that correct?
MR. SMITH: Yes. Ten?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. SMITH: Yes. Ten was just to--was--as far as my analysis,was what wetland impacts would
be required to expand that parking lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the parking lot?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not move the tennis courts?
MR. SMITH: No,because the tennis courts are an upland--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So then you get into the other alternative,and you're talking
about tennis courts and parking lot. So it's apples and orange on your alternative analysis.
MR. SMITH: No. The tennis courts were relocated to another location in order to provide additional
parking spaces at the clubhouse. That's how the two of them tie together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Alternative 10.
MR. SMITH: Is strictly parking.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Strictly parking.
MR. SMITH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not moving the tennis courts.
MR. SMITH: Correct,at least as far as my analysis is--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. So we go to the alternative,which was your least damaging
alternative,and I clearly understand 13 where you said you couldn't move it across the street,but then you get
down to your LEDPA,and now you're--we've got Site 6, Site 10,and Site 13. 13 is your preferred
alternative--or correction. Site 6 is your preferred alternative.
MR. SMITH: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which includes both construction of tennis courts and parking?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And expansion of the parking lot into the existing tennis court area
now,correct?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. How does that equate to your Proposal 10 which is
Page 14 of 48
November 17, 2016
simply nothing more than just expanding the parking lot?
And just so you understand my background--and I'm sure Bob probably told you. I'm a retired
Army Corps of Engineers. I know the Corps very well. I know the 404 process,so...
MR.MULHERE: I think I--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I question the alternative analysis,and that's why I'd like to see what
the public notice was.
MR.MULHERE: I think I can answer that question,though. In that alternative,all that would
be--we'd still--his analysis deals strictly with impacts to--what's the cost and the impact to the wetland
areas in all the alternatives,all right. So if we did that in order to accommodate additional parking,we would
simply be impacting that area for parking.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand,Bob,but--
MR.MULHERE: That would be it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --the two alternatives are not equal.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I have a minute with the consultant for the response?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we had two reasons for Mr.Yovanovich to speak today.
MR.MULHERE: So while they're chatting--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'll go back again to the analysis of the cost analysis,because
they're not equal in the cost analysis either.
MR. SMITH: One point of clarification. The public notice,I do not have that in front of me.I
worked with the project manager,and the project purpose that is contained in that alternatives analysis is the
one contained in the public notice.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would expect that was.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I just would have liked to have seen what the public notice was,but I
would have to assume what is on Page 1 was what was the public notice.
MR. SMITH: Verbatim.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the project need specifically talks about the expansion of the
parking lot to accommodate parking needs,and then by happenstance,gee,we're going to now build some
tennis courts. So I don't--
MR.MULHERE: In that scenario--Joe,in that scenario,you wouldn't need to add the new tennis
courts. You would relocate parking,and they would,what--in that scenario where--the only thing we're
impacting there was for parking in that one scenario. But still,that alternative still evaluated only wetland
impacts. In all three scenarios it was what's the impact of the proposed improvement on the wetland areas.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you do an alternative analysis. On your Page 18,you come up
with the three what you believe are your best alternatives: Site 6,Site 10,and Site 13. I clearly understand
that. But Site 6 includes parking and tennis courts. Site 10 only includes the parking expanded to the west.
And did the site--if--let me ask this question--let me ask this question: If you were simply just to
accommodate the need for expanded parking,did the Corps tell you you could not--it was--the site visit
said expanding to the west was not an acceptable alternative?
MR. SMITH: They told me that we needed to document there was no upland available to do it and
that current policy,coming all the way down from Jacksonville,very,very,very strongly discouraged any
wetland impacts to any existing mitigation areas,which is what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much--what are your wetland impacts to the 5.2-acre tract that you're
proposing now?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: That was my next question. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: The direct impacts are two acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two acres? And what is your wetland impacts as shown in your report for
the parking on No. 10?
MR. SMITH: 1.25 acres of direct impact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So which is less wetland impact?
MR. SMITH: The purpose--what you do is you don't look at acreage. You look at functional value
Page 15 of 48
November 17,2016
as required by the Corps'2014 guidelines,and that says you look at the functional value,which is the acreage
times the UMAM score.
The wetlands on the 5.2-acre site that are impacted are in very poor condition. They are invaded by
exotics. They've been hydrologically altered.
The wetlands on either of the other alternatives have been cleaned up and maintained for 20 years.
So their functional score is much,much higher. That's why you get--the least environmental impact is
actually from one that impacts slightly more acreage of wetland as opposed to more function of wetland.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the quantity of wetlands is greater in the site you're proposing
that are going to be impacted,regardless of their value--
MR. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --than the quantity of impacts in the parking on the west side of No. 10?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at.
MR. SMITH: Yes,that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm sorry,Joe. I was trying to get to--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So let me go back,then,to clearly understand,this is not about--it
is about expanding the parking lot,but it is also about allowing for additional parking because we want to
make--expand facilities in the existing clubhouse and move the tennis courts?
MR. SMITH: Yes. It is to expand the ability--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because you don't say that on Page 2 for project purpose in
your alternative analysis. I just want to understand this.
MR.MULHERE: So to be clear,by relocating the tennis center,that frees up opportunity for
parking--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand,Bob.
MR.MULHERE: --and not impacting,because those are already impacted lands.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just saying clarity in the alternative analysis is needed. I mean,
this is sort of a bait and switch. But if this is what you're submitting as an official document to the
Corps--has this been accepted by the Corps?
MR. SMITH: As far as I know,they have reviewed it and they have agreed to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the public comment period closed?
MR. SMITH: Public comment period?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. SMITH: Oh,yes,a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And--but there was no Section 7 consultation required for
either site?
MR. SMITH: We have gone through the coordination--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They didn't elevate to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife for--
MR. SMITH: They asked for comments.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: They did?
MR. SMITH: The Fish and Wildlife Service responded back, said they had no concerns.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. I'm just saying--I mean,section--your Site 10
evaluation is not equal to the other two evaluations because site--your one alternative only includes
expansion of the parking lot. The tennis courts remain the same. I understand it from an alternative analysis,
and it is factual in that purpose in regards to environmental impacts,but it isn't for project purpose. Your
project purpose is to also construct tennis courts.
MR. SMITH: That is a necessary byproduct of expanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. Is it a byproduct of or is it the motivating factor?
MR.MULHERE: No. Actually, it came about--the motivating factor was parking,and then one
option for parking was to relocate the tennis center in order to free up area parking and other physical
improvements. So this was the process that evolved.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But Alternative 10 doesn't relocate the tennis courts.
Page 16 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.MULHERE: Because it doesn't need to if we just--if we get the parking,then we can use the
existing tennis courts. So in that scenario you wouldn't have to relocate.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to go back to the cost analysis. Did the cost analysis
between the three--was strictly 10--was strictly the environmental--
MR.MULHERE: All three were strictly the environmental impact costs;only environmental impact
costs.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because the Corps,you can also include total cost of the project.
MR.MULHERE: Yeah,you mentioned that;you know,the economics do come into play. And we
did look at the economics. That was partly why we looked at that site,but also it factors as the least
environmentally impacting site.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right.
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Okay. Bob,where are you standing with the balance of your presentation?
You've been going on about an hour now,so...
MR.MULHERE: I mean,I think we're done. I know there's questions,and I know there's public
comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we've got questions first,then we're going to have to have staff
report,and then public comment. And I just want to move forward,but I wanted to make sure you had ample
time to put everything on record you wanted to.
MR.MULHERE: I think so,Mr.Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now let's move to Planning Commission comments on the
presentation from the applicant. Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I noticed hardly anybody stood up when they asked who
wants to be sworn in to talk,and I thank you for that. I'm curious,is it possible to poll the people in here and
see how many showed up in favor and how many against?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That shouldn't have any bearing on our vote.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,it shouldn't.I'm just curious.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no objection to it if you want to do it by raise of hands.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,just by raise of hands.
(Show of hands.)
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many of you are opposed to this?
(Show of hands.)
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And how many are in favor?
Okay. Just curious.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to remind the Planning Commissioners,this is not a popularity
contest.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're not going to talk,so I don't know why they're here.
I just was curious about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any other questions, Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom,did you have some?
MR.EASTMAN: It seems that the majority of the residents want the new project. Those--I'm
assuming those against it are living nearby and feel they'll be adversely impacted. And it's--it comes down
to doing proper mitigations for those folks.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that a statement?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,but that's not within the purview of the Land Development
Code.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That was a statement,right?Not a question.
MR.EASTMAN: So my question would be,is it possible,Rich,that those that are impacted would
not have to pay for the improvements?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Usually,Mr.Eastman,as you know,we talk about compatibility,correct?
Page 17 of 48
November 17, 2016
And when we talk about compatibility,we talk about is there a way to buffer,shield,and make uses
compatible. I would venture to guess that in a lot of nice communities there are residences around the
clubhouses that exist in those community,tennis courts that exist in those communities.
What we're talking about,if you look at the distance between the nearby residents and where the
courts and the build--the restroom facilities actually exist,there is,I think,approximately 150 feet,and you
also have a buffer and retained native vegetation. You have only hours of operation during the day,none at
night. So I would say that from a compatibility standpoint,as testified to by Mr.Mulhere,there is no
negative impact with this from a compatibility standpoint.
And we've addressed parking. We've addressed all of the concerns--and there have been
modifications based upon--originally there were lights that were associated with this,and it's changed.
We've accommodated that. So we are compatible,and that's the criteria you look at.
I'm glad Mr. Strain has said that it's not a popularity contest,because I've been saying that for years.
But,you know,what happens is mostly those who come in--most people who show up for a project are
usually those who oppose,and they seem to have the loudest voice when there are presentations.
And it was important to us that the Planning Commission ultimately knows that the loudest voice in
this community is in favor and that,although it's not a criteria,we just want to make sure that the negative
voices don't--are not given any more credibility versus our position as well.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Rich?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why was this sent back to us?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because some opposition evolved--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The loudest voice?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --after it left us and went before the Board of County Commissioners.
MR.MULHERE: Well,in fairness,also,though,I think one of the--what was said at the board
meeting was that there--also there had been changes to the site plan. I mean,yeah,we made the changes in
direct response to the comments from residents of Colonial Court,but--so the--I think it was Commissioner
Henning made the motion,and it was approved to remand it back to the Planning Commission. I think he
said,you've made some changes to the site plan. That was what he said.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll thank him when I see him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Give him my thanks,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then let's move to your plan you've got here on the overhead.
MR.MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had said previously that the natural areas that's to the north and to the
east were going to retain their native vegetation and they were going to be used for water management;is that
correct?
MR.MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is a--more of an uplands or less wetland area than the other
examples for the alternative analysis,how do you expect the native vegetation to survive in an area that is
obviously being modified on its surface for water management reception? You've got species that--they're
uplands,for example,slash pine.As soon as you drive heavy equipment across their roots,they're going to
die.
And if this is going to be what's considered part of the mitigation to provide Mr.Huber and the others
on Colonial Avenue(sic)with some form of more of a barrier or a buffer,how are you going to guarantee
that that's going to happen based on what I just asked?
MS.GREEN: Gina Green again.
The water management system for this is sheet flow into those natural areas,and we have now also
looked at incorporating the lake to the north that was not in the original water management of Naples
Heritage. It was a lake that was actually dug after the initial construction in an upland area to provide more
Page 18 of 48
November 17,2016
fill for the site. So we have incorporated that lake and added a control structure over on the west side of that.
The areas that are in the natural area,the majority of those areas are actually wetland. The one
directly north of the parking lot and the tennis center adjacent to the north property line is actually wetland,
and a portion of the site adjacent to Mr.Huber's house there on the east side,that is actually a wetland and
upland combination. The actual ground elevations are very--they're within tenths of each other.
It's considered upland but ground elevations. So these areas will receive the water management,will
flow to the lake,and discharge to the west to the natural wetlands that are to the west of the lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to use catch basins and outfalls?
MS.GREEN: There'll be an outfall--there'll be a head wall weir structure in the lake that we're
adding into that lake because it's uncontrolled presently. If you pull this--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to put a catch basin or an outfall into the natural
area that will overflow into the lake?
MS.GREEN: Correct. There will be actually a catch basin system underneath the parking lot since
it bisects it. It will allow the water to sheet--flow underneath that parking area into that lake and outfall. So
it's all connected to a water management system. It will bleed down. I've already had meetings with South
Florida regarding this design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned that this--these are going to be receiving water,the two
natural areas,by sheet flow.
MS.GREEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see the double ring around those natural areas? That indicates
usually a change in an elevation. So there's not a berm.It's not representing a berm--
MS.GREEN: No. Those are just--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --it's representing a drop?
MS.GREEN: --the contours as far as top of bank for the development of the tennis courts
themselves getting back down to natural ground.And then we have a berm around the entire perimeter to
contain the water management boundary as we always do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the vegetation dies out,what do you propose to do?
MS.GREEN: If the vegetation dies out,I'm sure the club will be replanting. We have--you have to
remember,within this you've got the 25-foot--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm--your telling me you're sure the club will be replanting doesn't work,
but I'm assuming Mr.Mulhere knows where I'm going.
MR.MULHERE: Yeah. I mean--excuse me. I think that the intention is to retain the vegetation
once the exotics have been removed. If that vegetation dies out,we can replant and we can live with a
condition that requires us to do that.
MS.GREEN: But just remember,in our mitigation with the Corps and everybody else,all those
natural areas are considered impacts,so we're mitigating for that and all,but we're leaving them natural to
maintain the natural effect of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point.
MR.MULHERE: He's talking about protection to the adjacent neighbors,yes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Thank you,Bob.
The language that you've utilized in the text of the PUD amendment indicates that the facility that's
going to be the building that's going to be on the tennis courts would only be used for restrooms?
MR.MULHERE: Restrooms,and there's actually a small tennis storage facility for,you know,balls
and tennis rackets and those types of things.There's a little covered area that faces the--so they can get out
of the rain. It's on the side that faces the tennis courts. So there's a little cantilever there;people will be able
to,if it rains or inclement weather--or get out of the sun.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read this to you.Reaction area labeled RA on the master plan
limited to tennis courts--
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --restrooms, landscaping,and stormwater facilities for use by all residents
and guests.
Page 19 of 48
November 17, 2016
MR.MULHERE: Yes,I wrote that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you're going to put something more than that in there,how do you
think you're going to get through our SDP department?
MR.MULHERE: Well, let me ask you a question.Are you suggesting that I needed to say
restrooms and a small storage area?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to say anything beyond what's written in that paragraph
that you intend to do,Bob,because that's written very strictly. There's no "and other accessory uses"or
something like that,which I can understand why. But if you're going to mean other things, let's just put it in
there so we're covered by it.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. I have no--I just--we wanted to minimize--we wanted to appease the
concerns that there wouldn't be a snack bar. I can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to--I don't want to mislead people,and if you don't put
everything there,then try to put it in later on,someone might construe that as something that was outside the
approval process.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. We can add some language to that. I don't know if you want me to do that
right now;I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,there's more.
MR.MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just get on with the rest of it of that nature.
On the plan that's on the overhead right now,on the north side you have a 5-foot sidewalk leading to
Colonial Court. Is there a sidewalk on Colonial Court?
MS.GREEN: No,there is not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the south side of that entrance road,you have an unlabeled two lines
going to Colonial Court that tie into the landscape buffer. What is that--
MS.GREEN: That's actually the water management berm lines to get grade back to the elevation of
what the existing cul-de-sac is.Because the area adjacent to Mr.Huber's home is down at natural grade,we
have to build a berm up around and contour that back into the entry road,which is up on the level of what
Colonial Court sits at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Where it says 25-foot landscape buffer area--
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in that pattern,I mean,it doesn't have a dimensional arrow on it,but it
just is written there between a couple of lines,and those lines change shape as you follow them around the
south and then back up to the west and up the north,yet on your master plan you have a 10-foot buffer called
out. Are you putting a 25-foot buffer on the west or a 10-foot buffer?
MR.MULHERE: Yes--no,25.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you need to change your master plan. If you go look at the master
plan--
MR.MULHERE: Oh,I'm sorry. On the west?I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me--the 25-foot landscape
buffer was adjacent to Colonial Court.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I'm saying is if--
MR.MULHERE: Oh,yes,on the west--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your line work on this is real confusing.
MR.MULHERE: Adjacent to the outside perimeter,the existing other agricultural lot that we don't
own,that's a 10-foot buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When--this is going to have to come back for consent anyway, so
would you clean the line work up on this plan?
MR.MULHERE: On the master plan or the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the detail plan for the tennis courts,we shouldn't--someone could
easily make the assumption that you've got a 25-foot landscape buffer around this whole thing,and I know
that wasn't your intention.
MR.MULHERE: Well,that's why we put the other exhibit in,the landscape exhibit,which says it's
Page 20 of 48
November 17,2016
adjacent--25-foot buffer adjacent to. I'll clear it up. How about that? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm asking.
Now let's get into your language that you're proposing. I think you're going to clean up that
recreation area,your description. Then when you get into your 3.6.F,recreation area labeled RA on the
master plan,you talk about various setbacks,but on the master plan you have setbacks that are greater than
this. They're done to provide,as Mr.Yovanovich clearly indicated,more compatibility.
Somehow those setbacks need to be locked in.And they're not done so by that language that you've
got on 3.6F. In fact,they're sufficiently less on that.
MR.MULHERE: Those were general,I mean--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but this says,for the area labeled RA on the master plan. There's
only one area RA.
MR.MULHERE: I think we can be very specific as to the setback for the tennis courts and the
setback for the structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the lighting discussion and the height discussion--let's see.
Where's--yeah,the height's the next one.
MR.MULHERE: Next paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lighting one,by the way,the lighting's only going to be utilized--I'm
just trying to figure out when. If you open at 7 a.m.and you close at dusk,why do you need the lighting?
What's the lighting?
MR.MULHERE: Well,there could be the need to go in there and do repairs,there could be trash
collection,those kinds of things,maintenance in the morning when it's dark,you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I didn't know. So you're planning on maintaining the tennis courts off
hours?
MR.MULHERE: Anything could happen that would require some security lights. All we're talking
about is security lights. It's just a question--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about using bollards instead of aerial lighting that goes up
high? Now,that's one of the conditions in Golden Gate Estates,and it's a rural area out there.
MR.MULHERE: Are you talking about four feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,about 4-foot high.That's one of the restrictions for--
MR.MULHERE: I don't think that would be a problem at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item concerning the maximum height shall be limited to
one story,not to exceed 12-foot zoned height.Have you verified the crown of the road that you'd have to
measure from for that 12-feet zoned height?
MR.MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Gina.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm asking,we have another project that was approved in
relationship,and it turns out the crown of the road is really messing things up because it was an older road
system.
MR.MULHERE: So the question relates to the height of the building,the 12-foot, is that--that's
measured from--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be from the nearest,I would assume,the crown of the road.That's
how the other ones are that we're familiar with. Where do you think you're measuring this from in this case?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would be from BFE.
MS.GREEN: No,from finished grade.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no. Right. I'm sorry.I meant actually height,actually height. Does
3-foot give you enough in actual height? Because if your finished grade of your--and you're right,it's actual
we're talking about,not zoned. Does finished grade give you enough in your measurement of actual when
your actual's got to start from the crown of the road?
MS.GREEN: If the actual goes from the crown of the road,the crown of the road--are we talking
Colonial Court or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the nearest road,I would assume.
MS.GREEN: Okay. The nearest road,that crown of that road is actually--sits even a little bit
Page 21 of 48
November 17, 2016
higher.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under hours of operation, 7 a.m.to dusk,what's dusk? I mean,I
know--we all talk about it,but what--
MR.MULHERE: Sunset.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sunset. Then why don't we just say something more measurable.
MS.GREEN: Actually,dusk has been used across the state for swimming pools,everything.Dawn
to dusk is a very common operating time for swimming pools that aren't allowed night swimming. They have
operation times of dawn to dusk,and it's predominantly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What time is dusk today?
MR.MULHERE: It changes.
MS.GREEN: Dusk today is probably--because--about,like, 5:30 because the sun sets around
5:45.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that Eastern standard or daylight savings?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't the same then.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get one at a time?I'm having trouble.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please refrain from comments.
MR.MULHERE: Let me just say a couple things.What we had in there originally was dawn to
dusk.We moved it to seven a.m. We clarified that time.I see your point.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll take sunset,okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. That's all I'm asking. Something that's defmable.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How about dark?
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Dark is different.
MR.MULHERE: I mean, it changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last time we talked on this project I asked some very specific
questions at the last Planning Commission meeting,and a gentleman that answered them was Mr.Dorbad.I
asked,first of all,anybody from the public like to speak on this item today,and there were no public speakers
at that time.
And I said,hearing none,I have one question that I do need answered. I need to have someone put
that they were sworn under oath that Mr.and Mrs.Huber had knowledge of this action going on today and
then discussion was held. If someone could come up and provide that testimony,that would be excellent.
Mr.Mulhere: They were notified,obviously,through all the usual. I'll let Patrick talk about the
specific context. Thank you.
Mr.Dorbad: Good morning,Mr.Chairman. I'm Patrick Dorbad. I'm the general manager. I spoke
with all residents,including Joe,and Joe was not truly in favor of it when we started it,but we were sensitive
to the landscaping area and were working with him regularly as soon as via email this week,just this week.
So we're very sensitive to him. He's a good man,and he's supporting the project that we want to do
overall,and we're working with him.
And then he went further on to say,from Joe Huber,generally we had a meeting as soon as
yesterday,and Bob reported that there were several residents in the meeting,and everybody was frowning on
a wall in that area.
It seemed to paint the picture,based on the questions that were specifically asked--and I don't know
Mr.Huber. I never spoke to him prior to the last meeting. I'd simply looked his address up on the appraiser's
report,because if I owned his house,I would be real concerned. And it surprised me he had never contacted
this board.That's why I asked the question.
The picture that was painted it seemed to think that everything was being worked out.Mr.Huber was
on board. You know,that's not what happened,and I don't appreciate the direction this discussion seemed to
go when that may not have been exactly as we've learned now.
MR.MULHERE: Well,I think that it's all a matter of perspective in the response. I think Patrick's
perspective at that time was we would be able to work out any issues. I'm not saying that was,in fact,the
case.
As it turns out,you know,there are some residents on Colonial Court--I don't know if all of them,
Page 22 of 48
November 17,2016
but there's certainly some of them that do not support this project even with the mitigation that we have
proposed so,you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I've got at this time. I think Joe had actually looked
at the same alternative I was concerned about,that it didn't seem logical the way you're proceeding when you
had that alternative available to you. But,anyway,I think that's been fleshed out.
So anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,but I would just like to apologize for interrupting before.
I'll try to restrain myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't be any fun, Stan. That just wouldn't be your nature,so we're
used to it.
Ending there,is there a staff report?
MR.JOHNSON: Thank you,Mr. Chair.
For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning.
Staff reviewed the petition,recommends approval,recommends approval of everything that was
submitted in your packet.
The conceptual site plan that was shown today,as well as the one that was in your packet,as long as
there's a 25-foot landscape buffer,that would be acceptable.
And also either yesterday or two days ago I forwarded an email to you from Mr.Brown,and I just
wanted to clarify that Mr.Brown is--that letter is not to be construed as a letter of objection.
Staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to public speakers,which will be next up,we're going
to take our break for the court reporter for 15 minutes. We'll resume at 10:40,and we'll go to public speakers.
Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take your seats. We'd like to
resume the meeting,everyone.
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,when we broke for the last 15 minutes,we left off moving into public
speakers,and we'll start with registered public.
Eric,do you have any registered speakers?
MR.JOHNSON: Yes,I do,Mr.Chair.
Before we begin,I just wanted to clarify. Our recommendation is still a recommendation of approval.
The conceptual site plan seems appropriate, seems acceptable;however,a more detailed review would be
conducted at the time of SDP. So I just wanted to clarify.
Our first registered speaker is Joseph Huber,followed by Mr.Walt Kulbacki.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Mr.Huber,and all public speakers,as you come up to either
mike, state your name,and if it's complicated--we understand how to spell Smith. And maybe,Mr.Huber,
we probably understand how to spell your name.
So if you could just--I think,Mr.Huber,you and I previously communicated. You wanted 10 to 12
minutes,and that's fine. So it's all yours,sir.
MR.HUBER: Thank you very much.
Again,my name is Joe Huber. Last name is H-u-b-e-r,middle initial V,as in Vincent.
I want to thank you for giving us the time to talk here. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and--who
is the most impacted. If you look at the site plan,you'll see that I'm Lot No. 1. If you could put that up,
which shows the location of the lots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put the new site plan up,if you could,Eric,and we'll just leave it on the
overhead for the speakers.
MR.HUBER: And I'm also here on behalf of the rest of the residents of Colonial Court. There are
six residents of Colonial Court. They're all here objecting to the location of the tennis courts.
I want to make something clear,because I think there's a lot of people here that are--as was taken
Page 23 of 48
November 17,2016
earlier,a poll indicating that they're here in support of the project.
The people on Colonial Court are not opposed to the enhancement of the facilities at Naples Heritage
Golf and Country Club. What we are opposed is the putting of the location of the tennis courts directly in
either our side yards or across the street from our houses,and that's what our objections are.
As you have learned and was not part of the original Planning Commission meeting here,this is not
all about adding parking. I think that's already been pointed out. This development was to increase--it's
called the campus expansion project. Part of it--there was a brochure distributed--yeah,that's it--which
includes taking the existing tennis courts out and putting a fitness facility administration building and
expanding the clubhouse,the pool area,and so on.That was part of the campus expansion. In order for that
to be accomplished,they had to relocate the tennis courts. And it's stated exactly in that brochure that that's
the reason that the tennis courts have to be relocated.
We have--the existing tennis courts are located near the clubhouse. It's approximately not quite two
miles,but fairly close,from the existing tennis courts to the site--proposed site that you're looking at here
today. That means that people are going to have to transit to that area from the clubhouse to these new tennis
courts,okay.
Why didn't we--you know,one of the questions that I've been asked is why wasn't the
objection--why didn't you hear our detailed objections before? And the simplest way I can explain that to
you is that there were discussions.We assumed,in good faith,that the information that was being provided to
us was accurate and was transparent and inclusive of what was going to take place.
And we found--I found out--and I found out after the hearing when I was asked to submit a letter
of no objection to the conservation easement that runs along my property all the way to Naples Heritage
Drive. There's a conservation easement that,as part of this package,it was presented to the Board of County
Commissioners that needs to be vacated,and I have filed--and all of the residents of Colonial Court have
filed objections to the vacation of that conservation easement.
That was put there to--specifically to preserve that area as conservation and to provide a natural
buffer between there and the property line,okay.
The misrepresentations,there are many;too numerous to mention,but a couple of them have already
been pointed out. Again,what prompted our not responding was we were told that there was no way that the
Army Corps of Engineers would ever consider any other site other than this proposed site. I have found out
consequently that that's false.
I have talked to the Army Corps of Engineers.And I'm not an engineer,and I don't understand
necessarily the process,but I can tell you that they have told me,quite frankly,that if you have the ability to
trade acreage of comparable areas,that they will consider a transfer of those areas.It might be more
expensive;there may be more mitigation. There may be cost involved,but they look at the total project,and
they were very receptive when I finally contacted. And I also filed objections with them as well. I'm not sure
exactly where that is other than they said it was referred to legal.
We were also told--and that was one of the primary reasons. Also,you have already pointed out,at
the original Planning Commission meeting--which I did not attend,and I did not actually receive notice. I'm
a part-time resident. I live in Pennsylvania,and if a notice was sent there,it may have gotten thrown out,but
I did not know of it. We left after Easter,and I haven't been back--today's my first day back here in Naples.
We were--in that hearing it was indicated that the tennis courts were there to resolve a parking
issue. I think that's already been pointed out,clearly,that's not the case. The purpose of the relocation of the
tennis courts is so they can build the facilities and enhance the facilities at the clubhouse.
The other misrepresentation--you heard testimony today,the 5.2-acre tract at the previous Planning
Commission meeting,as already was pointed out,that it was purchased for this purpose of building this
tennis center. That is incorrect.Certainly when they purchased it--and you heard the testimony of that. And
I have a copy of the newsletter which I have here which was subsequently--this was purchased in--I think
the closing was in November of 2000 when the transfer of the deed occurred--2004.
The announcement was exactly what you heard today,because there was concern about
development.Nothing mentioned in there about building a tennis center. It may have been discussed in some
internal meeting but certainly wasn't available to--wasn't discussed with anybody in the organization,
Page 24 of 48
November 17,2016
certainly nobody on Colonial Court.
Actually,I was quite pleased when they purchased that property because I realized that it
would--that that would protect us and provide us an additional area of natural vegetation there.But we
understood always that it could possibly be developed but not by our own clubhouse.
The purpose of buying it was to actually protect that from happening and,yet,the Naples Heritage
Golf and Country Club plans to develop it now and do exactly what another developer would have done.
Totally inconsistent with the purpose.
We were told by--that there would be no lighting on the tennis courts,and you heard how they
revised the plan inconsistent. But if you look at the original ordinance that was presented to this committee in
September,you'll see that that ordinance,as it was drafted,indicated that there would be multiple uses. It
included pickleball,bocce ball,indoor and outdoor fitness facilities,pro shop,and similar uses; it included
outdoor lighting as well as amplified sound. In fact,there was a discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting that they would have night tennis there.
Now,the sad part is that we met with the manager of Naples Heritage and discussed the limitations
of that. There were commitments I got in writing,they're in the file,from him indicating that wasn't going to
happen yet it happened in the ordinance. It was proposed. And had I not--had we not objected,that's
exactly how it would have passed. It would have been terribly unfortunate,but that's exactly how it would
have passed. All of these have raised concerns.
You heard about an alternative analysis. We first learned of this alternative analysis--even though
we were arguing that it made sense,there's got to be another location that could be used. We just learned
about that several months ago that this study was actually done. In fact,many of the people who are residents
of Naples Heritage aren't even aware that this study was done,that there is alternative locations that are
available.
Okay. Now I'm not an engineer,and I read the report,but I think it's pretty clear that there were three
sites identified. One of--both of the other two sites other than the proposed site here make much more sense
for everybody concerned in the community. They certainly make much more sense and certainly have no
impact on the people on Colonial Court.
Okay. The whole character of our neighborhood--and there are some pictures in--I know that the
commissioners have pictures in the file because I submitted them--just to give you flavor,because I know
when you look at it from an aerial point of view you don't get maybe necessarily the perspective,but this is a
unique part of single-family residential area of Naples Heritage.
Cypress Point is a separate non-profit association of the single-family homeowners. And if you look
at that,this is--what's shown here is where the proposed entrance from Colonial Court is going to go into
these tennis courts,a rough picture of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you remove that picture,where's the road on this picture?
MR.HUBER: It's to the left of that tree.We'll show you the road here in a second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the very end where the trees turn to the left,what is this the end
of? Is it the end of your house property?
MR.HUBER: Yes. That's where my property ends and the preserve starts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the area between the tree and the fence,according to the aerials I
looked at,was the area cleared where preserves should have been left.
MR.HUBER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your testimony previously said that that 25 feet was preserve area that
was to be left natural for the benefit of buffers and whatever,but that's not natural.
MR.HUBER: Yeah,it was that way,as you pointed out when you asked the question. That's the
way it was when our house was built,and that's the way it's been.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I looked to make sure that if it was you that did it,that's
different than if somebody else did it. And it looks like it was done at the time Colonial Court and all the area
was cleared for their infrastructure.
But what I'm trying to suggest is that this isn't a preserve that's benefiting you from a view
perspective or a buffer perspective. In fact,the only benefit of it at this time seems to be to expand your grass
Page 25 of 48
November 17, 2016
area is what it's been used for.
MR.HUBER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.HUBER: There's some other pictures.Again,they may not be coming through too much of the
overhead of the street. You can try another one. This is the perspective of Colonial Court looking down the
street. Okay. Everything to the right--as you can see,the first part of the street is maintained as a
conservation area. The first 40 or 50 feet or more is maintained as such.
My house is all the way at the end of the street. All of the other residents,their homes are to the left.
So it gives you a little bit of perspective. But this is the only cul-de-sac in the single-family residence in
Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club.
When my wife and I,when we purchased this lot--and my wife was raised on a farm. She
particularly liked this location simply because it was very private and because there was--it was surrounded
by woods and preserve. And we paid extra to buy that lot at the time.
So the whole character--my point is that the whole character of the neighborhood's going to change
because now that privacy isn't going to exist,okay. What we see now--what we'll see across,despite
whether or not we have a buffer,we're going to see people driving their cars in to go to a tennis facility,okay.
And the wildlife that we view,the birds that we view--somebody said there was no woodpeckers.I
hear a woodpecker every morning in the morning.No wildlife observed. We've had panthers come through
in our backyard. We've had a bear in that area.
So the fact that there's--I don't know--again,I'm not an expert on environmental,but we have seen
those things in that area.
Cypress Point is a unique community and,as I mentioned,the property was purchased,and we paid
more. This is a picture from my driveway looking up. The entrance will be right as you see the cul-de-sac
turnaround there,is where it will be.
The neighbors will not have the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property. We'll be living
across--instead of a wooded area,we'll be living across from tennis facilities,ball machines,people yelling,
noise,and the attendant events that they have there. It was mentioned,they'll have three or four of them a
year,okay.
The only people that drive on Naples--Colonial Court now are the residents,people that need to do
servicing,the postman,do servicing. Some people get lost and turn around there.
As was pointed out,there are no sidewalks.My grandchildren ride their bikes up this street.People
walk there every day on that street. There are no sidewalks,yet we're going to have traffic coming in going
into this tennis facility. I don't think people are going to change their habits of what they're doing.
Okay. The safety issues. I already pointed those out. I wanted to address the staff report because I
think that--I'm not sure when you talk about traffic,one of the conclusions of the staff report was that it
would not enhance--it wouldn't increase the traffic in Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. Well,it may
not increase the traffic totally in the club,but it's certainly going to increase the flow of traffic when it comes
down this direction.
People who want to play tennis are going to come down there. They're going to turn onto--from
Naples Heritage Drive onto Colonial Court,and then they're going to enter the tennis facility.
Okay. I have concerns about the water issues.I know that during the rainy season there's standing
water in the preserve. I'm not sure how those going to address(sic). Again,I'm not an engineer but,
obviously,there has to be a plan to deal with those issues. Okay.
And,finally--not filially,but if this was a homeowner trying to put a tennis court on his facility,it
would violate the covenants that we all signed with Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,and now the
association wants to do exactly what a homeowner couldn't do. We feel that's a problem. Okay.
As we pointed out,I think our argument is--and those are some of our major concerns. There's been
no good-faith effort. You heard a lot of testimony here today about--from Craig Smith regarding the studies
they've done. And,again,I'm not an engineer,I don't know the numbers. But what I can tell you is in talking
to the Army Corps of Engineers,that--and to the county,that there's been no application for another site
submitted.
Page 26 of 48
November 17,2016
Now,if--you know,I learned a long time ago,if you don't get up and try to do the right thing,you
may get rejected,but you should do that. Really,what I think this boils down to--and we had a meeting with
Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club earlier today--or earlier this week,on Tuesday,and we were
listening,that is the people in Colonial Court.
And what the ultimate conclusion here is,it was all about the money. It would be more costly to put
it there. Now,I don't know what the total costs were going to be. There might be more mitigation in these
other sites,but let's look at the overall cost of building the facility. It does not belong here. This is a
single-family residential neighborhood,and it's going to be altered irrevocably by putting tennis facilities
here.
Yes,when you buy property,does it make sense for somebody to have a tennis facility near a
single-family residence,yeah. But when you go into a development and purchase a property,you know it's
going to be there. The people that live on Naples Heritage Road bought because they wanted a view of the
golf course because the golf course is in their backyard,but they knew that when they bought it. The people
on Colonial Court bought it for what it is today. And it's not some other developer. It's your own association
trying to put a facility that's going to impact our properties.
The value of our properties,in my view--and I have somebody looking at it now,but that will
definitely be impacted in a negative way. Somebody mentioned,well,because the facilities at the clubhouse
are going to be improved--that was one of the arguments I made--it's going to impact us.But people
wanting what my wife and I wanted,what the rest of the people of Colonial Court wanted when they bought
that property,isn't going to be available anymore. So anybody wanting that is certainly not going to pay for
that unless they want to be a tennis player.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Mr.Huber,we've gone about twice as long as you and I had originally
agreed,so I'd like you to wrap it up, if you could.
MR.HUBER: Yeah. The only thing I would conclude is the criteria for amending the PUD
requirements. And I know you're well aware of them,but I thought it would be important to cover those. It
says,consider the suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to the
physical characteristics of the land and the surrounding area. Traffic access,drainage, sewer,water,and other
utilities.
Will the proposed PUD rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Okay.This
is a residential area.
Will the proposed change adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood? It's going
to certainly impact my living conditions.
Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic
deemed incompatible? We have no traffic now other than the residents as I mentioned earlier.
Will the proposed change create drainage problems? I already talked about that.
Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
And is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the community?
We're a residential neighborhood,not a recreational area.
Whether it's impossible to fmd another location. And that's the key here. There are other locations;
they should pursue that. What we ask you to do is to--just in wrapping it up,is to reject the application,send
them back to the drawing board,let them look at the other sites and make a good-faith effort and make an
application.There are other alternatives. It doesn't need to stop the existing development.
And defer--if, in fact,you conclude that--if you conclude that you're going to approve this
application as they've suggested the changes,we suggest you minimize the impact. What about looking at
alternatives other than entering off of Colonial Court? What options are there that exist there? What about
building a wall for the noise issues in addition to the buffers?
Those are considerations I proposed. They've been rejected. Not that we want that. We would
prefer them not to be there. But if it doesn't go our way,we want to minimize that impact. And I don't think
those are unreasonable requests.
Again,thank you for your time and the consideration today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before you leave,Mr.Huber,does anybody have any
Page 27 of 48
November 17, 2016
questions?Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes,I have a question.
Mr.Huber,you showed a picture--I'm up here--of the tennis--of the expansion of the fitness
facilities and the pool.
MR.HUBER: Yeah. Flip it over.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I am now confused again because you said that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mike,too,when you respond,Mr.Huber. Sony.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That--the other--Eric,the other picture,the one with the pool.
Your statement on the record was this is being proposed to be constructed in what now is the existing
tennis courts?
MR.HUBER: No,no,no. The existing tennis courts is the other side here. I'm sorry. He put the
wrong--that's my fault. He had the wrong site. That's what's being proposed for the existing tennis area.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR.HUBER: The administration building and fitness center.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then let's go back to the Site Plan 13,and the alternative analysis
shows the expansion of a parking lot. Which is it?
MR.HUBER: Well,I think they're going to expand the parking lot as well. That's part of where the
confusion here is.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I don't see anything--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be a question we might want to bring the applicant back. Not
right now,Bob. After we fmish with public speakers.But,Joe,we'll have--during rebuttal we'll bring the
applicant back up,and you can focus on that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to clarify that. That is what's being proposed to be
constructed?
MR.HUBER: Yeah. The alternative analysis--it's interesting in looking at it. If you notice,the
date is dated April of 2016. This project was voted for approval in March of 2016.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Mr.Huber?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple,sir.
In your discussions that you just presented to us,one of the statements you made was the previous
discussions were relied on. What previous discussions specifically are you referring to in relationship to what
you had relied on for not showing up at the last meeting or not going further with your objections prior to the
last meeting?
MR.HUBER: That there was no alternative that existed to locate the tennis courts. We bought
that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your objection wasn't based on the site plan that they were presenting.
It was based on the fact that the whole idea of putting it there was where your concern was;that was
your--that you relied on them having what, sought out all the alternatives they could have possibly used and
that there wasn't any?
MR.HUBER: That's why we did not oppose it,and when we did meet prior to--had discussions
with Patrick--and not all of us were involved in some of those discussions. The one meeting that I had with
Craig Smith was with Leon Case,who's one of my neighbors here. There was only the three of us,and
Patrick,was at that meeting discussing what the plan was.
But all of this was based on the--on not knowing that there was an alternative location.That's why
there's a site analysis. So the alternative analysis was never--we never knew about that. I don't know how
many people did know about it--but that there were other locations that could have been looked at,and that
was our position from day one. Can't you find somewhere else? No,we can't. The Army Corps of
Engineers says that it can't be done. Well,you know,when you rely on that information and you make
decisions based on that information,obviously it's going to change how you respond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the point now.And then,another question--and,Eric,would
you go back to the newsletter that was there before you put all the pictures on.
Page 28 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.JOHNSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you blow that up on the lower right-hand corner.
MR.JOHNSON: Yeah,this is the part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Notice down towards the bottom,right before the value of the
$205,000 it says,the board of trustees has no immediate plans for this land but wanted to protect the
community now and provide for our own needs in the future. What did you think that statement meant?
MR.HUBER: That,obviously,you don't buy(sic)200-some thousand dollars to buy without
planning to use it for some purpose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.HUBER: Not to--you know,you have to remember at the time,this expansion,campus
expansion,was never contemplated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would you think would have been a use that would have possibly
gone there,then,if it wasn't for a use associated with the overall community?
MR.HUBER: They could have used it to accomplish what we're suggesting they do,take this land
as--and trade it on behalf and keep it in the character that it currently exists.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trade it to whom?
MR.HUBER: If they wanted to develop the land for what they're proposing to do now,put the
tennis courts up near there;trade this 5.2 acres plus the 3 acres that they just got approved by the board that
was the vacation of the right-of-way behind the property;use that as leverage to say,okay,we want to trade
this area for another area in the development so that we can put a facility there.
No one ever contemplated that you would put tennis courts,certainly,in--next to a residential area.
They might have developed it for additional lots they could have sold,which would have made more sense,
but not to put a tennis facility there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let's say that this doesn't get approved to be brought into your
PUD. Well,let's say you guys didn't buy it.Forget about the connection to your community. I think that
would have been real hard for anybody to overcome.
But,Ray,as zoning director,this land was zoned as or--or is zoned as ag currently. If it brings(sic)
into the PUD,it would be PUD zoning.
Polly Avenue is 500 feet from this land,or at least that's what it shows up on the map. From a
perspective of changing it from ag to something else,what is the likelihood of that being consistent with our
Growth Management Plan?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.
The subject property would be eligible for any of the permitted ag uses,but it also could be rezoned
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,which would allow for residential in this location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's about four units per acre?
MR.BELLOWS: That's the base density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if they wanted to put affordable housing there,they could get
units up to maybe 10 units per acre,something like that?
MR.BELLOWS: That is one possible option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm pointing this out is it was probably a good move for
your community to buy this land to protect the Colonial Court residents from intenses(sic)that could be far
more severe than what's possibly considered here.
If this doesn't get brought into the PUD,your association,and by a majority that seems to be here
today,they could vote,say,well,if we can't use it for what we wanted to,why don't we sell it.And then it
could be sold and developed by somebody else for probably a more intense use than what's being proposed in
the plan we saw today.
And it's just something I wanted to point out,because there is some positive in the acquisition of this
beyond the access to the gate. It allows control over this in a manner that,with your input and your
neighbors,you might get a better compatibility standard out of it than what was started out with, say,a month
ago when this meeting was held last time.
I just wanted to point that out,because that's a real--that's a real issue. And if you do an appraisal
Page 29 of 48
November 17,2016
on your property and you look at that property that was there,the other considerations that property could
have gone to may have a better--or it may have a greater impact negatively on your property than what's
proposed.And I'm just suggesting that also be included in your analysis when you go forward and do that,
so...
MR.HUBER: And,you know,certainly,that was always the possibility. Certainly,I was aware of
that possibility being the most one impacted here.
But we certainly wouldn't have the traffic or access to this property from Colonial Court,and that
would be preferrable. And I'm certain that there would be some kind of buffering or screening requirements
that the county's going to require in addition to what's already there.
So,again,there's a big difference between a recreational facility that's going to be open to the
members of the club,visiting clubs,an activity that's going to occur on an ongoing basis.
I was at the club this morning,and people were playing tennis at 7 a.m. So that's fine,but there's a
place for that,and it's not next to your--not your next-door neighbor. And that's the problem; it's now our
neighbor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir.Appreciate it.
Ladies and gentlemen,we're going to move to our next speaker. Do we have any other registered
speakers?
MR.JOHNSON: Yes,we do,Mr.Chair. Walt Kulbacki,followed by Leon Case.
MR.KULBACKI: I'm not going to say anything.I gave it to Joe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Kulbacki waives his time.
Mr.Case?
MR.JOHNSON: Yes. Leon Case,C-a-s-e.
MR.CASE: Waive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Case waived his time as well. And is there next--
MR.JOHNSON: Next is Thomas Leonard.
MR.LEONARD: I ceded mine to Joe Huber.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Leonard waives his time.
MR.JOHNSON: Mrs.Reverend Filomena Poole,P-o-o-1-e. Here she comes. And then her
husband will speak after.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,Ms.Poole.Were you sworn in when we started this
morning earlier?
MS.POOLE: No. I apologize for being late.We went to the wrong building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if your husband's going to speak, if both of you could rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
MS.POOLE: Certainly.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS.POOLE: So help me God,thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS.POOLE: Thank you for recognizing God.
My name is Mrs.Reverend Filomena Poole. My name is spelled with an F,F as in Frank,
i-l-o-m-e-n-a;middle initial A; last name,Poole.P as in Peter,o-o-1-e.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS.POOLE: My home is 3100 Polly Avenue. I'm your neighbor in the back in the woods. We live
in the last close-in ambiance on the dirt roads.
And I'm all for progress, since it started with the wheel. I'm only here because you sent me a letter to
let me know you're doing something different. And we now have on our corner lot what's called a ditch and,
across the street from us is another ditch but looks more like a canal.We're just wondering how much further
back it's going to go. Is there going to be a bridge? What else is happening? Because the cougar is now
coming into my yard,the Florida cougar and the panther comes into my yard and has eaten several of my
animals.
So we'd just like to know how much higher do we have to build our fence,and what happened to the
Page 30 of 48
November 17, 2016
buffer wall that we never got,and what's happening next. I know where water goes,A to B.I know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,you're on Polly Avenue.
MS.POOLE: Polly Avenue. The corner of Polly and Polly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on what and Polly?
MS.POOLE: Polly and Polly,the corner lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Polly and Polly,okay. So on this map,you're the square to the furthest
south on that map that's on the overhead. Could you put your fmger or your pencil where her house may be.
MS.POOLE: Polly and Polly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.MULHERE: That's Polly. That's Polly.Are you here or here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. Okay.
Now,first of all,the project that we're dealing with here today does not--is not contiguous,does not
abut your property.
MS.POOLE: But you sent me a letter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no,no.
MS.POOLE: And I wanted to fmd out how it affects us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm getting there.
MS.POOLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The property is--the property that's being changed today is that triangle
yellow box on the overhead.
MS.POOLE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that property is within 500 feet of you,and that's why you received the
notification.
MS.POOLE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The project that may be one that you are closer to or may have the issues
that you're talking about--see the words"Shadow Wood"on this? They're directly across the street from
you.
MS.POOLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is not this project.You were notified just because you fell within the
area that's required to be notified. This may not have as much bearing on you as the one to the south. The
one to the south is not the one we're discussing today.
MS.POOLE: I thought that might have been the case,and no one knew when I called,so they
said--I thought I'd just come to the meeting and fmd out.
I do have another question,if I ask it now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS.POOLE: The question is,with the water everyone's talking about where it has to go and be
retained and into the ground,so on and so forth,that's fine. But that block that you've got blocked off in
yellow that butts up to the Shadow Wood,where is that water actually going to go? Is it going to go into that
ditch-looking canal,or is it going to be flowing back into that wooded area that's right across from me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wooded area and the water that is in that wooded area won't change.
What's going to change is,any water that they create by collecting it from the fill they put on the property will
be diverted through piping to the lake to the north that is also within their property. So none of the water will
go off of that area. It will all go to the north into the lake,and that's reviewed by South Florida Water
Management District.
MS.POOLE: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Thank you.I don't know if your husband still wants to
speak.He's more than welcome to. Sir.
REVEREND POOLE: Please put that same picture back up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll just need to state your name for the record. We'll remember the
spelling.
REVEREND POOLE: My name is Reverend James E.Poole,Junior.
Page 31 of 48
November 17, 2016
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
REVEREND POOLE: Thank you. On this wooded area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike when you talk,but we understand--the one
next to the--
REVEREND POOLE: Do you have any plans on chopping all the trees out of there, leaving a buffer
somewhere along Polly Avenue over to my neighbor's-- see the three squares above me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
REVEREND POOLE: Are we cutting into there anywhere?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That buffer--that one last tract isn't part of today's discussion. Now,
that--someone may own that. Someone may want to develop that. They'll have to come in under a separate
application either to this panel or just do it as a Site Development Plan in the future.But we don't have any
information today on that parcel next to this one.
REVEREND POOLE: Okay. That was my question.Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir.
Eric,do we have any other speakers registered?
MR.JOHNSON: No,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken that would like
to speak here today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move into the rebuttal and questions of the applicant.
Mr. Schmitt,you're up.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Bob,just for clarity again,based on what Mr.Huber stated on
the record,that building that he displayed on the overhead, is that currently being proposed to go into the
parking lot or into the existing--where the existing tennis courts are?
MR.MULHERE: Yeah,that was one of the options. One of the options that is being proposed,
depending on where we would either move the tennis courts in order to free that up for that improvement or
we would relocate for additional parking in some of the other alternatives,yes,that is being proposed.
We are also proposing to increase the parking by approximately 70 spaces; 66 spaces exactly.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well,we'll go back to the alternative analysis. The
alternative analysis doesn't show any building being proposed. It shows--
MR.MULHERE: Because that wasn't--that wasn't part of what we were considering. What we
were looking at was the impacts--regardless of what our alternatives were for development,we have
different alternatives for development.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
MR.MULHERE: What we were looking at was different alternatives for impacts to wetlands. We
could have Option A for building,we could have Option B for building,we could have Option C.
One of the things we looked at was going two stories in the clubhouse. It was cost prohibitive.We
didn't tell the Corps that either.
What we told them was,here's the sites that we're looking at impacting for improvements that will
allow us to do what we want to do. Here's the environment impacts associated with those.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm not arguing that. My discussion only is this is a
document that was submitted to the government that's an official document.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's subject to public release. In the Alternative Site Plan 13,it
shows the expansion of the parking lot. It does not show anything other than expansion of the parking lot.
MR.MULHERE: And the reason for that--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that it is--it has to do with the environmental
impact. You could put whatever you want there,but the document does not show that.
MR.MULHERE: I agree. I agree,Joe,but the point that I'm trying to make is,for that impact,that's
all we were doing was expanding the parking into there. The Corps didn't need to know anything else. They
needed to know what we were going to do on that impact. That's why.
Page 32 of 48
November 17,2016
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--did you want to say something,Richard?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure--Bob said what I was going to say,but there was a
proposal--if I have the right site plan and we have the same--
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: You do.
MR.YOVANOVICH: There was fitness facility that was also being identified that was going to
being going on that site.
And,again,as I understand the permitting process,is you show the Corps what you plan on putting
on the area you want to impact,and that's all we did.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And I think it was totally accurate. There was no bait and switch. It was a
true representation of what was going on that parcel and what was it going to cost us to do that has been
provided to you from a mitigation standpoint.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I just got a question of Gina. Hi,Gina. How are
you?
MS.GREEN: Hi. Very good;thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was looking at the LiDAR of that area,and that preserve
off to the east of Mr.Huber,there is a canal that runs along the northside of Shadow Wood on the south side
of that preserve. There's no berm between that preserve and the canal.
MS.GREEN: No. Well,that canal there is actually part of the LASIP project and is being improved
for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That preserve seems to run right into the canal?
MS.GREEN: There is an existing berm from when that canal was dug that they placed the spoils to
the north.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So the LiDAR I have is older;doesn't show the berm.
MS.GREEN: I don't know if it's enough of a berm that it would show up that greatly.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,yeah,6-inch tends to show up on the LiDAR,so if it's
greater than 6-inch--
MS.GREEN: There is a slight berm there,which that berm will remain,but all the part of the
LASIP,they're adding a big control structure that controls that whole flowway that runs from Cedar
Hammock to Naples Heritage,from 12 Lakes,everything that runs down through there to that canal.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was curious because that south part of the parcel
you're talking about drains into that canal.
MS.GREEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. And then you're saying that they put a berm there
now?
MS.GREEN: Well,that berm's been there--
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,it doesn't show.
MR. SMITH: Craig Smith,for the record.
That--there is a berm along the entire south property to line of Naples Heritage,and actually a small
portion of that berm is actually on the Naples Heritage site. There is one small gap,maybe four or five feet
across,on part of the right-of-way tract,I believe.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But the new five-acre parcel has a berm along the south side
of it,too?
MR. SMITH: Yes,sir,all the way across. And the ultimate LASIP design,which has recently been
permitted by the district and I believe is getting ready to go under construction,basically is going to improve
that entire berm across the entire south property line all the way back to where the canal heads south along
the runway,and they're putting in a broad-crested weir up in that corner which will allow flow from
everything upstream eventually to dump into that canal.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. This is a 2008 LiDAR, so...
Page 33 of 48
November 17, 2016
MR. SMITH: That thing has been there--I did work on Shadow Wood, 15 years ago, 10 years ago.
It's there.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can see a berm on the Shadow Wood side,but I don't see
one on the other side.
MR. SMITH: What you see on Shadow Wood is actually a cleared area,so it shows up better.That
is very heavily vegetated.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks.
MR. SMITH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,do you have any rebuttal comments that you'd like to make?
MR.MULHERE: I do have a few. We certainly believe we've put on the record sufficient
testimony that we did look at a number of alternative sites. I don't know if I mentioned it previously other
than just in response to Mr. Schmitt's questions,but also there were some sites that--there were alternatives
that were looked at that didn't really fall into the realm of the Corps,such as I said,putting another story on
the--there was an alternative that looked at a parking structure. It was just too expensive. So I think we did
do that.
I mean,there are recreational facilities in hundreds of residential communities throughout Collier
County,some of which were planned and proposed at the approval stage and some of which came in later,
because each tract in these residential communities allows recreational facilities as an accessory use.
I think the question is,once it's determined that,say,a sub-developer or somebody wants to come in
and put a recreational facility--and this one's pretty limited. It's tennis courts and a small--relatively small
restroom facility. And,yes,it wasn't limited at the beginning.
I wrote the--as Mr.Huber indicated,I wrote the PUD document. I tend to write a PUD document as
flexible as it possibly can be written. But once I understood that there were concerns,we revised the
document. I wasn't involved in any of the discussions that may have been one on one with those residents.
It's only after they expressed their concerns that I got involved. I said,look,we can change--we can limit
these uses. We can change these provisions.
But,you know,my thought was,maybe some of those other uses might be in the future desirable for
the residents. Once I understood that they were concerns to Colonial Court,we took them out and we limited
them.
So I think we've demonstrated that it's an appropriate location that we can mitigate for the impacts.
And I think once everything is constructed--everybody will have the aggravation during the construction
process. Once it's constructed,the landscaping is in,I believe that this will be a very compatible use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that wrap up your rebuttal?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I would like to add just a couple of things. One: As you're aware,we've
started--in PUDs the Planning Commission asked us to identify either where the recreational facility's going
to be or,if we don't know where it's going to be,we come up with development standards to make sure that
anybody that may ultimately end up next to a recreational facility that's not identified in the master plan will
be happy and safe from a compatibility standpoint.
I think that the standards that we're proposing far exceed anything we've done in those standard PUD
development standards that we've done recently for recreational areas.
I would also add that we do have that 25-foot conservation area that for--except for the portion of
that,you know,we will be crossing for access;we certainly can replant that to create additional landscaping
and screening and buffering between the property owners on Colonial Court to assist what--they're
concerned about a visual impact,because that area's there. We can just limit our impact to just crossing
where we show you our access road. So there are those options, if that's what the community would prefer.
I think when--certainly,when Mr.Huber bought his property in 1999,that property,as Mr. Strain
pointed out--and I was going to say in my remarks and I want to reiterate, is that's in the urban area. It's only
five acres. So I don't know if it's within the density band from an activity center standpoint. I couldn't
measure that off,but it's near an activity center. Base units is four.
Page 34 of 48
November 17,2016
If you're less than 20 acres,you can get an additional three units per acre,so you can get up to seven
units per acre just without even talking about an affordable density--affordable housing density bonus on the
property. And he acknowledged that development could occur on that property.
The document that he put up clearly says it was going to be for future uses of the association.And I
don't buy the argument that,you know,you could trade it. You can't trade it. It's not mitigation property
within the community for impacts of property. And you know how difficult it is to undo a conservation
easement for property that was previously used for mitigation.
As you could see from the dollars and the increased cost for mitigation, it wasn't feasible to impact
the areas that they would prefer.
There is not an unlimited source of monies to do this. So when he was told this is the site,it's
because an analysis was done about the fmancial feasibility of the other locations.
So I want that to be clear that nobody was trying to mislead anybody when they were saying those
statements,because they were factoring in what it would cost to do it,and this was the location that the
facilities needs to go to.
Bob--the only competent substantial evidence in your record regarding compatibility that sits here
today is Bob and Eric. That's what you consider in a zoning hearing is competent substantial evidence. And
all of the experts that have testified have said this should be approved.
That's the legal standard that applies. Not popularity. I have more people this time than the other
side. Most of the times there's more against me than are for me. But the standard is the same regardless.
Competent substantial evidence,and the competent substantial evidence leads to this being approved.
And,again,we are still--again,that area could be planted if necessary to provide some additional
buffering.
MR.MULHERE: And,actually,that--excuse me. I'm just going to add. That was our proposal.
Originally we'd proposed to put the 25 --landscape buffer in what would be the vacated conservation tract
that's 25 feet wide;however,since this was already impacted and it benefited or--I think Mr.Huber
preferred to have it remain clear,we--in response to that,we removed the landscape buffer there and moved
it over here so that that could be retained. I mean,you know,that was done purely as an accommodation,
so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way, since you brought that up,would you blow up the top
corner of that property.
MR.MULHERE: Right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a little hard to read. So on that--you've got the 25-foot
landscape buffer on the left side of the line on the south of the driveway,and when it flips to the north of the
driveway,you put it on the right side of the property line. Is that what you're suggesting?
MS.GREEN: Let me comment on that. Because with everything that has happened with all these
objections,we've actually revised the plan for that area you're talking about. We now have taken the
conservation area that was to the north of our proposed entry,and we're leaving it exactly--and I've pulled
the water management berm and that landscape buffer all the way in,and that just happened,so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,let me go back to my questions,Bob.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The landscape buffer that's on the right side of the line, is that intended to
be on the right side of the line,or are you telling me this plan is inaccurate as well?
MR.MULHERE: Let me handle it,Gina.
Well,we have to clean this plan up anyway,right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just answer my question.Where's the landscape buffer going to go on the
north side of the driveway?
MR.MULHERE: It's now going to be--the same place that it is down here,just over here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's going to be on the left side of the line?
MR.MULHERE: On the left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only answer I was looking for.
MR.MULHERE: Yeah,the left.
Page 35 of 48
November 17,2016
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Also,for the sake of the new members,I just want to clarify a statement
that Mr.Yovanovich said,because substantial competent evidence also does include laypersons that testify as
to their own personal knowledge,but they are not permitted--it's not considered substantial competent
evidence as to opinion testimony. So I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have to clarify something. Or at least let's put it this
way. I want to add some balance to one of Mr.Yovanovich's opening statements,and that in which he talked
about what this board has historically done in regards to buffers and setbacks and other issues involving
recreational facilities in PUDs.
You're 100 percent right,we look at them very separately. We institute rules. We actually have a
standard because of the development. I think it was the Brandon or something PUD up in--north of
Immokalee Road where we have certain setbacks we look at as minimums. We have walls and landscaping.
And those are done for PUDs that are not developed where owners bought something that they didn't count
on necessarily going across the street from them. So there is a stark difference between what would be
necessarily required here to get,let's say,mutual compatibility versus what we're doing on a raw project
where someone is going in knowing that's what's going across the street from them. I want to make that
clarification,because it's starkly different than what was mentioned.
MR.MULHERE: That's why we put enhanced buffers in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And other than that,does anybody have any other questions? Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions but probably more from a procedural standpoint
having been gone from the county staff for almost seven years.
Procedurally,if they were just to add the five acres to the PUD,that would be one public hearing,
and with--if they--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it would be a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Board of County Commissioners.
And if they did not include--the only reason the tennis courts are included here is because that's now
part of--becomes part of the record for the site development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If they didn't show a use on this property,then they wouldn't be able
to get a Site Development Plan for a use,so they've--
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR.MULHERE: I would like to suggest that we include the site specific plan so that we could
commit to the commitments we're making very specifically in the zoning action,because if we didn't put that
site plan there,this use is still allowed by the language in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You could have gone with residential or something like that that
wouldn't have--they'd just plat it and be done with it. This is a community use.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that's my questions. Had they just come in and added the five
acres and if the use were--it is allowed in the PUD document--
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --could or would they have been allowed just to come back at a
later date and ask for the development of this site for--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would,too. My recollection,I would,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it wouldn't have been allowed as a RA or a community facility,because
those we generally locate on master plans.
MR.MULHERE: Well,we were. We did. We labeled it,so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.MULHERE: Yes;the answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know. That's okay. We've disagreed a lot in the past.
Page 36 of 48
November 17,2016
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: I'm just trying to understand procedurally.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I think--no, listen. I think--and this is where we were being perfectly
honest. And I got into this late,but I think we could have labeled that R. Labeled it R,and all the uses in the
R,you know,on the residential portion,which includes tennis facilities,could have gone on that property by
site plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Because that's an old--it's an older PUD,we would have looked at the R
uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't think we would have questioned that when it came through for a
PUD amendment in today's world?
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying we could have tried to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think you would have got by this board with that?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,I would have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,no,you wouldn't have.No,you wouldn't have. Nice try,Rich,but--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,that's my questions. No,you wouldn't have. But my question
procedurally is you could have--
MR.YOVANOVICH: I could have done it. I could have tried.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Could have just added this acreage and at a later date come back
and did an amendment,a master plan amendment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it was single-family,they probably wouldn't have needed the master plan
amendment--
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because they could have allocated it as a non-preserve,which would be
anything. But I think if you were--if they were to suggest they were going to put a recreational facility there,
the questions would still have been evolved like we have to do. I mean--Bob?
MR.MULHERE: At the time of zoning,they would. But if the zoning--I think your question is,if
this zoning was approved,we added this,we labeled it RA,what's the process? We wouldn't have had a--if
we didn't have a site-specific plan,we simply go in for an SDP and build it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought.Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But we would never have gotten--it would never have gotten
through.
MR.MULHERE: No,we knew that,hence the site-specific--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,it would have been very clear on the development standards for
the recreational area. Okay. But you answered my question. That's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is there any other questions of the applicant or staff or anybody
at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob,I've kept track of some things. I don't know what the motion
maker will want to make as a motion for this,but I have noted some thing that we discussed so that if the
motion maker motions for a stipulated approval,then these could be included. If it's denial,then they don't
need to be included.
So just to keep everything clear and consistent with our discussions,the setbacks that are articulated
in the narrative will be modified to be consistent with the site plan that was produced today.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the site plan that was produced today will be the site plan that would
actually be used in lieu of the one that was given to us in our packet.
You would be working on some language to provide some kind of assurance that should the native
vegetation that's in those retention areas--I think you call them retention areas on your plan--not survive
after a limited amount of time,let's say six months or a year,you would replace them to a density comparable
to what they were.
The details on the RA plan,mostly your contours and your lines and all that,they need to be labeled.
Page 37 of 48
November 17,2016
You've got different details in there that aren't clear what they are. You're going to change the narrative to
make sure that any uses of those buildings are listed, including the shade coverings that you have on the
master plan. Just list them as shade coverings or something so that everybody knows what they are and what
they're limited to.
The idea of special events,we didn't talk about this,but it's a good time to bring it up.That's another
unique factor. You're not really geared,from the size of this,to have a lot of large special events. Were you
planning on having special events outside what the area could support on a normal course of business?
MR.MULHERE: No. What happens is they have these tournaments that--I think Patrick said
three times a year. Let's say three or four times a year where folks come in and play tennis from other--and
sometimes these guys go to other locations and do it. Interclub play,okay.
So that being the case,if the numbers are going to be more significant than what would typically be
used there,we've discussed it. We would have the guests park in the clubhouse parking lot and have them
shuttled down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that needs to be articulated. And those events would not be utilized
any different hours than what the hours are restricted to.
MR.MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the hours of restriction,you're going to give us a more defmitive word
than"dusk."
MR.MULHERE: Yes,sunset.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just want a different word.
Also,we didn't talk about this. It's something that I've heard mentioned. In a typical Type B buffer
when you're up against a--when a community facility is located within a residential PUD and abuts a
residential unit--now,I know Mr.Yovanovich is going to jump up and say it doesn't abut,it doesn't abut.
Well,okay. It's adjacent to.
Then the minimum 50 percent of the trees in the hedge planting shall be located on the residential
side of a fence or a wall. Now,I think I heard one of the gentlemen--or Mr. Huber,actually,speak about the
possibility of a wall going in. I don't see as a--if this is recommended for approval,that would seem to be
something that would be warranted,especially with the plantings on the opposite side of it would
provide--at least it wouldn't be a stark wall sitting out there.
MR.MULHERE: So the--actually,I'm glad you raised that issue. I don't know if he intended to or
not,but Mr.Huber indicated that it was his idea,the way I heard it and,actually,I suggested,after discussing
with my client,a wall in the landscape buffer along his property,and he never responded yea or nay with
respect to that specific recommendation.
Others have said to us they did not want a wall;they wanted a substantial landscape buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we--if the wall is installed consistent with a Type B buffer,it's going
to be behind some rather intense landscaping because 50 percent of the trees and hedge planting shall be
located on the residential side of the wall. So that means your wall would start--would be along Colonial
Court and south to the end of Mr.Huber's property.
MR.MULHERE: Does it require a wall? I think it just allows for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:'It allows a wall.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,allows.
MR.MULHERE: Yeah,it doesn't require.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know. But if it does--if a wall does go in,it says right in the Type
B buffer standards--
MR.MULHERE: Yes,I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there wouldn't be a stark wall there. It would be one that would
have--
MR.MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --some landscaping on the outside of it,so that's another consideration for
any stipulations in that we consider a masonry or concrete wall consistent with these Type B buffer standards.
MR.MULHERE: And if I would suggest--if you do consider that,I would suggest that that is most
Page 38 of 48
November 17,2016
appropriate along Mr.Huber's property line,because when you go north,then you've got Colonial Court
separating all of that,so you even have a larger separation there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area from south of your--
MR.MULHERE: Yeah,south of the cul-de-sac.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South--could you put the site plan back up.
MR.MULHERE: As you can see,the cul-de-sac is here,the roadway is here,and then this property
line would be immediately adjacent to the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,see,I don't know why it would--why wouldn't you just put a wall
along the entire eastern property line?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't want that.
MR.MULHERE: Kind of a lot of folks have said it's not--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Mr.Huber's the one that brought it up, so...
Before we go any further,if this is a recommendation of approval,I'd like to ask Mr.Huber to come
up and address the wall,if that's something that he would like to see included if this were to be approved or
not.
So,Mr.Huber,would you mind addressing that question.
MR.MULHERE: Mr. Strain,I don't know if you said it,but you also talked about bollard lighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,you're right. I thought that would be a correction.
MR.MULHERE: It will be,but...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr.Huber?
MR.HUBER: From a visibility standpoint,obviously,we didn't want a wall there,if that was,
ultimately--if they were going to be there.
What I suggested is that the landscaping--all the landscaping that's proposed,that the wall be put
adjacent to the tennis courts to deal with the noise issue,and that was my concern.
So whether--you know,without seeing it,I'm not sure. But I think most of the residents probably
would not prefer a wall that they can look at. They like the idea at least of seeing the trees and the buffer in
that area;however,you know,the issue is the noise and how are you going to deal with the noise issue,and
that was why we raised it,because--I mean,you have a recreational facility. Noise is going to be created.
We don't have that now. And,you know,you have ball machines,you have a tennis pro,and you're
going to have tournaments or--you know,inner club tournaments,or whatever they're called that's going to
occur there. There's going to be noise. And the question is--that's not something that we have now.
Again,that was another reason we didn't think it made sense to put it there,but that's,you
know--but in terms of addressing your specific question,it's how do we address the noise issue.And the
wall was one of the thoughts regarding that,but we don't want to be looking at a wall at our property. That's
certainly not going to be something we want to see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Bob,any reaction to how that could be addressed,the sound from that--mostly the--Mr.Huber's
property is the closest to the southern tennis court. And you have on the right side of the tennis court behind
the canopy sun shade,rectangle on the south side,right up against that natural area. You could put a 6-foot
masonry or decorative wall to the point where it bends,and that would provide as much sound barrier as
possible to Mr.Huber's house,who's closest to this whole--
MR.MULHERE: Right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.JOHNSON: Over here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That line,the second line in.
MR.MULHERE: So what you're suggesting is right along here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,on top of that line that's there.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. Right along here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.MULHERE: And that would be--I don't know what the distance is,but we'll have to locate
Page 39 of 48
November 17, 2016
that on the site plan if it becomes a condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would help mitigate the noise. And if the motion maker here
in a few minutes wants to include that,that's something that can be considered.
I'm just suggesting--I'm trying to put everything in order so that you have--the motion maker has
all the options that they want to include or not.
MR.MULHERE: So I just want to reiterate--Gina,I got it. Thanks.
I just want to reiterate that,you know,we're retaining the landscaping here--they're not going to be
able to see that because that's fairly mature landscaping--as well as planting a new 25-foot landscape buffer,
and we're agreeing to replace any trees if they died,you know, in that landscape buffer.
And we're not having any"I"play. We're not having any audio,you know,any noise. So I really
think that we've addressed the issue of noise.Clay courts,they're not as noisy as the other courts. Har-Tru.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're willing to stipulate to clay courts.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Har-Tru.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that even for pickleball?
MR.MULHERE: No,we're not going to build--we got rid of the pickleball.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you're going to open up a can of worms.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,they had mentioned pickleball,and I'm trying to find out--
MR.MULHERE: No,we're not doing that.That--apparently,I found out a lot about pickleball. It
can be noisier than tennis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be a noisy sport,yeah.
MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.JOHNSON: Over here;Eric. This area over here,where it says 25-foot natural area,could we
just find out exactly what this will consist of?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not theirs. It's not on their property. It's not part of the piece being
brought in. It is conservation easement.
MS.GREEN: Yes,it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 25-foot natural area is already part of your PUD.
MR.MULHERE: No,no. Excuse me. I got it,thank you. He's talking about this area right here.
He wants to know what's being done in there.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,he doesn't. Bob.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show us specifically--okay. You're talking about the 25-foot natural area
that is supposed to be a conservation area but has not acted like one.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. And what I suggested is if you want us to plant materials in there,
we can certainly do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,I think with the--if it's--you've got so much vegetation going
from the property line through the 25-foot buffer,through the natural area over to those courts. I'm not sure
there's any difference there,but if that's supposed to be a conservation area and it's a conservation easement,I
think after this meeting you'll probably get a call from Summer Brown anyway saying,well,why don't you
plant this like it's supposed to? So I think that can handle itself.
MR.MULHERE: Okay. So let me--what--I thought I was clear about this,but I'll try again. So
that's being vacated,so then there won't be any violation when it's vacated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're vacating the whole thing or just the access across--
MR.MULHERE: We're not vacating the whole thing,but we are vacating that portion. At least
that's what Gina just told me.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's what I just suggested,Mr. Strain. In lieu of vacating that area,we
can leave it in the conservation area and just deal with the crossing of the entrance so it could be replanted.
That's what I was suggesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now,I have a question since we're talking about stipulations,and I
Page 40 of 48
i
I
November 17,2016
want to make sure--parking. Does this community allow for golf cart use?
MR.MULHERE: They do.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Within the community?Because it looks like you have some golf
cart parking spaces.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then 20 parking spaces.
MR.MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And that has been determined to be the correct amount for these
tennis courts?
MR.MULHERE: I think it actually exceeds what the code required by a few spaces.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,the stipulation--who--is there some kind of security,
community security? Because my concern are people parking--parking along the street and then going into
the tennis courts.
MR.MULHERE: There is community security.And I'll tell you,it's a beautiful community,and it
seems to me that it can be very easily managed by,you know,a drive through or something like that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,they're not going to have any enforcement power. They can't
ticket.But from a standpoint of parking along that street,I think it's--it would be--you're going to have a
tennis--there's going to be a situation where folks are up at the clubhouse and then they're going to go down
to the tennis court. I don't know what kind of stipulation we can put in from a standpoint there will be no
parking on the west side of the street.
MR.MULHERE: Well,I mean,I don't really think there's going to be any parking issue except
under a special event circumstance because we exceed the parking requirement,plus we have golf cart
parking there and bicycle parking. So I think when that issue's going to arise--some of the residents already
park on the street,so we don't want to--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well,it's going to be--I know it will become an issue.
MR.MULHERE: We don't want to--but I agree,for the special events we have to manage that,and
we will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hate to belabor a point,but Summer just walked in,and now that
she's here,I'd like her to address the 25-foot natural area that's a conservation easement and what can or
should have been done with that property or who knows from staff what it's supposed to be.
Thank you, Summer. You deferred nicely to Steve.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We need a purpose for Steve to come this morning anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we've got to get Matt up here next.
Steve,are you familiar with that area?
MR.LENBERGER: Yes,I am.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your name,for the record, Steve.
MR.LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger,Development Review.
It will have to be replanted according to what the agency permits require,very simply,unless they
want to vacate that portion. My understanding of what I'm hearing is they're going to vacate some of it but
not all of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they--thank you.And then if they--if it gets vacated, it just
goes to what?
MR.LENBERGER: Well, it will be--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just common area?
MR.LENBERGER: --some sort of common area,whatever you want to label it as.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may want to get together with Mr.Huber if you intend to
vacate it and see how he would feel about that as--it's not a matter for this board--
MR.MULHERE: No,I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as far as the vacations go,but it's just a suggestion to--
MR.MULHERE: What we understood from discussion with Mr.Huber was he'd like it to be
retained in the way that it is;that's why we agreed to shift the landscape buffer further in the other direction.
Page 41 of 48
November 17, 2016
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything they want to add?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me,Mr.Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I realize we've closed the public hearing,but this gentleman has asked a
couple times if he could speak. He missed the speaking earlier, so I'm just relaying his request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We've closed the public hearing,and we're not going to open it up
again.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a safety issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,I'm sorry. We have a public comments section at the end of this
hearing today. You're more than welcome to comment at that time.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to where we are. Do you have anything else you want to add to your
time?
MR.MULHERE: No,it's a long list.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. Anybody on the Planning Commission have anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will entertain a motion from anybody willing to move
forward. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with the stipulations,but no wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's made to approve with the stipulations. There are nine of
them. I read them all separately,or we talked about them earlier. The last one that was added was that there
will be clay courts similar to the hard true type courts will be used. Is that included?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was the original person who requested information about the neighbors on
Colonial Court and Mr.Huber in particular. I also have done enough research to realize that the outcome of
the use of this property could have been and most likely would have been worse than a set of tennis courts
that are now contemplated and modified to meet some of the compatibility concerns that have been
expressed. So for that reason I will be supporting the motion. But it--had this discussion occurred the first
time,I would expect the outcome to be similar to where we are today or close to it.
The information that has been provided plus the added compatibility standards are better than what,
in many cases,could have gone on that property if it went through a zoning change under someone else's
ownership.
So with that,I'll support the motion as well.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a--my comment,frankly,has to do with the documentation
that was submitted. I believe that there--it was not forthcoming in explaining the full purpose for why you
are proposing a tennis court. I think--if you want the recreation area,it should have been stated up front.
That should have been part of the public record. That should have been part of the record that--for the
permit as well.
I have real problems with that from a standpoint of not laying out the facts to the both--to the
residents,and it seems like there was an argument of which came first,the chicken or the egg here. Which
came first,the required parking or the need for an expanded recreational facility.
But with that,I would stress to the Board when this--or to the staff when this goes to the board that
is made clear to the Board of County Commissioners as to the clear purpose of this,that it is not only because
we need to expand the parking;it's because we want to build tennis courts,and we want to expand our
recreation facility. That should be clear up front,and I don't think it was. When I read--at least in my
reading of the documents. And I'm not going to discuss it,Bob. It's just my feelings.
Page 42 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But with that,I concur with Mark. I agree that there could be far
more intense use. There's two lots that could easily combined if--this lot and the one further west.
I would not be happy if I were a resident on that street for the mere fact of purchasing a home and
then all of a sudden it becomes a recreation area,but I really can't find a reason to specifically deny the
request. So with that,I'll support it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no others,all those in favor of the motion to support with
the stipulations,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you-all. This will be moved to the Board of County Commissioners next. I don't know what
their schedule will be. Thank you.
And with that,we will take a 10-minute--well,we'll take a break until 10 after 12. I'd like the Board
to work through lunch,is that okay,or do you want to take lunch? We have two cases coming up. I expect
they'll be similar--okay. So we'll work through lunch. We'll break now and we'll come back at 10 after 12.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Let's resume the meeting. Please take your seats.
Joe stepped out for a moment. He'll be right back. In the meantime,we'll go through the reading of
the hearing.
***It's Item 9B. It's RZ-PL20160001132. It's for a rezone,actually--a rezone of a agricultural
zoned piece of property for an RSF-1 zoning. It's located on the west side of Morgan Road,approximately
750 feet north of Sabal Palm 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. We'll get Joe's disclosures when he gets in. Disclosures,starting
with Tom.
MR.EASTMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had talked to Fred Hood on the phone,and we just talked a few
minutes before the meeting started.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt says from out there in space, "none." So welcome back.
With that--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures,no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move right to Mr.Hood. First of all,I would suggest you can keep
this brief. I don't think there's a lot of--going to be a lot of--it's a pretty simple application,so it's all yours.
MR.HOOD: All right. Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
Good morning,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering,for the record. Davidson Engineering is
representing applicant and property owners Nancy and Theodore Naftel for rezone petition.
Page 43 of 48
November 17,2016
The rezone that is being considered here today is a request to change from A rural agricultural to
RSF-1,residential single-family.
The subject property is approximately 5.75 acres and is located at 275 Morgan Road. Morgan Road
is located on the east side of the property,and the property is approximately 750 feet north of Sabal Palm
Road.
All of the immediate surrounding properties have been developed with single-family residential
and/or agricultural uses,and they all have agricultural zoning.
As previously noted,the purpose of the rezone application is to convert the 5.75-acre parcel from A
to RSF-1.
On a personal note,our clients are requesting to change the zoning to provide a home for their son
and daughter-in-law who are retiring from the military soon. Their desire was just to originally split the
existing parcel in half and build a second home on the resulting parcel,but when they spoke with Collier
County staff and Davidson,they realized that with the existing zoning,they wouldn't be able to do that
because of minimum lot size requirements in the ag zone.
Through that initial contact,we discussed with the county on what zoning district we should go to.
The most similar between the existing ag zoning and what they were intending to do with the property was
the RSF-1 district. We also looked at the Estates district as well,but the setback requirements were a little bit
more onerous than the A and the RSF-1 district.
The two differences between the A and the RSF-1 were for the minimum building size and for the
minimum lot width. So we went with the RSF-1 instead of the E district for that purpose.
As part of the staff report,on Page 5 you will be able to see those differences in the design standards
for each zoning designation.
Basically,with the rezone the next application that the Naftels will be presenting to the county will
be a final plat application to split the property in half. As part of the staff report,we have also agreed to
limiting the lot split in that fmal plat application to only two lots.
It should be noted that within the area,I did a--I prepared a map. Quarter mile out from the
property you've got approximately 31 existing agricultural lots that are under the five acres. So that just
furthers the point that even though we're asking for something that is,you know,not typical for this area,the
existing grandfathered-in lots of 31 in nature,we range from--anywhere from.65 acres,I believe,all the
way up to about just under five acres,at like 4.89 or something like that.
The new home that will be being built after we do the fmal plat application will have to meet the
standards of the RSF-1 designation. The existing property that will be left to the north has existing
nonconforming buildings on it insofar as they don't meet the setback requirements for either the ag zoning or
the resulting RSF-1 zoning.
Those buildings will remain as they are currently. If the Naftels decide to either sell the property or
to redevelop the property in the future,they will have to meet the RSF-1 designation design standards.
That is pretty much it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of the applicant from Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it too early to move to approve?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to get everything on record. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,the staff recommendation's a little different than how you worded it.
It says,subject to 5.75-acre--the subject 5.75-acre property shall be limited to a maximum of two lots. So do
you have any objection to that?
MR.HOOD: I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a reference under Page 4 of the staff report,school
concurrency. The applicant is requesting an exception from school concurrency. The proposed change does
not meet the criteria for an exemption. So I'm assuming,from staffs perspective,that's still being processed
like any other nonexempt piece of property? Eric? Or whoever wrote that.I assume you since you're still
Page 44 of 48
November 17, 2016
sitting there.
MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. This is Eric Johnson,principal planner. That was given to me by Amy
Lockhart,who works for the school district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from Tom Eastman's viewpoint,since he represents the school
district,there is no exemption for this. They've still got to meet the school concurrency requirements;is that
true?
MR.EASTMAN: Yes,and that would be determined at the time of the SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or building permit.
MR.EASTMAN: Or building permit. And there's existing capacity now. That doesn't mean that
that will be the case in the future,but we also have oxygen for approval if there is existing capacity in
adjacent service areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else. Does anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there a staff report,Eric?
MR.JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Eric Johnson,Principal Planner,Zoning.
Staff is recommending approval of the request.Just for clarification,Amy Lockhart and I worked on
the language together for her portion of the staff report.
It is--staff is recommending approval subject to the Condition of Approval No. 1: The subject
5.75-acre property shall be limited to a maximum of two lots.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any registered public speakers?
MR.BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We hear none.There's no need for rebuttal unless you've got
something you want to add since you got up,Fred.
MR.HOOD: I certainly do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing,entertain the motion subject to staff
recommendations,assumably.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: And second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by--we'll let Patrick do one.
COMMISIONER SCHMITT: Patrick second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Page 45 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.HOOD: Thank you-all.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fred,that was so much easier than the first one we did.
MR.HOOD: I try to make it simple for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,don't get sent back.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: By the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Next item up is 9D. It's PL20160001369. It's an expansion of the
Panther Island Mitigation Bank on the north part of Collier County.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Mr.
Eastman.
MR.EASTMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a call from Bruce to have a meeting to discuss. I read the application.
There was no need to meet to discuss because I didn't see any discussion necessary.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce,I would hope that this could be succinct.
MR.ANDERSON: Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce,that's the best thing you could say. Do you have any problems with
the recommendations both by staff and by Lee County?
MR.ANDERSON: No,sir. Just one tweaking and one typo in the staff report. Staff report says
350,000 cubic yards. Just to be accurate,our application said 352,360 cubic yards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we round it up to 355,000,keep numbers even. Does that work
for you?
MR.ANDERSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.ANDERSON: By the way,for the record,my name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy
Passidomo law firm.
The language we want to tweak is Collier County Condition No.3. And the first sentence would
remain as-is,that access to the site is through Lee County. The second sentence would be clarified to read,
"There shall be no access to the site through Collier County without prior approval of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners."
And I spoke with Mr.McLean about that,and I don't believe staff has any objection to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report?
MR.McLEAN: Matt McLean with Development Review,for the record.
You have the staff report in front of you.The additional two clarifications from Bruce,the 355,000
cubic yards,as well as the additional proposed change to the recommendation on No. 3,we have no issue
with that,and we do recommend approval.
Bruce's revised language on that Condition 3,for us,really--it is really understood that it really
doesn't even need to be there. The initial condition just reading"access to the site is through Lee County,"it
could remain as that,but we have no issue with adding the additional language,which Bruce has proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would be more comfortable leaving his language in. He has to have
purpose,and that will give him purpose for this.
Page 46 of 48
November 17,2016
MR.McLEAN: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Matt.
Any request of staff? Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any registered public speakers?
MR.BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,then obviously there's no need for rebuttal. We'll close the
public hearing and entertain a motion subject to a change to 355,000 cubic yards for the excavation and
modifying the second sentence,No.3,concerning the site access into Collier County.
Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I motion to approve subject to the stipulations as stated.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. Those include the staff recommendations?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff recommendations,yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
I'll tell you what,these last two are a lot better than the first one,guys. Thank you.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,I do have a housekeeping question before we close.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: On the Naples Heritage PUD there was discussion on bringing it back for
consent,and I just want to make sure that that was the direction of the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that it was discussed. Staff had said that they basically--the plan
looked--they didn't have any questions about the plan. Part of the need for consent was to know if staff had
any concerns. I didn't--Eric seemed to think it was fine.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record,Ray Bellows. I believe we are fmd and don't need to come
back on the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that the stipulations were clean enough. I'm comfortable with
it. What's the rest of the Board--and I thank you for pointing that out. I should have got into a further
discussion on it.
Does anybody else see a need to have it come back on consent?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,not to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good with it.Thank you.
With that, it takes us to new business: There's none listed.
Old business: None listed.
Is there anybody here who would like to have any public comment?
(No response.)
Page 47 of 48
November 17, 2016
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe. Seconded by Patrick.
All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you-all.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 12:24 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
U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC.,BY
TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 48 of 48
AGENDA ITEM 9A
Co er County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2016
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001255 HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owners: Applicant(Contract Purchaser):
Maria Santos Edmund and Betty Poore WCI Communities, LLC
2316 Andrew Drive 7025 Nighthawk Drive 24301 Walden Center Drive
Naples,FL 34112 Naples,FL 34105 Bonita Springs, FL 34135
Elfrieda H Sutherland Trust Agent:
do Gayle Ann Durrance
2076 Sagebrush Circle D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Naples, FL 34120 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located east of Livingston Road and south of Pine Ridge Road in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to sixty-six
(66) single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on 9.75± acres.
(See location map on page 2)
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 1 of 13
December 5,2016
-1 Ei o 1 I
„
LU
wa
i ®® �� ®��
`; a V
V re a o LL a3
a r G 6 gm d
r
3.01.1.30003`,°*'''a n...a.....sw.E \0p�e
pp EJE JE JEE�!Ee eee,€J Jr,� 6
, gw om nom /$ 6E ^
t a n.n a.;e.nn...p ! ? Y1
�JI I
a fia _ CO
R— E, `Z-8 a oo a ��”
j >;s 4- .c� a ,,— J �' 4 E r ®®
-----
ill -p-—-- a k. 'r— z 1,
o` : f J T �1
U ( e m.,�� a ji
N
) a y
•
mw o o N -o
ow 8 - li U C o
� h e)rriE x JJJ5OE(;EE(?E!1;l E;,tE,-) ' ,9 rrr,rr Cr 2f @f=u 2 ,eeri t �` (N O
- ZU
AL` f0
W co
ID O
E
6
LoZ
N
C 0
O
I-.,
LO •— o
—ti — u)
co
0
CI N
CO o
_......_..
i
C
c .
.
7
I�
all uojs6uii o
Co
ON
O N
1_ Z J a
CD W EC
13 0 V uI
CD
C
2c
N a21 6UlI11nd-Podaiy E
a
a)
E
0
O
c
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject project proposes a density of 6.77 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of
the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding
boundaries of the Hamilton Place RPUD:
North: Single-family residential, zoned Brynwood Preserve PUD (5.47 DU/AC)
East: Residential, zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0 DU/AC)
South: Multi-family residential (condomimums), zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0
DU/AC)
West: Right-of-way for Livingston Road, farther west is vacant commercial, zoned
Hiwasse CPUD (291,000 square feet)
e
i
-" - i - fid ' ..".r'p 1 ,t 1
i u -I $ PRESECy vy; k`.:r • _ ARA „o,
- 6,:tis,_, `NSINGTON �1, J4. '""a L. !-,1 J 4 ,It �j� - 41',4"47,4A11":1
', i.
`'<A i'.. r,PR RK lir'�' ;,`,_,,..:51.'12,N MMiY �rA Y�.�L Ov.�
e_ilit}. jam+ I�MMMYf4 hMb.Wi� F r r,1
.. x l Ii.'�, Z P'/0 s'f NfI:PP00RYvIL._. aH
g,, L. ( .l 4-1'. 5 S ,' LAKES
s
*141P /14
f\\ , -4,L. as 4*�al' �PAN )n yTP"V
� Arr �i ♦E „i..t- :yWAY �� ev.k OR
� �w� �. , W„�,n CS�g+tkt� wHIP R�:ILLN
�. r �.s • PIN��i.d�g
7 adx `
��� � Ts «{ �Ji,.> ,� � �r, cni �s:� � +x• 111 4T
�r,
.ji
0
1 '. L43 z Pu CIH F° � kMr P
RR'R vsn Ft, t r FS y S CI R= - i �l 1
:Yv [Y - H k H�;F k , M COIR vv �i
r. .3` 4'11?-.'
'� ''s n h. 'ixdru'.. �''9 tit�Cit�► tit�tfti - ,.f
n �
T t - ►}- C I R
. ' 2z r21 # -----01----",:. 4--, _ FItF
pi/
Jr�i- J' ..., '1..i', - ' ":',:. Sl ''i+fESL�
ST! S:, jtiLN
. { gI�.Y-,�<- wHIPPOORYlILL WGODS
Aerial(County GIS)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject property is located within the Urban designated area(Urban Mixed Use District,Urban
Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The property is also located within a mile of the Pine Ridge Road - I-
75 Mixed Use Activity Center(MUAC#10).
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 3 of 13
December 5,2016
The FLUE provision for the Density Rating System states,
If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity
Center and located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre
may be added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange
Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the intersection
around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center is situated. If
50% or more of a project is within the density band, the additional density applies to the
gross acreage of the entire project. Density bands are designated on the Future Land Use
Map and shall not apply within the Estates Designation or for properties within the Coastal
High Hazard Area.
More than fifty percent (50%) of the project is located within the density band, so the additional
density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project.
The FLUE Consistency Review provides a more comprehensive analysis of how the proposed
project is consistent with the relative objectives and policies of the GMP (see Attachment 3 —
FLUE Consistency Review). In short, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the
FLUE.
Transportation Element:
In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency
with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update
and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states,
The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment
that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links(roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project
traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic
is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 4 of 13
December 5,2016
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the
point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service
volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the
applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the
project's significant impacts on all roadways.
The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of sixty-six (66) multi-family units on the subject
property that will generate approximately 43 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on the
immediately adjacent roadway link, Livingston Road. Livingston Road is a six-lane divided
facility and has a current service volume of 3,100 trips,with a remaining capacity of approximately
1,624 trips between Pine Ridge Road/Golden Gate Parkway, and is currently at LOS B as shown
in the 2015 AUIR. Please note at the time of writing this report the 2016 AUIR was not yet adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners (Board); however, staff reviewed this road segment for
the CCPC's consideration,finding a remaining capacity of 1,594 trips and the same LOS B. Staff,
therefore,finds that the proposed project does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway links,
and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five(5)-year transportation
planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME):
Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 0.97 acre of native vegetation is required to be
retained for the RPUD.
GMP Conclusion:
The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions,such as this proposed rezoning.
Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency
with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of
development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table.
The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed
deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use
petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the
"PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 5 of 13
December 5,2016
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
Document to address environmental concerns. The location of the preserve was selected to retain
the highest quality wetlands on-site and to provide connectivity to existing preserves and flowways
on neighboring properties to the east. No listed species of wildlife were observed on the property.
Air plants (Tillandsia) have been observed on cypress trees within the RPUD and will be retained
or relocated in accordance with the requirements LDC Section 3.04.03.
This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the
project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer is
proposed along the project's north property line, except in areas depicted as preserve, such as in
the northeast corner of the site as well as along the RPUD's entire eastern boundary.
A thirty (30)-foot wide access easement runs along the entire southern property boundary. As
such, the south landscape buffer,proposed just north of this access easement, is depicted as either
a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "A" Buffer or a ten (10)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer, depending on
how the subject project is developed.
A twenty (20)-foot wide Type "D" Buffer is proposed along Livingston Road.
Each single-family lot is required to provide at least one (1) canopy tree. The proposed right-of-
way will be wide enough to accommodate trees in connection with a street tree program pursuant
to LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1 if it is determined that the lot sizes and building setbacks do not
provide enough room to accommodate the requisite trees. It should be noted, however, that this
type of detailed analysis to ensure compliance with the LDC will appropriately occur during a
subsequent development process.
School District: At this time there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle
concurrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area of the proposed
development. At the time of SDP or platting,the project will be evaluated for school concurrency.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Utilities Review: Water and wastewater service will be provided by the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, which has adequate public utility facilities readily available along Livingston Rd.
All water distribution and wastewater collection systems shall be conveyed to the District. County
Utility Easements shall be dedicated for all utility facilities to be owned, operated, and maintained
by the District. Design, construction, and conveyance of the utility facilities shall conform to
current Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures. Applicable system development
charges and connection fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 6 of 13
December 5,2016
Zoning Services Review: Staff analyzed the proposed uses and associated development standards.
The abutting development to the north,Brynwood Preserve PUD,has been developed with single-
family detached dwellings. The PUD Document for this PUD also allows for two-family dwellings
and multi-family dwellings. To the south and east,the Arlington Lakes PUD allows single-family
detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, zero-lot-line, patio dwellings, and multi-
family dwellings. The Arlington Lakes PUD also allows Group Care Facilities(category I and II),
care units, nursing homes, and the like. The uses proposed in the Hamilton Place RPUD (i.e.,
single-family detached, single-family attached, single-family variable lot line, and multi-family
dwellings) are comparable and compatible to the uses approved in the aforementioned PUDs.
With respect to development standards, staff evaluated the standards of the proposed RPUD and
compared them with the standards of the Brynwood Preserve PUD and the Arlington Lakes PUD.
The Brynwood Preserve PUD has been developed with single-family detached homes. The
Arlington Lakes PUD to the south has been developed with condominium buildings. Staff
determined the proposed development standards are comparable and compatible with the
development standards of the aforementioned PUDs.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08":
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access,
drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities.
The subject site fronts on Livingston Road. Water and wastewater facilities are located
within the right-of-way, and each has enough capacity to serve the proposed RPUD.
Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting and construction
permits.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum).
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 7 of 13
December 5,2016
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering
and screening requirements.
As described in the Analysis section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes
the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD is required to provide at least sixty percent (60%) of the gross area for usable
open space. No deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and
compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities,both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e.,GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and
potable water supplies,to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be
addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 8 of 13
December 5,2016
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable":
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding
Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the
existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
There are no other RPUDs located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
however, the proposed project relates well to the surrounding projects, particularly those
containing residential land uses.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The rectangular shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of
the parcels assembled for the rezoning.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e.,GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 9 of 13
December 5,2016
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed rezoning request for up to sixty-six (66) residential units is not anticipated
to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management
system is designed to discharge into the Whippoorwill Flowway. Stormwater Best
Management Practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through
Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District,
and County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, including
stormwater calculations, at time of SDP and/or plat.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or
external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning;however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination
is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The Hiwasse CPUD is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this proposed RPUD
would serve as a deterrent to its improvement.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,
then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are
consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does
not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined
to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public
interest.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 10 of 13
December 5,2016
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the
proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again
later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities,except
as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff
responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted
with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency review for
APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment
will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 11 of 13
December 5,2016
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW:
This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the
project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on September 27, 2016 at the Naples Church of Christ in Naples,
Florida. The meeting commenced at 5:37 p.m. and ended at approximately 6:11 p.m. The NIM
meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2—Application and Support Material. Many of the
questions dealt with the proposed density, buffering, recreation/amenities, and location of access
point.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on November 28, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval.
Attachments:
1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Application and Support Material
3) FLUE Consistency Review
4) Density Map
5) Legal Notifications
6) Emails_Letters from Public
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 12 of 13
December 5,2016
PREPARED BY:
ri
. /
ERIC JOHN , AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:
7 )._4-ii," , 7-„-1/
RAYMON . ELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
�_'_ /(-22. - I
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
.
4IGE ice... —I /4
J. MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
‘yez,(__.v
L- iL/1 /1G
DAVID S. W KISON DATE
DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 13 of 13
ORDINANCE NO. 17-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY
FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 66 SINGLE-FAMILY AND/OR
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST
OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.75+1- ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20160001255]
WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold,AICP of Q. Grady Minor&Associates, Inc. representing
developer, WCI Communities, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change
the zoning classification of the herein described property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural
(A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a
9.75+/- acre project to be known as the Hamilton Place RPUD to allow up to 66 single family
and/or multi-family dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents, attached hereto as
Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
[16-CPS-01571] 72
Hamilton Place RPUD
PUDZ-PL20160001255
12/02/16 1 of 2
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk , Chairman
•
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko \l"�
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses
Exhibit B—Development Standards
Exhibit C—Master Plan
Exhibit D—Legal Description
Exhibit E—List of Deviations
Exhibit F—Developer Commitments
[16-CPS-01571] 72
Hamilton Place RPUD
PUDZ-PL20160001255
12/02/16 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
FOR
HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
Regulations for development of the Hamilton Place RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of
this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect
at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD
Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the
LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 66 residential dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or
structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used,or land used, in whole or in part,for
other than the following:
RESIDENTIAL
A. Principal Uses:
1. Dwelling Units — Multi-family, single family detached, single family attached and
single family variable lot line.
2. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or
the Hearing Examiner.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Customary accessory uses associated with the principal uses permitted in this
RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas,
screen enclosures and utility buildings.
2. Gatehouses, and access control structures.
3. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools.
4. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for
project administration, construction, sales and marketing.
5. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature
trails,gazebos and picnic areas.
6. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses
and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner.
AMENITY AREA
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 1 of 8 12/01/2016
A. Principal Uses:
1. Clubhouses with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents
and guests.
2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities,
such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball
courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active
water features(private intended for use by the residents and their guests only).
3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature
trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing
piers, picnic areas,fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests.
4. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses
(private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only).
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for
project administration,construction, sales and marketing.
2. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses
and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner.
PRESERVE
A. Allowable Uses:
1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve
area to be retained.
2. Mitigation for environmental permitting.
3. Passive Recreation areas,as per LDC requirements.
4. Water management as allowed by the LDC.
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 2 of 8 12/01/2016
EXHIBIT B
FOR
HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Hamilton Place RPUD
Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of
the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY VARIABLE LOT SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY AMENITY
DETACHED LINE FOR SINGLE ATTACHED CENTER
FAMILY
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1 acre 10,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width*3 50 feet 40 feet 35 feet 100 feet N/A
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A
Minimum Front Yard*1,*6 20 feet*2 20 feet*2 20 feet*2 20 feet N/A
Minimum Side Yard 5 feet 0-10 feet*4 0 or 5 feet 10 feet N/A
Minimum Rear Yard*6
Principal 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet N/A
Maximum Height
Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Actual 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet _
Minimum Distance Between 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A
Principal Structures*5
Floor Area Min.(S.F.) 1500 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF N/A
PUD Boundary 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
'. P
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Side 5 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Rear Yard*6 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A
PUD Boundary 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Distance Between 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Structures
Maximum Height
Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be
applied by the Growth Management Department during an application for a building permit. For variable lot single family and single family attached
units, a conceptual exhibit showing typical building configurations, including building setbacks and building separations, shall be submitted to the
Growth Management Division with the application for the first building permit for the platted development tract. Verification of ingress/egress for
maintenance shall be provided for variable lot line single-family units.
All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.
*1—Front yards shall be measured as follows:
A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line.
B. If the parcel is served by a private road,setback is measured from the back of curb(if curbed)or edge of pavement(if not curbed).
Hamilton Place RPUD, PL20160001255 Page 3 of 8 12/01/2016
C. If the parcel has frontage on two sides, setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage
designated as a side yard.
*2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20',and a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be
reduced to 15'.
*3—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained.
*4—The side setback may be variable between zero feet(0')to ten feet(10')as long as a 10-foot minimum separation between principal structures is
maintained. If the variable lot line for single-family option is utilized,the owner shall provide with the building permit application,the setback of the
principal structures on the abutting lots of all sides.
*5—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided and a 10'minimum building separation is
maintained,if detached.
*6—No front building setback is required from the 30' wide access easement,which extends along the southerly boundary of the Hamilton Place
PUD. However,a landscape buffer shall be required.
Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations.
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 4 of 8 12/01/2016
I
III
ZONED:BRYNWOOD PRESERVE PUD(PLAT BOOK 38 PAGE 54-57) GI.'o
USE. RESIDENTIAL '"
SCALE:1•.100'
15'WIDE TYPE'B'
I i /LANDSCAPE BUFFER [PROPERTY BOUNDARY J
1 .— .. — — —
_ WATER MANAGEMENT —_ _ _ _ 1 0
S \� - q
p 7 rn
\ ACCESSGATEREDENTiAL
. , (APPROX LOCATION) �;k RESIDENTI � � `•9 •
kr, - b
I
5 20 WIDE TYPED'LANDSCAPE BUFFER •` ' AMENITY ��R�ti •.,•.,•-•..• 0
J RESIDENTIAL ,,,15.',1, AREA \.`��\�� • • • •
• 2
( 1 30'ESMT(SEE NOTE#2) m u °j ` N� x�i •• -•• Io
- - - - - -- - - - - - r — . — �
�I_ — — — SITE DATA
iN
-PROPERTY m LMF-10 WIDE TYPE'A'LANDSCAPE BUFFER TOTAL SITE AREA: 9.751 AC
BOUNDARY Z m w SF-15'WIDE TYPE'13'LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESIDENTIAL 5.03 AC
0 C CI AMENITY AREA 0.31 AC
MI-I PRESERVE 0.971 AC
I 1 I86 EASEMENTS WATER ANAGEMENT 091AAC
NOTES ZONED. ARLINGTON LAKES PUD EASESPACE 1.I±AC472 C
USE: RESIDENTIAL
1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE
TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 66
2. 30.0 EASEMENT (OR 335. PG 839), UTILITY EASEMENT (OR 1729, PG 395) MAXIMUM DENSITY: 6.77 DU/AC
SUBORDINATION OF ENCUMBRANCE(OR 1729.PG 390)
3 30.0'EASEMENT(OR 543,PG 76) PRESERVE: '
4. THE EXISTING PRESERVES WILL MEET BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTICS ARE REQUIRED-0.971 ACRES 16.461 ACRES NATIVE
REMOVED VEGETATION X 15%)
5. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PROVIDED-0.973 ACRES '
FIRE CODES AND WILL BE SHOWN ON THE SDP PLAN.
150562 __ ,,, ,,,�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•„•- HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
- ®(,radyMinor w, "9.`„'; REVISEDillii- i
EXHIBIT C
y, — cry I..e auuo,”. • w,..,... , I�ot., l„,,Z. MASTER PUN 11/15/2016 '"'..---.,-.'t.'1_,.=.
M.... ..- 1*•,••':_ x....ro... =MIL
EXHIBIT D
FOR
HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(PER COMMITMENT NUMBER: 1062-3504066)
THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE WEST 528.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
(PER COMMITMENT NUMBER: 1062-3504081)
THE WEST 264 FEET AND THE EAST 264 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(PER COMMITMENT NUMBER: 1062-3504087)
THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE WEST 792.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORI DA.
AND
THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE WEST 1056.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 6 of 8 12/01/2016
EXHIBIT E
FOR
HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
LIST OF DEVIATIONS
No Deviations requested.
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 7 of 8 12/01/2016
EXHIBIT F
FOR
HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of
the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of
the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval,the Managing Entity is WCI Communities,LLC,24301 Walden
Center Drive, Bonita Springs, FL 34135. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring
and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that
needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing
Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the
successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the
Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the
commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with
the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its
responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer
responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
2. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of
the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on
the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or
fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a
violation of state or federal law.
b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development
3. TRANSPORTATION
Any platted roadway will comply with LDC requirements, unless a deviation is approved in accordance
with the LDC.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL
The RPUD shall be required to preserve 15%of native vegetation,6.46±acres of native vegetation exists
on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 0.97±acres (6.46 x .15 = 0.97) of native vegetation to be
retained. The preservation plans shall meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC.
5. WATER MANAGEMENT
The project's stormwater management system shall be designed to discharge to the east into the
Whippoorwill Flowway.
Hamilton Place RPUD,PL20160001255 Page 8 of 8 12/01/2016
Coeve. Col/Li-
**
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING DIVISION
CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM
To: Eric Johnson,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: November 8,2016
Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review(2nd memo)
PETITION NUMBER: PL-20160001255 - REV: 2
PETITION NAME: Hamilton Place Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD).
REQUEST: To rezone a ±9.75-acre property from the A,Agricultural zoning district to the Hamilton Place Residential
Planned Unit Development to allow residential development (up to 66 multi-family or single-family units) with
associated amenities (recreational uses) and open space uses.
LOCATION: The ±9.75-acre property is located approximately one-half mile south of Pine Ridge Road, on the east
side of Livingston Road,south of the Brynwood Preserve and north of Positano Place at Naples (AKA Arlington Lakes)
residential PUDs, in Section 18,Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area
(Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The property is also located within a mile of the Pine Ridge Road -1-75 Mixed
Use Activity Center(MUAC#10).
Relative to this petition,the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units
per acre (DU/A). Also, as explained below, this site is eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus for mostly lying within the
residential density band surrounding Activity Center#10,yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU/A.
and is eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus for lying within the residential density band surrounding Activity Center
#10,yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU/A).
FLUE provisions for the Density Rating System state, "If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center
or Interchange Activity Center and located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre may be
added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center shall be measured by the
radial distance from the center of the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity
Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is within the density band, the additional density applies to the gross
acreage of the entire project. Density bands are designated on the Future Land Use Map and shall not apply within
the Estates Designation or for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area". More than 50%of the project is within
the density band, so the additional density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project.
This PUD provides for residential uses at a density of 6.77 DU/A, recreational uses and open space.
The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding
land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the
requested uses/intensities on the subject site,the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a
review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use
intensities and densities,development standards(building heights,setbacks,landscape buffers,etc.),building
mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location,
traffic generation/attraction,etc.]
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the
following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text].
Objective 7:
In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan
for Collier County,Florida, promote smart growth policies,and adhere to the existing development character of Collier
County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where
applicable.
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and
arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of
the Land Development Code. [This site fronts Livingston Road,a minor arterial roadway. Exhibit C,RPUD Master
Plan, depicts a single, direct access to Livingston Road.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby
collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C,RPUD Master Plan,depicts a private
hammer-head cul-de-sac street inside the project. All vehicular traffic accesses Livingston Road directly at a
single access point.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points
with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.The interconnection of local streets
between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts a road on one
side - Livingston Road on the west. Properties located to the north and south are fully developed, with no
interconnection points proposed. A preserve area inside the Arlington Lakes PUD abuts the site along the east
side,where no interconnection is proposed.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities,common
open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [As to walkable communities, the PUD does
not request Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC). The project will be subject to LDC
requirements for provision of sidewalks.
Non-vehicular interconnections are not proposed with the abutting properties. Pedestrian/bike connections
are provided to Livingston Road.
As to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types,the PUD provides single-family detached&
attached, multi-family and single-family flexible lot line residences.
Common open spaces and civic facilities are provided by more than 4.5 acres of open space including water
management lakes, recreational/amenity areas and other open spaces.]
Based upon the above analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Michael Bosi,A/CP, Director,Zoning Division
David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager,Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager,Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section
G:Comp\Consistency Reviews\2016
G:ICDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120161PUDZ\PUDZ-PL2016-1255 Hamilton Place R2 drft.docx.
' �.; f' j , f' Y r7 "'it: L:, , ► '4 ,Kraft LN
A
14.- -.,. - 7 r" ''-''' ' �j PUD01
Related Group � � � .:...w..45:0,-1,-,..- ,:,,,„,:,;,--,,, „IiiiiPUDE '`
Density:6 99 a � CPUD SPUD- CPUD
..., ,
„ .,,..., 41,1/40. nL
,.. .
` . ' ' ' -o,,--_--- -;A.- 4,
,` -- j t,,,.V1 ► :,
.
k
a ��,
, ,,,atit r'',_ ,11,44),,'P.' a
� r� ' : Zoning: PUD i RSF-5 (0,4)
. , ( 1 ,BrynwoodlPreserve m �ini A �...��.�� . .� .
"E j ° Density 5 47 r Al
' CPUD `Ii , :, '; SUBJECT PROPERTY: it
g F i. 4 t 4040 11041* 01V, ; HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
' cec2' / .iro, MI
+ - 77 1(, ‘,.t if'
.. ! , II jw.,.„ L
; .,„;
• � • � sJh"z�.*tYN • �- ,.m+-a.r ra, z"" 1' ' ,�� „,;41t. tiw ..�-� �"':..
k` , 4 to)— -lowPositano CIR ”
g le
zit ' 4, >`: ' C: i
all
L &nIQD; :,. ;
�• t st-, i w 7 na
Kensington Park , ;j . ` i 11 }{ .," z o r
Kensington
re ., ,j i >z: t- -1. . Raffina CT I t !
u
'MI fill
I= Ism
{ ', 'lko ja
' Zoning:tPUD�, .'i rakesr � Arlington �� �� j ,s�! . o
c CPDD I. Zoning: MPUD ,w"` t
( 1,415,05aew, . ..,.:,...e, , a-, Xn .
M i .,t m+ .4-4.4.4° \ as x ,:
f ...„,, '- �.
';,-",".;44:'-' ,., .4, if 1... , 4"."'. '
�v � - Biscayne CT
I' ' • e'' 'NI' ( ,ed"'''''''%,4410,. ''0,,&.•
�.. -'.--\\
\ 4 to"' ' 1,1 i `401,11,
. � �.''"�
sem Si'+i ; .. •t
AV
ii.drakal emit-
Q � yl c ..
ii
15.a
i -R, a
, Densityo1 5.ac.
' a' Balmoral �:
a' Avian() DR . Density.4:0
'i., 41t ii Ilii • l O IIIA _:-. Carrington Carrin ton CIR
GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) N
FOR HAMILTON PLACE CPDD AND 150 300 600 900
Feet
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Johnson Eric
From: Marcia Azar <marciaazar@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:44 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: Carrie
Subject: Hamilton Place
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I am a homeowner in Andalucia and I writing this email to you regarding Hamilton Place.
It is my understanding that an informational meeting regarding the project was held in October and at that
meeting WCI agreed to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their approved height of 35'.
However, they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email
is to request that this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining
neighborhoods, which would limit it to 6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes. If it is possible, I would
prefer that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our development.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep me apprised of any additional information as it
becomes available regarding Hamilton Place.
Kind regards,
Marcia Azar
Sent from my iPhone
1
JohnsonEric
From: Joan Kellner <jk349@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 04,2016 7:12 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: PUDZ-PL20160001255 - Submission against Hamilton Place Zoning change
Attachments: Letter to CCPC regarding Hamilton Place zoning request 12-04-2016.docx
Mr.Johnson;
I am respectfully submitting this email communication as I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for Thursday,
December 15,2016 at 9:00am.This communication was transmitted on December 4,2016—in excess of the stated 7
days required as per the notice I received.
I ask that a receipt be forwarded to me(email is acceptable),that this communication has been received in a timely
manner and will be submitted into the final package of documents to be considered by the CCPC concerning this zoning
request.
Thank you
Joan Kellner
12860 Brynwood Way
Naples FL 34105
Jk349@comcast.net
1
DATE: December 4, 2016
TO: Collier County Planning Commission
FROM: Joan I. Kellner
RE:Zoning Proposal PUDZ-PL20160001255—Hamilton Place
In accordance with the notification I received dated November 23, 2016; pertaining to the public hearing
scheduled for 9:00am,Thursday, December 15, 2016 for consideration of:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance No. 2004-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which
established the comprehensive zoning regulation for the unincorporated area of Collier
County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A)
zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for the
project known as Hamilton Place RPUD to allow development of up to 66 single family
and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located east of Livingston Road and
south of Pine ridge Road in Section 18,Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida,consisting of 9.75+/-acres,and by providing an effective date.{PUDZ-
PL20160001255}.
Please find the following:
I am a permanent,full-time resident of Brynwood Preserve,the development located just north of the
subject property. My property is located approximately at the midpoint along the southern border of
my association and would be directly affected by the proposed zoning change and subsequent
development.
I have attended the community information meeting which was held on September 27, 2016. In
essence,this meeting did not provide much information as at the time no final plans had been set.There
were also concerned residents from Andalucia and Positano Place,two other communities which share
borders with the subject property.
At the time of this meeting,the developers were not able to provide specifics on the allocation of
building types(Single detached,Single attached, Multi-Family)or the projected sales price ranges of the
proposed units. Even the size of the units was not available for discussion.This concerns me as a
neighbor to the proposed development since the type and size of unit will dictate market pricing and in
turn could have an adverse effect on the value of my property. For example, Brynwood preserve has 85,
single detached homes, both one and two story with floor plans between 1,900-2,300sf. Houses in
the association are currently begin marketed and sold from the mid-$400M to low$500M. If the new
units being built adjacent to our property are less than 1,500sf, and are considered more
condo/apartment styled—the overall market value per unit will be substantially less and could adversely
affect the market prices in the immediate geographic area.
The contiguous developments: Brynwood,Andalucia, Positano;were constructed between 2003 and
2016 and have residential density ratios of under 6:1. The proposed development is in excess of this
ratio,and although the County regulations allow up to 7:1, I feel that the final density should not exceed
the lowest of the contiguous parcels.
Why you may ask?
The proposed building parcel is much smaller than its neighbors—with a 66 proposed units(in
combination of single detached,single attached,and multifamily units)on 9.75 acres with two proposed
water retention areas,a community area with a common area pool,tennis/pickle ball and basketball
court areas,a community building and related roadways. By comparison:
Brynwood contains 29 acres and has 85 single family homes. Each home is approximately 1/6
(.16)of an acre.There are essentially three floor plans of one or two story construction.The remaining
space is occupied by retention lakes, roadway, preserve area and some common area walk/jogging
paths along the western edge.
Andalucia has 78 acres with 167 single family homes.Other land use is in retention lakes,
preserve areas, roadways and a community center with a pool, pay area and common building
amenities.
Positano Place is a condominium association with 330 units in 15 building(22 units per building)
with three story construction. The property is divided into four smaller neighborhood associations and
each pay toward common amenities such as the community center, a pool and roadways.
With the exception of Positano, none of the closest developments to any of these properties (Aviano,
Kensington,Stratford Place etc.)do not exceed two stories.And should not—if only for aesthetic
purposes.There are no other three-story buildings in the immediate area other than commercial.
Also—in a quick aerial view of the surrounding developments—there are significant areas of
vacant/non-developed land which surround each development—in the form of preserves,
environmentally protected areas and outright vacant land.There is little to no"line of sight"contact
between developments. Permitting this construction would not only increase the density of the area,
but contaminate the views of the owners of units along the borders of this property which were a major
deciding factor in the purchase of these units and making them more desirable within the communities
as reflected by sales and purchase prices. Developing this property will have an adverse effect on the
market value of the closest units of the adjacent communities and a decreased enjoyment of these
properties by the owners.
Not only visual, but auditory issues will result. As I mentioned earlier, I am located on the southern side
of Brynwood Preserve—approximately halfway along the length of the subject property. At this time
with the full width of the property vacant and heavily vegetated,sounds from Positano Place (located to
the south of the subject property) pervade to our side of the association. Noises include car traffic, car
alarms and closing doors, loud talking from the residents at Positano. Most recently the cries of victory
from Chicago fans at the end of the 7th game of the World Series this past November could be heard. I
cannot imagine the additional noise that will be generated from 66 units between us (Positano and
Brynwood)in the form of human interaction,general building noise(air handler/compressor units, pool
pumps,garage doors,entry doors),entertainment areas(common pool,tennis or basketball courts) and
general traffic. I cannot imagine that the proposed vegetation and/or water management areas that are
proposed will be able to alleviate the noise contamination when a fully wooded/vegetative area cannot.
I feel that I can categorically state that the proposed vegetation; 15'of Type B along the northern border
and 10' of Type A along the southern border will not be a sufficient for either bordering neighborhood.
If this plan were to be approved I would argue for the need of a significant wall barrier in addition to
heavier vegetation planting to attempt to muffle the increase in noise.
The proposed development also allows for a water management area along the property line it shares
with Brynwood.At the meeting previously noted, participants were informed that this will be @40' in
width (from north to south)and extend along the residential construction,approximately 800'-
850'along the shared property line. Currently there is no formal run-off for water to this area which will
require the construction of a "canal"or other such structure to contain excess rainwater and run-off
from the adjacent parcels(I'm assuming that this will include water flow from individual building
gutters, possible pool overflows,drainage from the interior roadway etc.). I'm concerned about the
capacity of the basin, purge capability,and water flow/stagnation issues that could result in overflow to
adjacent areas or mosquito or other insect larvae production so close to my home. At this time we do
not have a problem with drainage on this side of the property or adverse insect population effects but
any significant change in the ecosystem or topography of the immediate area could have negative
effects.
Additionally, noise is a concern for us along our roadway and as sound carries quickly without reduced
decibel levels across a liquid surface more readily than through a heavily vegetated area—all sounds
generated from Hamilton Place will be in excess of the levels currently heard from Positano. Residents at
Andalucia had voiced their concern about the water management area at the rear of the project—their
development has already experienced problems with drainage in the preserve areas and fear that
additional water containment structures nearby will exacerbate their current issue.
The proposed construction includes moving the current driveway access from the southwest to the
northwest corner of the property—nearly in alignment with the"slip" lane which originates just north of
our property line on Livingston Road for access to Brynwood's entry. Not only do I believe that the
proximity of these two driveway features will inherently create a heightened accident zone for residents
of Brynwood and Hamilton Place, but that Positano will also be adversely affected in their ability to
access Livingston Road easily. From personal experience, I normally access Brynwood by travelling
southward on Livingston and make the U-turn where Positano and Kensington entrances are across
from one another.The knowledge of right-of-way eludes most drivers in the best of circumstances but
adding another property access into the immediate area will only increase the likelihood of collision
from entrance and egress of these properties as well as drivers travelling on Livingston Road itself.
Additionally,the location of the proposed entrance will cause an increase of vehicles taking this U-turn
to access the subject property.The current slip/turn lane located southbound on Livingston will most
likely need to be elongated to support additional vehicles waiting to make this turn.
Also,we were informed at the information meeting that there is a County requirement of 660ft
between driveways/entrances.The location of the Hamilton Place PUD entrance will be less than 660ft
from both Positano Place and Brynwood Preserve roadways, requiring TWO variances solely for
driveway placement. Obviously this narrow parcel is not conducive for a high-access development.
As you are aware, WCI Communities Inc. is the current developer of record and has a relatively strong
record for building quality construction in this market and others. However, in September 2016,WCI
entered into a merger agreement with Lennar Homes Inc. Lennar will be the lead company and WCI will
become essentially a branding name with no management or decision-making authority. Lennar, unlike
WCI, does not have the same name in the construction business and instead has a high incidence of
consumer complaints with construction quality and warranties/guaranties—all of which can be viewed
via multiple BBB listings—complaints are organized by geographic area on the website. Furthermore, in
on November 30,2016,a WCI shareholder has filed suit against the proposed merger—with further
details to be found via any internet search engine.
In summary, I am submitting my concerns,which affect numerous residents in three neighborhoods
contiguous with the proposed development. I hope that these arguments will bear consideration from
the Board who are also residents of Naples and purchased their homes with consideration of proximity
of other developments and the related auditory and visual benefits as well as ease of access from major
local roadways.
Furthermore,while I understand that development is inevitable, I do not believe that a higher density
project should be approved in the midst of three completed projects that are lower in density. The
developer has submitted this multi-story, high density plan as it is likely not financially feasible for them
develop it similarly to the two adjacent parcels of Brynwood or Andalucia which are of lower density and
do not contain multi-family units. If it is developed along the scope of Positano—the property values for
the units of Brynwood that face this project will decline as it will not be favorably viewed by future
owners.
Respectfully I submit my concerns and views of this project to the Board. I ask that if approval is granted,
that additional concerns and consideration for the following will be addressed:
• A solid wall barrier along the shared property lines,or
• Extended vegetation coverage in excess of the proposed plan.
• A two-story limit on all construction heights.
• A density level not to exceed the existing surrounding parcels of less than 6:1.
• An alternate plan for entrance/egress to the property.
• Extensive review of water retention areas and proposed management as well as geologic and
environmental impact on adjacent parcels.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely;
Joan I Kellner
12860 Brynwood Way
Naples FL 34105
JohnsonEric
From: djosephmail@gmail.com on behalf of David Joseph <david@naplesluxurygroup.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:04 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Hamilton Place
Dear Mr.Johnson,
I am a homeowner in Andalucia and I writing this email to you regarding Hamilton Place.
It is my understanding that an informational meeting regarding the project was held in October and at that meeting WCI agreed
to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email is to request that
this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,which would limit it to
6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes. If it is possible, I would prefer that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our
development.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep me apprised of any additional information as it becomes available
regarding Hamilton Place.
Kind regards
Please click HERE to visit the Andalucia Homeowners Association web site.
JohnsonEric
From: Julie <jvadas35@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 3:46 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: Carrie Filthaut
Subject: Hamilton Place
Dear Mr.Johnson,
I am a homeowner in Andalucia and I writing this email to you regarding Hamilton Place.
It is my understanding that an informational meeting regarding the project was held in October and at that meeting WCI agreed
to limiting the building height to 3 stories or less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email is to request that
this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,which would limit it to
6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes. If it is possible, I would prefer that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our
development.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep me apprised of any additional information as it becomes available
regarding Hamilton Place.
Kind regards,
Julie Mehler
1469 Serrano Circle
Please click HERE to visit the Andalucia Homeowners Association web site.
JohnsonEric
From: Vicki Mach <william.mach@frontier.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 12:19 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: Carrie Filthaut
Subject: Hamilton Place
Dear Mr.Johnson,
We are homeowners in Andalucia. We are one of the 7 homes most affected, as our home is directly behind the proposed
Hamilton Place Development. We bought our lot specifically because of the privacy it afforded,due to being a preserve lot. We
have concerns of privacy and noise due to the current proposal.
We were not able to attend the October informational meeting, but we did contact Sharon Upenhour at Grady Minor. It is
our understanding,after talking with her, that WCI agreed to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their
approved height of 35'.and that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is our understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email is to request
that this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,which would limit
it to 6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes. If it is possible,we would prefer that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our
development.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep us apprised of any additional information as it becomes available
regarding Hamilton Place.
Regards,
Bill and Vicki Mach
•
JohnsonEric
From: Ana Tereza <ana_avellar@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 1:00 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Request
Dear Mr.Johnson,
I am a homeowner in Andalucia and I writing this email to you regarding Hamilton Place.
It is my understanding that an informational meeting regarding the project was held in October and at that
meeting WCI agreed to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email
is to request that this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining
neighborhoods,which would limit it to 6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes. If it is possible, I would prefer
that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our development.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep me apprised of any additional information as it
becomes available regarding Hamilton Place.
Kind regards,
Ana Munro
1
•
JohnsonEric
From: Sandra Raseta <sraseta@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03,2016 11:51 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: Carrie J. Filthaut
Subject: HamiltonPlace
Mr. Johnson,
My husband, George Raseta, and I, Sandra Raseta, moved into our new home here at 1478 Serrano Circle in
Andalucia on 12/20/2011. We are full-time residents and have been very happy living here these past 5 years. If
you allow the construction of 6.6 units per acre in Hamilton Place, our home will not be as ideal as it has been.
I'm sure it is not your intention to make people unhappy to be living in Naples.
The best solution would be to locate Hamilton Place elsewhere, somewhere with more room. But if this is
"impossible" please try to limit the impact on our environment by reducing the number of units to be squeezed
into that slender parcel of land.
Thank you.
Sandra and George Raseta
Sent from my iPad
JohnsonEric
From: Budimir Zvolanek <budajz68@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:27 AM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: Hamilton Place development
Mr.Johnson,
I am a homeowner in Andalucia and am writing this email to you regarding Hamilton Place development.
It is my understanding that an informational meeting regarding the project was held in October 2016 and at that meeting WCI
agreed to limit the building height to 3 stories or less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
t Understand that density is based on neighboring developments. I am thus requesting that Hamilton Place be limited to no
greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,which would limit it to 6 units per acre to match
Arlington Lakes. If possible, I would prefer that it be limited to 3 units per acre to match our Andalucia development where I live.
Please confirm that you have received this email and keep me apprised of any additional information as it becomes available
regarding the Hamilton Place.
Best regards,
Budimir(Bud)Zvolanek
Homeowner
1340 Andalucia Way
Naples, FL 34105
i
JohnsonEric
From: Carrie J. Filthaut <cjfilthaut@napleslaw.com>
Sent: Friday,October 07, 2016 4:45 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Subject: RE: Hamilton Place RPUD
If it helps, I will be happy to collect owner responses via email that back the Association request.
Carrie J. Filthaut
Real Estate Paralegal
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
ATTORNEY'S.A7 LAW 821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239)436-1519 direct
(239) 261-9300 telephone
(239) 261-9782 facsimile
cifilthautnapleslaw.com
www.naDleslaw.com
This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is
not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300
and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is
strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.
From:JohnsonEric[mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net]
Sent: Friday,October 07,2016 4:42 PM
To:Carrie J. Filthaut<cjfilthaut@napleslaw.com>
Subject: RE: Hamilton Place RPUD
Thank you for your email and comments. I will be sure to include it in the packets that will be reviewed by the
decision makers.
Respectfully,
Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
From:Carrie J. Filthaut[mailto:cifilthautPnapleslaw.com]
Sent: Friday,October 07,2016 3:31 PM
To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>
Cc:Carrie Filthaut<carriefilthaut@centurvlink.net>
Subject: Hamilton Place RPUD
Hi Eric-
1
I am the President of Andalucia Homeowners'Association and I was at the informational meeting you attended last
week regarding Hamilton Place.
During that meeting WCI agreed to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email is to
request that this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,
which would limit it to 6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Carrie J. Filthaut
Real Estate Paralegal
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
rcr■xt r t 821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239) 436-1519 direct
(239) 261-9300 telephone
(239) 261-9782 facsimile
cifilthautPnapleslaw.com
www.napleslaw.com
This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is
not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300
and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is
strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.
Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send
electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
!II
JohnsonEric
From: Carrie J. Filthaut <cjfilthaut@napleslaw.com>
Sent: Friday,October 07, 2016 3:31 PM
To: JohnsonEric
Cc: Carrie Filthaut
Subject: Hamilton Place RPUD
Hi Eric—
I am the President of Andalucia Homeowners'Association and I was at the informational meeting you attended last
week regarding Hamilton Place.
During that meeting WCI agreed to limited the building height to 3 stories of less based on their approved height of 35'.
However,they indicated that their approved density is 6.6 units per acre.
It is my understanding that density is usually based upon neighboring developments. The purpose of this email is to
request that this project be limited to no greater density than the highest maximum density of adjoining neighborhoods,
which would limit it to 6 units per acre to match Arlington Lakes.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Carrie J. Filthaut
Real Estate Paralegal
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
J.TTU0.t:FYS.AT L.AT 821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239) 436-1519 direct
(239) 261-9300 telephone
(239) 261-9782 facsimile
cifilthautPnapleslaw.com
www.naoleslaw.com
This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If this e-mail is
not addressed to you(or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you),please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us(collect)at 239-261-9300
and delete this message immediately from your computer.Any unauthorized review,use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail is
strictly prohibited.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.
1
NaPirS BaitH NeiUS
NaplesNews.com
Published Daily
Naples,FL 34110
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that
he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun-
ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published
in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published
at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published
in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre-
ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement;and affiant further says that he has neither paid
nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#
BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1368601 PUBLIC HEARING 45-172052
Pub Dates
November 28,2016
t
(Sign ure of affiant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 + •"""w, IVONNE GOBI
This Decembe Ol,2016 + yam, �'= Notary Public-Stats of Florida
'j Commiasioo FF 900810 '
rr My Comm.Expires Jul 16.2019
• Bonded through Naomi Notary Assn.
4U
(Signatur of affiant)
MA Monday,November 28,2016 Naples Daily Nees
Army's advance in Aleppo
displaces thousands
C Rebel defenses collapse soar Bete Tv broadcast a video sat-
urday showing a teary reunion between a
m before government attack soldier a a his family after t,eerb five
Eyears apart,according tothe report.It said
tea PHILIP ISSA ASSOCIATED PRESS Her family had been trapped In Maoeken _ AWE YOUR
co Thousands of residents fled Sunday TheLebaneaeAl-ManarTVeham,elre- MOTHER-1N-IAW.
G amid simultaneous advances by Syrian ported front the neighborhood Sunday J A Modern*error n s 'ilea L ghdng
C) 0 government and Kurdish-led forces Into morning,stowing workers and soldiers guaranteeden Anna-pate L0h.v rte
es
O Z eastern Aleppo, clearing debris against a backdrop ofhr I
o woe,Rebel defenses collapsed as govern- bombed-out buildings on both sides of a prplor thr holden today'
a) met forces pushed into thenity's Saakhu• wird thoroughfare.Al-Manar es operated
C neighborhood coming within about half a by Hezbollah,theLebmesemilitant group
Q mile of commanding a corridor in eastern aligned with the Syrian government.
•C W Aleppo for the first time since rebels The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic
Q = swept into the city in 2012,according to Forces'advance into Bustin al-Bash• --!
N _ Syrian state media and the Syrian Obser- dealt the opposition a further blow. -.._
vatbry for Human Rights monitoring Rebels and opposition figures have
10 Q U group. long accused the SDF and its predecessor i..
CS t J Kurdish-led forces operating Sumo groups of conspiring withthegovemnent
O. CO CO mously of the rebels and the government, to quash a nationwide revolt tIltI i9-5
CO Q I = meanwhile,seized the Basten o aaaM Arajween government
t and Ku coordination stiPLF.5.1165 trade Center Wev•.19-5926006 11 iii l l N•
I^a log neighborhood of northern Aleppo, deci- between govemrnent and Kurdish-led aONIIA SPRINGS-3313 Rrnai,eann BIW•13P91a,9000 (\'ltV■', 1 J
Z Z Q ng thousands district,
Of civilians to flee the flee forces. Monday-Thursday 9 to 6•Friday 9 to 5•Saturday 10 to i en
mated district,according to Ahmad Hiroo "We were reapon�gtocalls fromresi- iill
-
Araj,anofficialwiththeSytienDemoc at- dents in Boston al-Basis to secure the II .
is Forces. neighb ,he said.He added the SDF
The government's push,backed by had entered
ered t the area handily as rebel sail-
U) thousands of Shite militia Fighters from iters fled.
) Lebanon,Iraq,andiron,and under the oc- Aleppo used to be Syria's largest city a.'. w I r L PLANTATION Et' /�
caaionnl cover of the Russian air force,has andcommerce capital before itsneighbar- N I-.. e` PLANTATION
C laid waste to Aleppo's eastern neighbor- hoods were devastated by the country's affi saw 1
0 Mods and trapped some 250,000 people. more than five-year-long civil war. s - -'- SHUTTERS
N Food supplies ore running perilously The UN's child agency warned Sm- —
N low,the U.N.warned Thursday,and a re- day that nearly 500,000 children were now me we.
_ # ...: ARE
lentless air assault by government fore m Sy
living under siege ria,cut off from '
has damaged or destroyed every homital food and medical aid.mostly In areas tn- —
J 'I
• 0 C in the area. der government control That figure has JUST T H E
N Resole to in east Aleppo said in dis doubled in fess than a year
N T 0 .a tressed messages on social media that Many are now spending their days un- -7'' BEGINNING
t' U O -` thousands of people were fleeing to the dergr000il, as hospitals, schools and - a
fry's government-controlled western homes remain vulnerable to aerial born- r
COCCO •
U to neighborhoods,away from the govern- ba dment
merit's merciless assault,or deeper into "Children are being killed and injured, Plantatroe Shutters I Blinds&Shades I Hurneane Fabric I Impact W Inflows&Doors
0) N (v opposition-held eastern Aleppo. too afraid to te
go to school or even play, Extend-Bahamas&Colonials I Rolldown&Accordion Shutters
Q Q V) 0 "The situation in besieged Aleppo Cts) viving with little food and hardly any Visit our Showroom Today or Call to Schedule Your In-Home Estimate
very very bad,thousands of eastern nisi- medicine,"saidUNIC EFExecutive Di ec-
demsare moving tothe western side of the for Anthony Lake.lisle isroway odye—
city,"said Khalea Khatib,a photographer and ten many are dying." Save$300
Defense the Syrian Civil searcleand- Activists also t..µhd ucivilian casual ore of
rescue group,also Imowm as the White ties Sunday frame presumed government ``b�� orsPrown n snsd,trs
Or
Helmets. Russian arstrike on a village outside Pry r n
"Aleppo is going to die,"he posted on Aleppo. of rmmosc
Twitter The meal Coordination Committees Connor be romb„Ietl
C Syrian state media reported govern- activist network io Syria reported 15 civil- NAPLES HOTTER ,non other efors.
meat fomes had as aed the Sabal Baden anal ea nasties a sire rikeentneva- — '4 www,naplesshutter.corn""'"6
i netgbborhood and entered Saktnw Sun- Inge of Anjara,controlled by the opposi- 1025 Power St.,Naples,FL 34104 Mon-Fri 8:30am-S:OOpm
N day after it took control of the Masaken tion m the western Aleppo countryside, P 1
Hanan neighborhood Saturday and tens of otherswotendW,
r
K
W NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Op G ALLERGIES? NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
CO Q V = Notice is herebythatpublic hearing will be held bythe collier Court Planting
given pty 0
▪ z M z ASTHMA? Commeston 519:00 AM..on Th.aadry,December t 6th,2016 In ma Board of County
a Commissioners Meeeng Room,Third Floor Colter Government Cents,3299 East
Tamiasei Tran.Naples FL..to consider:
HEADACHES'? AN OF COLLIER
COUNTY.NANCE FLLOR FLOTHE BOARD OF COUNTY RIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE COMMISSIONERSNO.2004-41,AS AMENDED.THE
E COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHICH UNINCORPORATED
THE
D COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORgTED AREA OF
C) Z COLUER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS
Q- MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
C T DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL(AI ZONING
E 0_ {� _ DISTRICT TOA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(RPUD)ZONING
RPUD TO ALLOW
Z ,_ IAS I � �DIUI M DIEVELOPMENT SFRICT OF UPFOR THER OECT G
66 SINGLE-FAMILY FAMILYY ANKNOWN ASILD/OR TON MULTPLACI-FAMILY AW G
MILLY DWE
C N 0 0 UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUON ROAD AND SO26 UTHT COIF PINE
UER
Q C 0
CO-__EAH-Rill
( (L COUNTY. DATED I UDZPL201600012561SACRES;ANDTH, EBV PRONDIGUAN
EFFEAdditional Services Include: LiiCensed&Ifltorred �t�ILLJA�J�j
•AJC CleaningAir Handler Cleaningtor your pone a0n! Pine Ridge RD
' YCAC1e16190
•Sanitizing*Duct Repairs MRSR91•MRSA75 °m
*Certified Mold Removal 8' I-s
*Before 8 After Inspection 2
*State-of-the-Art UV PurificationIn pi , PIIIUMT I a Lerma
CD SystemsLOCATION t
e
Lowest Price:FREE 110% Ae intaaste0 parson are nvned to app.•and be heard. Copley of the proposed
�, N Ever! ORDINANCE will be made waled°for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's oHke,
laKaYlE a�=, II fourth foot Collier County Government Center.3299 East Tamen Trailsuite 401,
g98 Nada FL,one week poor to me scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed
O MOId 0,y F F with m.Zonh9 Diwaian Zoning Bary pea Section.prior rn Thursday,Dawmb.e tBth,
N : Inspection . ,, 2016.
AIL (Reg. ;; 1h NDN n a person decides to appealany a ton mad.by me Collier County Planning
tCanml•nmw'imraspecttbanvmam mn0deosdatsuchmetngahewmg newu
Unlimited; Coupon need a reoerd dl ma poocedma Old t span purpose he they need to ensure y e a
` $99) Coupon veroanm retard of me proceeding*is de,which racatl ndudes me tatimorty end
Ventsl evidence upon which the appeal k to be base°
all�rr (includes 1 maim ami a0acwyr0y. O' Y' ,, It you area person with a disabllty who needs any accommodation A order to
Wereses. panidpate n role poceedlng you am entitled at no coat to you,to me provision of
44a•► Q• �` 6 Retum, i f i, certain assistance.Please contact tee Colla County Facdnee Management Division,
/ MN age comes holt•e 5 opted at 3335 Tamlani Trail Emt.Suite 101,Naples.FL 34112-6356,(239)262-
I'r\ w , - - 8360 at bast two days prior to the meeting Amsted tbtevinp clavicle for me hewing
L` impaired are evadable In the Boars m County Canrtnaaionen Office.
Toll Free: 888-458-9428 CWM County Planning Commission
,�
Mark Strain,Chairman
CO Naples: 239-530-0104 November 28,2016 ND-1368601
-a
0
it
Petition No.PUDZ-PL20160001255
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL
NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and
10.03.05.B.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give
notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning
Commission scheduled for December 15, 2016 by U.S. mail to the
affected property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier
County Property Appraiser's Office on November 23, 2016. A copy of
the list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office
is attached to this Affidavit.
2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to
this Affidavit.
Dated this a3 day of Altjthr 2016.
A ((
Si aLe
Pnnt Name
kN) (A,J- 1/2'br-
Print Title
1 of2
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
� pBEFORE M . a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared
I���i[t S - 60t6r- who is personally known to me or produced iVe."--
1 cer1Se as identification, and under oath stated that the above is true and correct
and to the best of his/her knowledge.
DATED thisA 3 day of ! kk.)&J'YY ,2016.
``��NUuu►Nq�q
N.ao1 ����i,�� Notary,State of Florida
c'w O
.4;°''?° '• S. t+d: hi CI mond
* ex- " *= Notary Printed Name
WFf998114 . `
My commission expires:
2 of2
COLLIER COUNTY
Growth Management Department
November 23,2016
Dear Property Owner:
This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet
(urban areas)or 1,000 feet(rural areas)of the following described property,that a public hearing will be held by the Collier
County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on December 15, 2016,in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room,
third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential
Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for the project known as Hamilton Place RPUD to allow development of
up to 66 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located east of Livingston Road and south of Pine Ridge
Road in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.75+/- acres; and by
providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20160001255]
You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing.You may also submit your comments in writing.
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO
SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC
MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW,A MINIMUM
OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,
at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days
prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners
Office.
This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth
Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff
member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file.
Sincerely,
cut,
Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
Agenda Item 9-B
Cotter County
Growth Management Department
Development Review Division
December 7, 2016
Dear Planning Commissioners,
There are two LDC Amendments for your review and consideration at the December 12, 2016, meeting:
1. LDC section 6.05.01 &6.05.03 Stormwater Management(New Section). This amendment
expands the requirement for a stormwater plan to all new buildings, additions, or
redevelopment of single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and duplexes (with some
exceptions).The amendment also modifies the design requirements for stormwater plans.
2. LDC sections 2.03.06&5.05.15 Golf Course Conversions(new section). This amendment follows
Board direction and introduces a new LDC section to address the conversion of golf courses to
non-golf uses.The amendment establishes a new public outreach process and design standards
for the proposed development to provide compatibility with existing residential uses.
After completing research on golf course conversions across the nation and Florida, staff
prepared a report for the Board with research findings and recommendations on LDCAs.The
report was accepted the report on Tuesday, September 27th.The report can be on the LDC
Amendment webpage: www.colliergov.net/currentldcas
There are two other amendments in this cycle, changes to 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District and
3.05.07 Preservation Standards, which will be prepared and provided to you for your review on January
5, 2017.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the proposed changes to the LDC
amendment request.
Sincerely,
Caroline Cilek
carolinecilek@colliergov.net
(239) 252-2485
•
c
•
nuNI
Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Growth Management Department
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2016 LDC Amendment Cycle
LDC SECTION(S): 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements
6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units, Two-Family
Dwelling Units, and Duplexes (new section)
CHANGES: This amendment expands the requirement for a stormwater plan for all new
buildings, additions, or redevelopment of single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and
duplexes. Currently, only those lots that exceed the maximum lot coverage or impervious area are
required to submit a stormwater plan. This amendment removes the maximum lot coverage,
requires a stormwater plan on all lots and increases the impervious area thresholds for when an
engineered plan is required. Exceptions to the requirement for stormwater plans are provided for
lots in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district that are outside the coastal urban area and
Immokalee urban area, and for lots within a project that has been permitted by the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) for Surface Water Management or Environmental
Resource Protection.
The amendment establishes two types of stormwater plans as described in Tables 1 and 2 below:
Table 1. Type I Stormwater Plans.
Required for Type I Stormwater Plans shall demonstrate:
Lots with 40 percent or less
impervious area.
1. The direction of stormwater discharges.
Lots in the Estates district with 25
percent or less impervious area. 2. Compliance with design standards for
Lots in RSF-1 or Rural Agricultural retaining walls,French drains, stormwater
(A) districts in the urban area with 30 pipes, gutters and downspouts.
percent or less impervious area.
Lots that discharge directly into a 3. The location,dimension, and setbacks of
waterbody that is downstream of the septic systems, if applicable.
last control structure(regardless of
impervious area).
2
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
Table 2. Type II Stormwater Plans.
Required for: Type II Storrnwater Plans shall
demonstrate:
Lots with more than 40 percent 1. Compliance with all Type I Stormwater
impervious area. Plan criteria.
Lots in the Estates district with more 2. Water quantity calculations to
than 25 percent impervious area. accommodate the runoff from the area
Lots in RSF-1 or Rural Agricultural exceeding the Type II Stormwater Plan
(A) districts in the urban area with thresholds from a 5-year 1-day storm.
more than 30 percent impervious 3. A matrix of all required separation
area. distances between wells, drainfield
Lots that discharge directly into a systems, and stormwater
waterbody that is upstream of the last retention/detention areas.
control structure(regardless of 4. Certification of compliance by the
impervious area). engineer.
Additionally, the amendment establishes Type I and Type II Stormwater Plans as the tool for
demonstrating compliance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances section 90-41 (0(8).
A new application process for stormwater plans is also established in the Administrative Code.
REASON:
History
The current standards in LDC section 6.05.01 F were created in 2007 to address impacts associated
with large homes on small lots in conventional zoning districts. At that time, it was determined
that lots exempt from obtaining a SFWMD permit were designed to accommodate a typical amount
of lot coverage or impervious area. Therefore, it was determined that when a large home exceeds
the typical lot coverage or impervious area for that neighborhood, the home may result in impacts
to neighboring properties or the local stormwater system. As a result, a requirement to provide a
stormwater plan was established to address stormwater runoff from lots with a greater than average
percentage of lot coverage or impervious area.
In 2013, the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) reviewed the stormwater plan
requirements in this section. At that time, they identified that the maximum lot coverage and
impervious areas are disproportionately limiting on Estates lots and recommended that an LDC
amendment address the lot coverage and impervious area thresholds. The amendment was then
added to the prioritized list of LDC amendments and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. Following DSAC's discussion of these standards, staff conducted additional
research and found several other areas for improvement in the current program as described in the
following sections.
Staff Research
Staff analyzed data from lot coverage reviews that occurred during a one-year period from June
2015 to June 2016. Staff members who regularly perform lot coverage reviews also identified
common problems with stormwater plan submittals and the current standards.As a result,staff has
3
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
proposed changes to address not only disparities in the current thresholds, but also to resolve
several issues related to other elements of stormwater plans:
Thresholds
Analysis of the current thresholds confirmed that the maximum lot coverage and maximum
impervious area percentages do not apply consistently as lot sizes increase. Additionally, this
analysis has demonstrated that the percentage of lot coverage/impervious area allowed is
inconsistent once lot sizes exceed 53,000 square feet. Figure 1 demonstrates how the allowed lot
coverage and impervious areas change as lot sizes increase. For small lots, the maximum allowed
lot coverage begins at 25 percent and the maximum allowed impervious area begins at 40 percent.
However, larger lots are limited to a maximum lot coverage and impervious area of less than 5
percent.
Figure 1. Percent of Allowed Lot Coverage and Impervious Area at Varying Lot Sizes.
--Percent of Impervious Area Allowed —Percent of Lot Coverage Allowed
45%
40%
35%
' . 30%
0
p 25%
C
w 20%
a 15%
10%
5%
0% �p�p ppp �p�p �p�p p�p� p �p p� �p �p �p �p �p�p �p�p �p�p �p�p SS �pp� pp� �p �p�p �p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u1 u1 O of O u1 O u1 O vi O u1 O of O of O CO1 u1 O tt O Vi O of O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O of S O a CO N N
.� rl N N CO M O O u1 Vf CO CO N N CO CO 01 Ot O O .l .r N N CO M a a of u1 CO CO N N m CO 01 as O
.-1 - H - - e 1 .-1 N N N - eel N N M - N ri N H NNNNNN
Lot Size(Square Feet)
Common problems
LDC section 6.05.01 F is intended to address impacts associated with stormwater runoff flowing
onto neighboring properties. However, the current standards do not adequately protect against the
possibility for stormwater impacts. For properties that do not exceed the existing thresholds, no
review is performed when improvements are made to the property to ensure stormwater does not
flow to neighboring properties. However, even lots with a low percentage of lot coverage and
impervious area have the potential to impact their neighbors through site grading changes, slopes
or new structures near the property line, and other site features.
For lots that exceed the existing lot coverage or impervious area thresholds, while retention or
detention of stormwater is required, the current standards still do not adequately protect against
the possibility for stormwater impacts. There are no criteria related to berms or slopes near the
impacted area and there is no requirement for runoff to physically connect to the retention area.
This means that although a retention area may be provided, there is no guarantee that the retention
captures any of the runoff from impervious areas on site or that other site features won't result in
a change in flow patterns and create stormwater impacts on neighboring properties.
4
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
Moreover,there are some types of impervious surfaces that are not required to obtain a permit and
therefore may not be counted toward the maximum impervious area. However, any impervious
surfaces still have the potential to change stormwater runoff patterns.
Exemptions
Several exemptions are provided in the current standards. One of these allows an additional 3
percent (up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet) lot coverage or impervious area for first time
additions only. However, this additional lot coverage is not exempt during subsequent additions.
This means that if a stormwater plan is required for future additions,retention will then be.required
for the area that was previously exempt from the standards.
Another exemption applied to lot coverage and impervious area reviews is for additions less than
400 square feet. Additions less than 400 square feet are not reviewed,even when the maximum lot
coverage or impervious area has already been exceeded. The nexus for both of these exemptions
is not clear and they could allow for stormwater impacts to occur, therefore, there are no size
exemptions in the proposed amendment.
Approval process
Lot coverage and impervious area calculations are currently only required when on site retention
is required. As a result,property owners submitting a building permit may not be aware how much
impervious area is on their lot until they have exceeded the thresholds. This can make thoughtful
planning of the lot difficult for property owners. This difficulty is compounded when separate
permits for a home and pool are submitted simultaneously. In some cases,one permit may indicate
a stormwater plan is required,while the other does not. This can be confusing for property owners
and again makes planning the development of the lot unpredictable. With this in mind, staff
believes the current process does not effectively communicate stormwater plan requirements to
property owners. For these reasons, the proposed amendment more clearly defines when
stormwater plans are required, how they should be prepared, and other procedural considerations.
The new Administrative Code section proposed in Appendix A is also intended to more clearly
define the approval process for stormwater plans.
Other communities
Staff reviewed lot coverage and stormwater management requirements for single-family
dwellings, two-family dwellings, and duplexes in 15 other communities and municipalities
throughout Florida. Three characteristics of stormwater management were common in other
communities:
1. Maximum lot coverage percentages and stormwater management applicability is based on
zoning districts, rather than lot sizes, in nearly all communities reviewed.
2. When stormwater management is required,standards are established for all lots,rather than
just those exceeding the maximum percentage of lot coverage or impervious area.
3. Other communities do not allow lots to exceed lot coverage or impervious area maximums.
As a result of this review of stormwater management in other communities, it is proposed that the
thresholds that require a stormwater plan now apply differently to several zoning districts. This
5
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
change reflects differences in land use and development trends in each district. Additionally, due
to this review and other staff findings described above, it is proposed that stormwater plans are
required for all lots, with some exceptions.
Proposed Standards
Over the course of six Development Services Advisory Committee-Land Development Review
(DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee meetings in 2016, staff collaborated with subcommittee members
and stakeholders to review the current standards, identify goals for the amendment, and develop
the standards included in this amendment. The following sections describe the changes proposed
in this amendment.
Goals of the current amendment
Based on DSAC's 2013 input and the findings in the additional research outlined above, staff
identified several goals for the current amendment:
• Eliminate the inequity of the current applicability thresholds.
• Provide better justification for the standards.
• Provide stormwater management for runoff on all lots.
• Create a program that is more predictable for property owners and increase communication
between reviewers and applicants.
These goals are aimed at preventing detrimental impacts both on site and on adjacent properties
and will apply stormwater management standards more fairly throughout the entire county.
Applicability
This amendment maintains the current applicability to all lots with single-family and two-family
dwellings, and duplexes. The current exemption for lots with a permit from the SFWMD for
surface water management or environment resource protection is maintained, however, an
exemption is added for non-urban agriculturally zoned lots.
Stormwater plans are currently only required when the lot coverage or impervious area exceeds
the thresholds in Table 6.05.01 F. This amendment removes Table 6.05.01 F and adds a
requirement for one of two types of stormwater plans for all lots, based only on impervious area
thresholds specific to each zoning district. The characteristics of each stormwater plan are
described in more detail in Tables 1 and 2 above, and the following sections.
This change is made in response to staff's experience that drainage issues are not only associated
with a high percentage of impervious area. Staff has found that due to updated building
requirements,new construction is required to use more fill to build to a higher flood elevation than
in the past. In these cases, the fill pad, slopes, and other site grading can have an impact on a
neighborhood's drainage patterns even when the total impervious area is low. Therefore, a
stormwater plan is necessary on all lots to ensure that drainage from new homes or additions does
not create detrimental impacts on the subject property or adjacent properties. However, the
requirements for stormwater plans for lots with low impervious area is designed to be less onerous
than for lots with high impervious area.Therefore,a Type I Stormwater Plan is established for lots
with relatively lower impervious areas and a Type II Stormwater Plan is established for properties
6
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
with high impervious areas to ensure stormwater runoff does not result in detrimental impacts on
site or to adjacent properties.
Plan submittal
Property owners will continue to submit stormwater plans concurrently with a building permit,
consistent with the current submittal requirements. The stormwater plan submittal process is also
described in more detail in the proposed Administrative Code section in Appendix A.
Stormwater plan thresholds
The proposed amendment uses impervious area thresholds to determine whether a Type I or Type
II Stormwater Plan is required. In urban areas,where lot sizes are typically small,the DSAC-LDR
Subcommittee found that the current threshold for lots under 11,000 square feet is appropriate for
the urban area and, based on staff's research, ensures that a majority of property owners in the
urban area will not exceed the threshold. As a result, a Type I Stormwater Plan is required for lots
with 40 percent or less impervious area and a Type II Stormwater Plan is required for lots with
more than 40 percent impervious area.
On lots in Estates zoning districts, where the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee found that the current
impervious area thresholds are disproportionately limiting, a Type I Stormwater Plan is required
for lots with 25 percent or less impervious area and a Type II Stormwater Plan is required for lots
with more than 25 percent impervious area. Currently many lots in the Estates are required to
provide a stormwater plan with lot coverage and impervious areas of less than 10 percent. The
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed staff's research and aerials of existing sites in the Estates
and determined that lots with 25 percent or less impervious area represent appropriate impervious
areas for Estates lots and should not require stormwater calculations.
On lots in RSF-1 zoning districts and Rural Agricultural (A) zoning in the urban areas, a Type I
Stormwater Plan is required for lots with 30 percent or less impervious area and a Type II
Stormwater Plan is required for lots with more than 30 percent impervious area. This threshold
reflects that RSF-1 lots and Rural Agricultural (A) zoned lots in the urban areas are frequently
larger than other typical urban lots and sometimes have unique infrastructure constraints.
Finally, lots that discharge directly into a waterbody downstream of the last control structure may
submit a Type I Stormwater Plan regardless of the impervious area on the lot. These waterbodies
are uncontrolled and tidally affected, therefore, discharges will not result in stormwater runoff
impacts to neighboring properties. However, for lots discharging directly into a controlled
waterbody, upstream of the last control structure, a Type II Stormwater Plan must be submitted,
regardless of the impervious area on the lot. These discharges have the potential to impact
neighboring properties or the stormwater system and require some retention or detention before
discharging into the waterbody.
Criteria for Type I Stormwater Plans:
Lots required to submit a Type I Stormwater Plan have a comparatively lower percentage of
impervious area. As a result, Type I Stormwater Plans are the least complex type of stormwater
plan. These plans are required to demonstrate that stormwater will be directed to appropriate
7
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
locations without impacting neighboring properties. While on-site retention may be provided on
lots with a Type I Stormwater Plan, no on-site retention is required.
The Type I Stormwater Plan criteria allow for a wide range of methods to address stormwater. On
some sites, the stormwater plan may require more drainage infrastructure to direct stormwater to
appropriate locations, while other sites may simply require grading of the site to meet the
stormwater plan criteria. As a result, the amendment allows either a Florida registered design
professional(such as architects,landscape architects,or engineers),a certified contractor,or owner
builder to design the stormwater plan.
Type I Stormwater Plans are required to demonstrate:
• The direction of stormwater discharges.This criterion ensures that stormwater runoff
is directed away from neighbors and allows stormwater runoff to discharge to one or
more of the following:
o An existing surface water management system.-
o A drainage conveyance system, such as swales or underground storm sewer
systems.
o On-site retention or detention areas.
o A waterbody downstream of the last control structure.
• Outfalls to a waterbody must also demonstrate that they will not result in
erosion of soil, and if an orifice is used, will be allowed through a
minimum 3-inch orifice. Also,the soil adjacent to the discharge area shall
be stabilized.
• Compliance with several design standards.
o Retaining wall setbacks. To allow for maintenance of retaining walls, a six-inch
setback from the property line is required.
o Retention calculations for French drains. When French drains are used, a 40
percent void ratio shall be used in retention calculations.
o Stormwater pipe specifications. If used, stormwater pipes shall not be metal.
This standard is intended to prevent pipe installations with relatively short life
spans.
o Gutter and downspout standards in 6.05.01 C. This requirement ensures that
downspouts are not pointed toward neighboring properties when a structure is
located 10 feet or less from a property line. It should be noted additional
requirements for downspouts can be found in Florida Statutes Chapter
381.0065(4)(s),which also requires that downspouts are directed away from the
septic system drainfield, if one is located on the property.
• The location,dimension, and setbacks of septic systems.If a septic system is present or
proposed on the property, this criteria ensures that the design and location of stormwater
management and septic systems is coordinated throughout the development of the property.
Criteria for Type II Stormwater Plans:
Lots that are required to submit a Type II Stormwater Plan have comparatively higher percentages
of impervious area and may require a more detailed design. These plans are also required to
8
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
demonstrate that stormwater will be directed to appropriate locations without impacting
neighboring properties.
Due to the increased complexity of Type II Stormwater Plans and the requirement for volumetric
calculations for a design storm, this amendment requires that Type II Stormwater Plans shall be
designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida.
Type II Stormwater Plans are required to demonstrate:
• Compliance with all Type I Stormwater Plan criteria. The Type I Stormwater Plan
criteria are designed to ensure stormwater runoff does not impact neighboring properties.
These criteria also apply to Type II Stormwater Plans.
• An engineer's analysis including:
o Water quantity calculations for a 5-year, 1-day storm event (the same design
storm event used in the current standards).Retention for the storm event is required
for the impervious area in excess of the thresholds for Type II Stormwater Plans
only. The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee determined that this storm event provides
adequate protection when applied to the area exceeding impervious area thresholds.
There is no requirement for water quality calculations included in this standard.
o A matrix of all required separation distances. This requirement will ensure that
the location of wells, drainfield systems, and stormwater retention or detention
areas are coordinated.
• Certification of Compliance. The engineer is required to submit a certification of
compliance prior to inspections. Stormwater plans will be inspected during the 800 series
inspections for building permits. This is the same process used to inspect current
stormwater plans.
Application requirements
Application requirements for stormwater plans are established in the Administrative Code and are
designed to ensure that staff is provided with enough information to determine that appropriate
methods are used to direct discharge off site or to retain water on site.
Inspection and maintenance
The proposed amendment identifies an inspection schedule and maintenance requirements for
stormwater plans. Stormwater plans will be submitted with the building permit and will be
inspected by the County at the time of the building permit inspections and prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, as applicable. Once approved, the property
owner is responsible for maintaining the site grading and drainage (such as the swales, French
drains, grates, etc.) in accordance with the approved stormwater plan. Since some types of site
work and impervious surfaces are not required to obtain a permit,this section also notifies property
owners that changes to the property, whether or not a permit is required, shall not modify the site
in a manner that will prevent the site from continuing to drain in accordance with the approved
stormwater plans.
Violations
9
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
The amendment also proposes to establish stormwater plans as the tool for demonstrating
compliance with Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances section 90-41 (f)(8)which states:
"...Subsequent to the construction of a single-family residence on the respective lot
(parcel of land), it shall be a violation of this article to cause `additional surface
water'to run onto any real property owned by another landowner by filling,grading
or otherwise raising the elevation of the respective water source single family
residence lot..."
Staff is frequently called upon to investigate stormwater management issues on lots that were
developed prior to the establishment of the stormwater plan requirements. These types of
violations occur for a number of reasons including the addition of fill or slopes near the property
line. Therefore, this change will ensure that property owners and staff have a method to
demonstrate compliance with the Code of Laws.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: No changes, approved
unanimously on 11/29/16.
DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS: No changes, approved unanimously on 12/7/16.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts
associated with this amendment.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances section 90-41 (f)(8)
Florida Statutes Chapter 381.0065(4)(s)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner, 12/1/16.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements
2 A complete stormwater management system shall be provided for all areas within the
3 subdivision or development, including lots, streets, and alleys.
4 A. The system design shall meet the applicable provisions of the current County codes and
5 ordinances, SFWMD rules and regulations pursuant to Florida Statutes, and the Florida
6 Administrative Code, and any other affected state and federal agencies' rules and
7 regulations in effect at the time of preliminary subdivision plat submission. Water
8 management areas will be required to be maintained in perpetuity according to the
9 approved plans. Water management areas not maintained will be corrected according to
10 approved plans within 30 days.
11 B. Where stormwater runoff from outside the subdivision or development historically
12 passes on, over, or through areas of the subdivision or development, such runoff shall
13 be included in the stormwater system design. The system shall be designed for long life,
10
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 low cost maintenance by normal methods and provide for optimal on-site detention of
2 stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge in accordance with applicable County and
3 SFWMD regulations.
4 C. Any structure with an outside wall which is closer than 10 feet from a side property line
5 shall install properly sized (minimum twenty-four-square inch cross-section) gutters and
6 downspouts to direct stormwater away from neighboring properties and toward front
7 and/or rear swales or retention/detention areas.
8 D. In-ground percolation type retention systems such as rock trenches, exfiltration trenches
9 or beds, infiltrator type systems, gallery type systems, etc., shall not be used to achieve
10 water quality retention for residential subdivisions. Rear yard open retention systems
11 shall likewise not be designed to achieve water quality retention on projects submitted
12 after January 1, 2002. All retention systems for projects designed after January 1, 2002,
13 shall be on common property owned and maintained by a homeowners' association or
14 similar entity.
15 E. Any canal which forms a part of the public water management system shall be dedicated
16 for care and maintenance per the requirements of the governmental agency which has
17 jurisdiction. Canals located entirely within the subdivision and which do not form a part
18 of the public water management system shall be dedicated to the public, without the
19 responsibility for maintenance, as a drainage easement. A maintenance easement, of a
20 size acceptable to the County Manager or designee or other governmental agency with
21 maintenance responsibility, shall be provided adjacent to the established drainage
22 easement, or the drainage easement created must be of a size suitable for the
23 proposed canal and its maintenance.
24 . _ _ •- - - - - - ' -• -• ':..e - - - . •• ' - _ _
25 welling Units and Duplevec
26 1. Applicability. Any application for a building permit to allow the development or
27 _ _. •-- _ - - -- . -
28 after July 1, 2008, except for the following conditions:
29 a. Any application within the boundaries of development projects that have:
30 -- • - •' -- - _e- • - .. ` - - ''-•-e:••:• ' - -
31 -- --- A - - .e.:••:• - • e•••:• - -- -• - -
32 (2) have a central surface water management collection, storage,
33 treatment and discharge system;
34 b. A one time addition is allowed for certain sized homes, as set forth below;
35 Of
36 c. An application accompanied by a stormwater management plan, signed
37 - - - - - - -• - - - -. ' _ - _ •_ --- .
38 Table 6.05.01 F.
Lot-Size of Size Lot-Coverage
izti
v
Under 11,000 sq. ft. 25% 40%
11,000 sq. ft. to 52,999 sq. ft. 2,750 sq. ft. +5% of area in 4,400 sq. ft. +5% of area in
and 100 ft. or greater in width excoss of 11,000 sq. ft. excess of 11,000 sq. ft.
11,000 sq. ft. to 52,999 sq. ft. 2,750 sq. ft. +2% of area in 4,400 sq. ft. +2% of area in
and less than 100 ft. in width excess of 11,000 sq. ft. excess of 11,000 sq. ft.
53,000 sq. ft. and over 4,850 sq. ft. +3% of area in 6,500 sq. ft. +2% of area in
excess of 53,000 sq. ft. excess of 53,000 sq. ft.
39
40 2. The maximum allowable ratio of lot coverage and impervious arca coverage to
41 the total lot area shall be as provided for in Table 6.05.01 F. unless accompanied
42 by an engineer's analysis as specified below.
11
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
a. The site drainage analysis shall include water quality calculations to
2 - ' ''I _•e_ e- - - - --- -- -- - .e•- -- - e ..--- .'•ee.
3 - - - -- - - - --- - - - - -
4 storm and shall include a percolation test done by a qualified engineer or
5 technician. If the site will use a drainfield/septic tank for sewage
6 ---
7
8 b. The application site plan shall list all required separation distances
9 between wells, drainfield systems, and stormwater retention/detention
10 - - ._ - - - - - -- •' - - - - - .
11 -- - - •- -- :ee , -- - -- .e•-e - - - - -e e
12 Engineer.
13 c. The water surface area of swimming pools and ponds is not considered
14 - - -- - - - -_ -- -- - "" -- -- - - -- " ' •'
15
16 3. A one time addition to an existing residence will be allowed after July 1, 2008.
17 The addition will be limited to 3 percent of the lot area up to a maximum of 1,000
18 --- - -- - - - - - ••- ..- - -- - - - _ .. _ _ . . -
19 6.05.01 F. by more than 3 percent of the lot area or more than 1,000 square feet.
20 GF. The design of the stormwater management system shall fully incorporate the
21 requirements of the Interim Watershed Management regulations of LDC section 3.07.00.
22 #G. Street grades. Street grades must be determined in relation to the drainage facilities
23 for the subdivision and must not exceed four percent nor be less than 0.3 percent,
24 unless otherwise approved by the County Manager or designee pursuant to section
25 10.02.04 of the LDC. Street grades must be shown on the development plans by
26 direction and percent of fall on the road profiles.
27 W. Rainfall and runoff criteria. The system must be designed for"design floods" resulting
28 from rain storms and antecedent conditions for all system components in accordance
29 with current Collier County and South Florida Water Management District criteria.
30 1. Runoff coefficients. Existing land usage will be considered for the selection of
31 proper runoff coefficients within the drainage basins involved, whether within the
32 subdivision or development or not.
33 2. Lakes. Artificial lakes and retention basins proposed as part of a stormwater
34 retention system for on-site water management must be designed and shall be
35 consistent with other ordinances or regulations of Collier County, the state or the
36 region. All lakes will be set back from abutting roadways or intersections
37 pursuant to the design standards established in sections 22-106 through 22-119
38 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances.
39 41. Stormwater outfalls. Stormwater runoff must be conducted to positive outfalls that can be
40 permanently maintained, practicably and legally. Outfalls to existing waterways, canals,
41 preserve or conservation areas, lakes or storm sewers will be acceptable provided it can
42 be demonstrated through a professional engineering study to the County Manager or
43 designee that such receiving systems have adequate capacity to receive the proposed
44 quantity and quality of the additional flow.
45 1. Side ditches or swales along public or private roads shall not be accepted as
46 suitable positive outfalls except as may be specifically accepted under the
47 provisions of the LDC by the County Manager or designee and by the Florida
48 Department of Transportation, if applicable. The storage of stormwater runoff in
49 other existing or proposed ditches or swales within a public or private right-of-
50 way will be permitted for volume storage when approved under South Florida
51 Water Management District design criteria, but will not be utilized to satisfy the
12
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 stormwater storage (quality) requirements of a development's master water
2 management system.
3 KJ. Major waterway. Improvement or establishment of major waterways and canals will be
4 developed in full accord with applicable stormwater management criteria. Engineering
5 data, criteria, and suitable calculations shall be submitted to the County Manager or
6 designee prior to approval of construction plans.
7 1. Roadways over major waterways will be structures approved by the County
8 Manager or designee, sized to maintain flow capacity, designed to assure long
9 life and minimal maintenance. Construction must meet all current Florida
10 Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
11 Construction, as amended, unless otherwise approved by the County Manager or
12 designee pursuant to section 10.02.04 of the LDC.
13 LK. Outfall ditches and open channels. Unless otherwise approved by the County Manager
14 or designee pursuant to section 10.02.04 of the LDC, side slopes no steeper than four to
15 one will be allowed. Protection against scour and erosion will be provided as required by
16 the County Manager or designee.
17 ML. Roadside swales.
18 1. Design. In the interest of preserving the existing natural groundwater levels,
19 roadways will not be designed so as to cause the significant lowering of the water
20 levels existing in the area prior to development. Roadside swales and ditches
21 may be permitted within street rights-of-way where the use of roadside swales
22 can be justified to the County Manager or designee through a written report
23 prepared by the applicant's professional engineer. Swales, where permissible,
24 will have side slopes no steeper than four to one and they will not be utilized to
25 satisfy the stormwater quality (volume) requirements of a project's master water
26 management system. Where flow velocities in excess of four feet per second are
27 anticipated, urban right-of-way sections will be required.
28 2. Erosion protection. All unpaved areas within the permanent right-of-way must
29 be provided with permanent erosion protection, such as native vegetation or
30 turf. Swale ditches shall be sodded a lateral distance extending from the road
31 pavement to the top of the swale ditch backslope. Where valley guttered sections
32 are used for drainageways, turf protection must be placed from the edge of the
33 gutter to the outer limits of the right-of-way. If seeding is utilized, then mulching
34 in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation standards will be
35 required. Additionally, if seeding and mulching are utilized, then a strip of sod one
36 foot wide will be placed along the face of the pavement or curb section and over
37 the invert of any approved swale section within the runoff flowway. All swales
38 subject to erosion velocities will have adequate erosion protection in the form of
39 riprap or other applicable like methods.
40 3. Driveways across swale ditches. Driveways across permitted swale ditches
41 must have placed beneath them drainage pipes of adequate size and type
42 approved by the County Manager or designee, based on the capacity
43 requirements calculated by the applicant's professional engineer for the
44 development's master water management system.
45 NM. Street drainage. Street drainage within the road right-of-way through grassed swales
46 will be permitted for rural cross sections only except where velocities in excess of four
47 feet per second are anticipated. The flow from these swales or other types of drainage
48 facilities will be diverted to natural percolation areas, artificial seepage basins or
49 artificial lakes of at least sufficient capacity to comply with the criteria of Collier County
50 and the South Florida Water Management District. Other equally effective methods of
13
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 returning cleansed waters to the aquifer will be acceptable upon prior review and
2 approval by the County Manager or designee.
3 1. Existing natural lakes may be used as detention areas provided that they have
4 adequate storage capacity and that pretreatment measures approved by the
5 County Manager or designee are taken to prevent pollutant matter from entering
6 the lake. Positive outfall drainage facilities will be provided away from all
7 percolation areas, seepage basins, detention areas and artificial lakes to handle
8 the runoff from storms which exceed the required design storm event in duration
9 and/or severity.
10 ON. Percolation areas. The actual area required will depend on the percolation rate for the
11 soils at the specific site and the manner in which the site is developed in accordance
12 with Collier County and South Florida Water Management District criteria.
13 1. Underground drainage. Where drainage plans provide for, or it is so directed by
14 the County Manager or designee, the collection of stormwater in underground
15 pipes, inlets and other appurtenances for conveyance to an intermediate or
16 ultimate outfall, the following minimum design criteria will be observed:
17 a. The minimum pipe used within a publicly maintained stormwater
18 collection system will be 15 inches in diameter.
19 b. Inlets will be spaced at such intervals and in such a manner to allow for
20 the acceptance of 100 percent of the ten-year, one-hour storm runoff.
21 c. The distance between terminating and intermediate structures must not
22 exceed those required by the Florida Department of Transportation,
23 pursuant to Florida Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, I
24 Volumes 1-4 (1987 edition or latest revision).
25 d. The stormwater, underground collection system, must be so designed
26 that the elevation of the hydraulic gradient during a ten-year, one-hour
27 storm event is never higher than the crown elevation of any publicly
28 maintained roadway in the system.
29 e. The pipes must be designed to minimize sediment deposits.
30 f. The pipe materials must meet the requirements set forth in sections
31 943-948 inclusive of the current edition of the Florida Department of
32 Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
33 Only concrete pipe or other pipe materials approved by the County
34 Manager or designee may be used in tidal or salt waters.
35 g. All drainage pipes must be fitted with headwalls, endwalls, inlets and
36 other appropriate terminating and intermediate structures.
37 PO. Stormwater disposal. The method of ultimate disposal of stormwaters will be dependent
38 upon the soil characteristic underlying the development or subdivision. All stormwaters
39 will be subjected to treatment for the removal of petroleum residues, oils, suspended
40 solids and other pollutants found in stormwater runoff. The method of treatment will be
41 determined by the applicant's professional engineer responsible for the preparation of
42 the stormwater management plans and specifications, and will be subject to the approval
43 of the County Manager or designee and the concerned state agencies.
44 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
45
46 6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units, Two-Family Dwelling Units,
47 and Duplexes
48 A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to manage stormwater runoff on lots with
49 single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units, or duplexes in order to
50 prevent detrimental impacts on site or to adjacent properties. This section is also
51 designed to provide criteria for demonstrating compliance with Collier County Code of
14
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Cover ge Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
.Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Laws and Ordinances section 90-41(f)(8). For the purposes of this section, the term
2 impervious area shall include roofed buildings, concrete and asphalt pads, cool deck
3 (e.g. spraycrete), pavers with limerock base, swimming pools, and lined pond area.
4 Additionally, the term pervious area shall include grass, crushed stone (e.q. #57),
5 mulch, pavers without limerock base, and unlined pond area.
6 B. Applicability. A Type I or Type II Stormwater Plan shall be required for lots with single-
7 family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplexes with the following exceptions:
8 1. Lots located in the Rural Agricultural (A)zoning district outside the Immokalee
9 Urban Area Overlay district and outside the coastal urban designated area as
10 established in the Future Land Use Map.
11 2. Lots that have received a Surface Water Management or Environmental
12 Resource Protection permit from the South Florida Water Management District.
13 C. Stormwater plan submittal. A stormwater plan shall be submitted as part of an
14 application for a building permit for any of the following:
15 1. Type I Stormwater Plans.
16 a. New structures, additions, pools, or decks on lots with 40 percent or
17 less impervious area, or as described in the following zoning districts:
18 i. RSF-1 zoned lots with 30 percent or less impervious area.
19 ii. Rural Agricultural (A)zoned lots within the Immokalee Urban Area
20 Overlay district or within the coastal urban designated area as
21 established in the Future Land Use Map with 30 percent or less
22 impervious area.
23 iii. Estates zoned lots with 25 percent or less impervious area.
24 b. New structures, additions, pools, or decks on lots that discharge directly
25 to a waterbody downstream of the last control structure, whether or not
26 the lot exceeds the impervious area thresholds in LDC section 6.05.03
27 C.1.a above.
28 2. Type II Stormwater Plans.
29 a. New structures, additions, pools, or decks on lots with more than 40
30 percent impervious area, or as described in the following zoning
31 districts:
32 i. RSF-1 zoned lots with more than 30 percent impervious area.
33 ii. Rural Agricultural (A)zoned lots within the Immokalee Urban Area
34 Overlay district or within the coastal urban designated area as
35 established in the Future Land Use Map with more than 30
36 percent impervious area.
37 iii. Estates zoned lots with more than 25 percent impervious area.
38 b. New structures, additions, pools, or decks on lots that discharge directly
39 to a waterbody upstream of the last control structure, whether or not the
40 lot exceeds the impervious area thresholds in LDC section 6.05.03
41 C.2.a above.
42 D. Stormwater plan criteria.
43 1. Type I Stormwater Plan. Type I Stormwater Plans shall be prepared by a Florida
44 registered design professional, licensed contractor or owner builder. The Type I
45 Stormwater Plan shall demonstrate the following:
46 a. Stormwater runoff. Discharges from the impacted area shall be directed
47 into one or more of the following:
48 i. An existing surface water management system
49 ii. A drainage conveyance system, such as swales or underground
50 storm sewer systems.
15
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 iii. On-site retention or detention areas. The bottom of retention or
2 detention areas shall be above the wet season water table.
3 iv. A waterbody downstream of the last control structure. Stormwater
4 discharges to a waterbody shall not result in erosion of soil.
5 Discharges may be allowed through an orifice with a minimum
6 size of 3 inches and the soil adjacent to the discharge area shall
7 be stabilized. For lots discharging directly to waterbodies
8 upstream of the last control structure, see LDC section 6.05.03
9 D.2.
10 b. Design standards.
11 i. Retaining walls shall be set back six inches from the property line,
12 if applicable.
13 ii. Stone in French drains shall be calculated with a 40 percent void
14 ratio, if applicable.
15 iii. Stormwater pipes, if used, shall not be metal.
16 iv. Gutters and downspouts shall comply with LDC section 6.05.01 C,
17 if applicable.
18 c. The location, dimension, and setbacks of septic systems, if applicable.
19 2. Type II Stormwater Plan. Type II Stormwater Plans shall be prepared by a
20 professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida. The Type II Stormwater
21 Plan shall demonstrate the following:
22 a. Stormwater runoff. Discharges from the impacted area shall be directed
23 into one or more of the following:
24 i. An existing surface water management system
25 ii. A drainage conveyance system, such as swales or underground
26 storm sewer systems.
27 iii. On-site retention or detention areas. The bottom of retention or
28 detention areas shall be above the wet season water table.
29 iv. A waterbody. Stormwater discharges directly to a waterbody shall
30 not result in erosion of soil. Discharges may be allowed through
31 an orifice with a minimum size of 3 inches and the soil adjacent to
32 the discharge area shall be stabilized.
33 b. Design standards.
34 i_ Retaining walls shall be set back six inches from the property line,
35 if applicable.
36 ii. Stone in French drains shall be calculated with a 40 percent void
37 ratio, if applicable.
38 iii. Stormwater pipes, if used, shall not be metal.
39 iv. Gutters and downspouts shall comply with LDC section 6.05.01 C,
40 if applicable.
41 c. The location, dimension, and setbacks of septic systems, if applicable.
42 d. An engineer's analysis that demonstrates the following:
43 i. Water quantity calculations by a qualified engineer or technician
44 that demonstrate the ability to accommodate the runoff from the
45 area exceeding the applicable threshold in LDC section 6.05.03 C
46 from a 5-year 1-day storm.
47 ii. A matrix of all required separation distances between wells,
48 drainfield systems, and stormwater retention/detention areas. The
49 calculations may be done on the site plan or may be in a separate
50 engineer's report, but the site plan must be signed and sealed by
51 a professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida.
16
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 e. A certification of compliance shall be submitted to the County by the
2 engineer prior to an inspection.
3 E. Application submittal requirements. The Administrative Code shall establish the
4 submittal requirements for stormwater plans.
5 F. Inspection and maintenance.
6 1. Inspection. The subject property shall be inspected by the County prior to
7 issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, as applicable,
8 for consistency with the approved stormwater plan.
9 2. Maintenance. The property owner shall maintain site grading and drainage (e.g.
10 swales, French drains, grates, etc.) in accordance with the approved stormwater
11 plan. Future changes to impervious area or site grading shall not modify the site
12 in a manner that will prevent continued drainage of the site as shown on the
13 approved stormwater plan, whether or not a permit is required for an
14 improvement.
15 G. Violations. Where a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances section 90-
16 41(f)(8) has been found by the Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate, a
17 stormwater plan shall be submitted that demonstrates the additional flow of surface
18 water has been eliminated. The subject property shall be inspected by the County to
19 determine if the violation has been resolved.
20 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
17
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\6.05.01 Lot Coverage\Drafts\6 05 01 Water Management Requirements 12-7-16.docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Land Development Code Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners
AUTHOR: Growth Management Department
DEPARTMENT: Development Review Division
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2016 LDC Amendment Cycle
LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Standards
5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses (new section)
CHANGE: This amendment introduces a new section in the LDC to assess and mitigate the
conversion of golf courses to a non-golf course use. LDC section 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf
Courses contains two main elements. First, it requires the applicant to conduct public outreach to
property owners within 1,000 feet of the golf course prior to submitting a conversion application
to the County. The public outreach requirement, identified as Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, is
intended to engage the property owners, hereafter referred to as "stakeholders," to cultivate
consensus on the proposed development. Second,the section presents several design standards for
the proposed development to support compatibility with the existing residential uses.
The proposed standards take into account the large number and wide variety of golf courses in the
County. See Attachment 1 for an overview of the golf courses across the County. See Tables 1-3
below for an overview of golf course statistics in the County. For the purpose of this LDC
amendment staff did not include the golf courses located in the City of Naples or the City of Marco
Island because they would not be subject to the County's conversion procedures.
Some of the golf courses in the County are standalone facilities while others were developed as
part of a residential project. Due to the large number and ranges in size, there is not a one-size-
fits-all solution to development standards to address golf course conversion. Therefore, the
stakeholder outreach process is integral to addressing the specific needs of the existing residential
property owners and allows the applicant to vet alternative designs through a regulatory approach.
Ultimately, the combination of design standards and community outreach is intended to provide
compatibility for existing residential stakeholders regardless of the golf course layout.
To assist with the public outreach requirement proposed by this new section, staff has prepared the
Collier County Guide to Golf Course Conversions(Guide),which is a document created to outline
different types of public outreach, such as focus groups, charrettes, polling, etc. that will provide
the stakeholders and the applicant an understanding of what is required while conducting the
outreach. The Guide will be adopted by reference.
To support this section, three Administrative Code for Land Development sections will be
prepared to support this new LDC section. Two of the Administrative Code sections will provide
submittal requirements for new applications introduced in this section and the third section will
provide standards and notice requirements for the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. In addition,
18
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts will be amended to introduce additional uses to
the golf course zoning district and LDC section 10.03.06 regarding public notices will be updated
to reflect new notice requirements established by this section.
Table 1
Number of Golf Courses by Golf Holes in Collier County
Number of Courses Number of Holes on the Golf Course
3 9
58 18
5 27
11 36
Total 69
Note:The number of golf holes were identified by accessing golf club websites,GIS aerials,and by
telephone conversation with the golf club administrative offices.
Table 2
Golf Courses by Zoning District in Collier County
Number of Golf
Zoning District Courses
Golf Course (GC) 9
Golf Course(GC)/RMF-6/RMF-16 1
Golf Course (GC)/RSF-3 1
PUD 47
RFMUD-PUD 3
RFMUD-A 1
RFMUD-A-CU 4
A-MHOI-RLSAO 1
RMF-16 1
PUD-RFMUD 1
Note:Golf courses zoning was confirmed using GIS aerials provided by the Collier County Property
Appraiser and reviewing the County zoning maps.Golf courses zoned PUD were further verified by
reviewing individual PUD ordinances.
Table 3
Type of Courses by Acreage and Number in Collier County
Acreage Range Type Number of Golf Courses
10-50 Par 3 -Driving Range 7
50-99 Executive 5
100-220 Championship or 45
240 or greater Regulation 20
Note:Utilized golf course acreage totals to determine golf course types.Muirhead,D.&Rando G.
(1994)Golf Course Development and Real Estate.Urban Land Institute.
It is important to note two caveats regarding the establishment of this LDC Amendment for the
conversion of golf courses. First, the adoption and codification of LDC provisions for golf course
conversion shall not imply that a golf course will receive approval from the Board to convert to a
19
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
different use. Second, the proposed framework is a method to support community involvement
and consensus building. However,the public participation and hearing processes will only provide
steps to build consensus; the individual parties will dictate whether consensus may be achieved.
REASON:
Board direction
This amendment follows Board direction on April 12th to pursue an LDC amendment to address
golf course conversions. The Board discussed the following issues and concerns related to the
existing residential property owners who live around the golf course (meeting minutes pg. 85-97):
• The Growth Management Plan supports preserving open space areas and the loss of open
space would negatively impact the community.
• Open space can provide stormwater management for surrounding communities.
• Property owners who purchased homes with a golf course view had an expectation the view
was worth a monetary value and paid a premium price for their homes. They also
experienced higher taxes compared to a home without a golf course view.
• There will be a diminution of property values for homes located around the golf course if
the green space is lost.
• Providing more uses in the golf course zoning district that are compatible by right may
mitigate the need to convert golf courses in the future.
• Allowing for additional compatible uses in the golf course zoning district would inform
future property owners with a golf course view that other uses are allowed, not just a golf
course.
• Require the property owner of the golf course to show they are no longer economically
viable as a golf course.
• Importance of involving the neighborhood in the conversion process.
• Legal encumbrances on golf courses should be brought to light.
In addition, it is important to note that golf courses are a local community asset. Golf courses
provide neighborhoods with nearby social and recreational opportunities for family and friend
outings, business networking opportunities, and places for high school teams to play, as well as
bringing visitors to the county for professional tournaments. Further, golf courses provide open
space within the built environment and are often a cornerstone of social interaction for surrounding
neighborhoods.
Following the April 12th meeting, the Board instituted a six month moratorium on the acceptance,
processing, and consideration of applications for development orders involving the conversion of
lands zoned for golf course use. On September 27, 2016, the moratorium was extended to April
11, 2017, to provide additional time to prepare and publically vet the proposed amendments.
With the extension request staff presented research that had been conducted on golf course
conversion across the state of Florida and the nation. The proposed amendment implements the
concepts that were presented in the research paper. To review the research paper discussion points,
please visit www.colliergov.net/currentldcas. The research on golf course conversions in Florida
and the nation provided insight into what land use and planning principles supported the approval
20
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
of a conversion project by a local jurisdiction. Staff found the projects that received approval had
two overarching themes: some level of stakeholder participation and the developer maintaining an
open space view for the existing residential property owners. The proposed amendment focuses
on these two concepts.
Purpose and intent of the golf course conversion section
The purpose and intent of this amendment is to "assess and mitigate the impact of golf course
conversions on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during the design phase of
the conversion project and specific development standards to ensure compatibility with existing
land uses."As discussed by the Board,the intention of the new requirement is to address concerns
stemming from residential property owners purchasing a home along a golf course with the
anticipation that the golf course would remain in perpetuity. Further,homes along golf courses are
often purchased at a premium price due to the views from the house of the golf course. Moreover,
many property owners may have purchased homes with the anticipation their real estate value
would rise over time with open space view.
Applicability of the golf course conversion standards
The LDC amendment will apply to three scenarios, explained below. The golf course conversion
section will not apply to courses repurposed for a different use listed in the permitted, accessory,
or conditional uses in the Golf Course zoning district. This LDC section is also proposed to be
amended to allow for other similar open space uses, such as hiking trails,walkways,and disc golf
facilities. More intense uses, such as cemeteries and memorial gardens, museums, and ball courts
(bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis and racquetball) are proposed as conditional
uses.
Approval of Land Uses
1. A golf course located in any zoning district and where the property owner wants to convert
to a non-golf course use that is not currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the
zoning district or tract.
a. Example: A golf course is located in a PUD tract established for only a golf course,
however,the property owner wants to build a residential development. In this case,
the property owner would proceed with the conversion process and a PUDA.
2. A golf course within a Stewardship Receiving Area and where the property owner wants
to convert to a use that is not currently permitted,accessory or conditional in a context zone
(generally speaking a context zone is a zoning district in a Stewardship Receiving Area.
See LDC section 4.08.07 J.2 d for a description).
a. Example:A golf course is located in a Stewardship Receiving Area and the property
owner seeks to build a commercial development, however, the Stewardship
Receiving Area doesn't allow this use. In this case,the property owner would need
to proceed with a Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment.
Approval of compatibility measures
21
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
3. A golf course that allows for a non-golf course use by right and the property owner seeks
to construct an allowed use. In this case, the design of the use would be reviewed for
compatibility with the surrounding properties.
a. Example: A golf course is zoned Rural Agricultural and the property owners seek
to convert it to agricultural activities, e.g. livestock raising, then a compatibility
design review application would be required.
The application process for golf course conversions
The proposed conversion process is structured to occur before a traditional land use petition
process. See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the process. This way, the stakeholders and
the applicant are engaged in conversation early in the design process and hopefully the main goals
of the project are aligned between the two parties prior to a rezoning, PUDA, Stewardship
Receiving Area Amendment, or a compatibility review application is submitted to the County.
Figure 1
Golf Course Conversion Process Approval Process
Land Use Petition
• Rezone
Stakeholder Outreach Process • PUD Amendment
1. Pre-Application Meeting • SRA Amendment
2. Intent to Convert Application
a. Mailed Notice Or
3. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting
a. Mailed Notice Compatibility Review Process
4. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting Report
provided for Approval Process • SDP Amendment
• Construction Plans
• Conceptual Plan Review
The conversion process starts with the applicant requesting a pre-application meeting with County
staff and submitting an Intent to Convert application to the County. One of the requirements of the
Intent to Convert application is a mailed notice to all of the stakeholders informing them of the
property owner's intention to convert the golf course to a non-golf course use. The mailed notice
will give stakeholders awareness that a community outreach program exists and to look for
subsequent letters regarding meeting times and locations. The Intent to Covert application must
be deemed complete by County staff prior to conducting any Stakeholder Outreach Meetings.
The Intent to Convert application requires the applicant complete the following:
The first requirement is a title opinion or ownership encumbrance report establishing there are no
encumbrances on the property that prevent the land from being developed as proposed. This will
require due diligence on the part of the applicant prior to submitting the application. The burden
22
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
is placed on the applicant, rather than staff, to determine if there are any restrictions on converting
the property.
The second requirement, the Developer's Alternative Statement, is designed to provide all parties
the ability to consider alternatives for the golf course. At a minimum the following three
alternatives must be considered: no conversion, County purchase, and a conceptual development
plan. The three alternatives are not intended to be mutually exclusive; for example, all three
alternatives could be part of a finalized development plan. The Developer's Alternative Statement
plays an important role in allowing the property owner, the stakeholders, and the County to see
how each option would play out. It should be noted that it is entirely feasible that a golf course
may be profitable and still pursue a non-golf course use because converting the golf course will
enable it to achieve the highest and best use of the property for the property owner. County staff
recognize that it is within the bundle of rights as a property owner to sell and develop land within
the parameters of county codes. As such, the development standards that are introduced in this
section are vital to creating a compatible development with existing residential developments
surrounding the golf course.
Ultimately, the Developer's Alternative Statement is designed to encourage communication,
cooperation, and consensus building between the applicant, the stakeholders, and the County.
The third requirement is a general plan for the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. The applicant will
outline the public outreach methods that will be used to engage the stakeholders at the Stakeholder
Outreach Meetings consistent with the Collier County Guide to Golf Course Conversions.Further,
an overview of a web-based survey will be required to be approved by staff. All of the application
requirements will be listed in the Administrative Code for Land Development's Intent to Convert
and the Stakeholder Outreach Meeting sections.
Stakeholder Outreach Meeting requirements
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings are intended to provide open communication and feedback
between the applicant and the stakeholders. Several SOM meetings are required so that the
applicant is able to incorporate any feedback into the conceptual plans for the development. The
internet provides the opportunity to reach out to more people which can benefit the applicant in
better understanding the neighborhood, such as seasonal residents. For example, the requirement
for the web based survey provides an opportunity for individuals who cannot attend the in-person
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings to still participate in a constructive manner.
The Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, which are facilitated by the applicant, are encouraged to be
collaborative events where all parties cooperate. However, they will also serve to hold the
stakeholders and applicant accountable for their actions. Should consensus not be achieved and
either party pursue litigation, the Stakeholder Outreach Meeting requirements will be helpful in
demonstrating that one or more of the parties was uncooperative or unreasonable. Similar to a
traditional NIM,the SOMs will be recorded and commitments made by the applicant for the project
will be included in subsequent reports. A County staff member will also be present.
Following the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings,a report will be provided by the applicant to County
staff. The report has the primary goal of identifying and answering questions and concerns from
23
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
the stakeholders. It also supports a transparent process, benefiting the applicant and stakeholders
—highlighting the importance of reasonable input by the stakeholders and reasonable incorporation
of the input by the applicant into the conversion project. To do this, a point-counterpoint list,
identifying the input from the stakeholders and identifying how and why reasonable input was or
was not included in the conceptual plan will be helpful for the stakeholders, staff, and the decision
makers so all understand the issues involved in the conversion project.
Stakeholders will need to recognize it is important to support and participate in a collaborative
process with the applicant. Should one development proposal not work out, there is a chance that
another developer may pursue development of the golf course in the future and may not be as
willing to compromise or be as collaborative as the initial development team. Stakeholders need
to understand that land uses change over time and participating in the process will provide the best
opportunity to be part of the outcome.
Land Use Petitions
Once the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings have been completed the applicant may proceed with a
conversion application, such as a rezone, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Stewardship
Receiving Area Amendments, or a compatibility design review.
Staff Report
Consistent with current land use petition procedures, County staff will prepare a staff report for
the Planning Commission, and EAC as applicable, or Hearing Examiner and Board. In addition to
existing requirements, the staff report will also address whether the applicant meets all the
requirements in LDC section 5.05.15, whether the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings report and
point-counterpoint list are accurate, and whether reasonable input from the stakeholders was
included in the land use petition application. These additional criteria are designed to ensure
consistency throughout the process.
As such, the amendment requires that the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory
Council,as applicable,consider the stakeholder engagement process and whether reasonable input
was included in the proposed project. The provision calls special attention to the greenway design,
as this is the most important compatibility measure introduced in the amendment. Additionally,
attention should also be given to who can use the greenway as it is intended to provide passive
recreational benefits and would be a great amenity for future residents of the once golf course land.
Compatibility design review
The compatibly design review process will be required when PUDs or other projects seek to use a
non-golf course use that is permitted, accessory or conditional for the district or tract. The review
of compatibly measures is designed to address situations where, for example, the permitted use
was approved a long time ago and would be incompatible with residential development without
appropriate measures in place. This process only requires the procedural components of LDC
section 5.05.15; the design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 G are not required (e.g.
no greenway, stormwater required). The compatibility design review process does not address the
proposed land uses as they are already allowed by right. The approval process for a compatibility
24
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
design review application consists of a review and recommendation from the Office of the Hearing
Examiner to the Board.
Development standards for rezones,PUDA and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments
In addition to standard LDC development requirements, there are several new design standards
introduced in this section. The design standards are supported by research from other jurisdictions
that have also assessed the impacts from golf course conversions. The design requirements are not
required for projects subject to the compatibility design review as the uses have already been
established as a permitted, accessory or conditional use and can suggest their own compatibility
measures to mitigate any impacts to existing surrounding property owners.
Open space
The first design standard requires that golf courses lands utilized to meet the minimum open space
requirements for a prior project need to be either retained as open space and/or the plans updated
to demonstrate an alternative method to meet the minimum open space requirements.For example,
if a PUD establishes that 20 acres of the golf course was used to meet the 60 percent minimum
open space requirement for a residential PUD, then 20 acres of the golf course would need to
remain open space or the PUD amended to reflect other open space lands are available to meet the
minimum requirement.
Greenway
The second design standard is the introduction of a greenway. A greenway is a continuous strip of
undeveloped land that is set aside for passive recreational uses, including but not limited to: open
space,nature trails,parks,playground,golf courses,beaches,disc golf courses,exercise equipment
and multi-use paths. The greenway is designed to be a buffer along the perimeter of the proposed
development and adjacent to the existing residential properties that line the golf course. The goal
of the greenway is to provide an open space view for stakeholders and support existing wildlife
habitat. A general overview of the details includes requiring that a minimum of 35 percent of the
conversion project be dedicated as a greenway, with an average minimum width of 100 feet (no
less than 75 feet at any one point). See Attachment 2 for a collection of aerials depicting a 100-
foot greenway on several golf courses across the County.
Existing trees and understory are meant to be retained in the greenway, however, they can be
removed to accommodate a multi-use path or the like. This is intended to promote retaining the
existing trees and understory that are currently within the viewshed of existing residences. Further,
a tree count is provided to support a shaded area in the greenway. Another provision addresses
walls and fences.A wall or fence is not required between the two developments,however,if a wall
is desired by either party it will need to accommodate the movement of wildlife by providing
habitat connectivity.
The greenway may also play an important role in providing stormwater management for the
existing and/or new development and the proposed code section supports this concept. However,
the greenway is not intended to be made up entirely of lake area and a percentage cap is established
to prevent the greenway from becoming a series of large lakes.
25
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Standard preservation requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 will be required for any
conversion project. Two supplemental provisions are introduced in the section to support the
integration of preserves with the greenway. The first takes into account conversion projects that
have isolated preserves that are less than V2 acre(including planted areas)which meet LDC section
3.05.07 A.4 and supports the ability to recreate the preserve areas in the greenway. In addition, to
support the retention of existing preserves and the open space and habitat they provide, all
preserves that were previously approved with the golf course shall be retained and 50 percent of
the total acreage can be counted towards the required preservation amount if located in the
greenway and made available for passive recreational uses allowed by the LDC.
Stormwater and Floodplain compensation
The provision also takes into account potential stormwater impacts. As discussed in prior reports
provided to the Board,golf courses often provide stormwater management by design of the project
or because over time they have provided that service to the neighboring land uses. The proposed
standards would require a pre-versus post-development stormwater runoff analysis. The objective
is to ensure that property owners that surround the golf course would not be adversely affected by
additional stormwater runoff after the conversion of the golf course. Further, Floodplain
compensation, a concept that requires offsetting any loss to flood storage capacity on a given
project, may need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. This may be particularly important if
the golf course has flooded during past heavy rain events.
Soil and/or Groundwater testing
The LDC currently recognizes that golf courses apply chemicals to provide a level of service to
customers and over time soil and/or groundwater may become polluted and needs to be mitigated
prior to conversion. The proposed language closes a gap because the current standards do not
address the full range of potentially harmful pollutants previously or currently used on golf
courses, including petroleum products. Should any of the soil and groundwater sampling results
exceed state standards, the County will notify the Department of Environmental Protection who
oversees the mitigation requirements.
Design standards for lands converted from a golf course
The design standards are to be applied to any golf course that converts or to any use listed in the
golf course zoning district. There are two design requirements, lighting and setbacks to apply.
The goal of the lighting requirement is to reduce light pollution,by requiring lighting to be directed
away from neighboring properties and to require light fixtures to be shielded to prevent glare and
light trespass. This is intended to the benefit of the existing property owners, future property
owners, and wildlife. For example, if walking paths with light poles were constructed in the
greenway this provision would ensure there was no light pollution impacting the existing
residential properties.
The goal of the setback requirement is to ensure there is sufficient distance between the proposed
use and existing property owners around the golf course. For example, if a golf course was
repurposed to a disc golf course a minimum average 50 foot setback would be required to provide
a buffer between the two uses. In another example, if the golf course was converted to residential
26
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Conv.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
housing and an alternative design for the greenway was employed,there would still be a minimum
average 50-foot setback applied to the new uses.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The subcommittee reviewed the
proposed amendment on November 3rd, November 16th, November 29th, and December 7th. The
Subcommittee stated a fundamental objection to the imposition on property rights,that the current
rezone process is sufficient for golf course conversion, and opposes the over-reach of the
government and onerous process established in this amendment. However, if the amendment
moves forward, the Committee provided the following comments:
• The standard rezone process is sufficient for the conversion of golf courses. It is not
necessary to require additional procedures or design standards.
• The requirement to send mailers and engage stakeholders within 1,000 feet is not
necessary. The 500 foot requirement/1,000 foot requirement established in the
Administrative Code is sufficient.
• Objects to the requiring an ownership encumbrance report from the applicant because the
County does not enforce or abide by civil restrictions.
• There is no need or benefit to requiring financial information from a property owner. It is
within a property owners rights to develop his property without the government oversight
of financial records or consideration.
• There should be more flexibility with the design of the greenway. Logistically it may be
very difficult to garner sufficient support from the stakeholders to get an alternative
greenway approved by the Board.
• Consider allowing a mailing instead of the NIM requirement during the rezone or PUDA
requirement. The mailing would inform the stakeholders of any changes to the project and
send them to a website where they could access materials for the rezone or PUDA.
• Opposes the contemplation in the proposed text and findings that existing property owners
that surround the golf course may be able to use(e.g.walk,run, and play)on the greenway
because it is not land they own or have a right to use currently.
DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS: The Committee supported the recommendation of the DSAC-
LDR Subcommittee on 12/7/16.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts
associated with this amendment.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management
Plan impacts associated with this amendment.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE:prepared by Caroline Cilek,December 1,2016,December,
7, 2016.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
27
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Standards
2
3 H. Conversion of Golf Courses. Golf courses within a PUD shall adhere to the process
4 established in LDC section 5.05.15 prior to converting to another use.
5 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
6
7 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses
8
9 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of
10 golf course conversion on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during
11 the design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to
12 ensure compatibility with the existing land uses. For the purposes of this section.
13 property owners within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as
14 stakeholders.
15 1. Stakeholder outreach process. The intent is to provide a process to cultivate
16 consensus between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed
17 conversion. In particular, this section is designed to address the conversion of
18 golf courses surrounded, in whole or in part, by residential uses or lands zoned
19 residential.
20 2. Development standards. It is the intent of the specific development standards
21 contained herein to encourage the applicant to propose a conversion project
22 with land uses and amenities that are compatible and complementary to the
23 existing neighborhoods. Further, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate
24 reasonable input provided by stakeholders into the development proposal.
25 B. Applicability. The following zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments,
26 and compatibility design review petitions, collectively referred to as "conversion
27 applications" hereafter, shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A conversion application
28 shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a developed golf course to a non-
29 golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is sought
30 for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant shall be
31 exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.15 H.
32 1. Zoning actions. This section applies to a golf course developed in any zoning
33 district for a use that is not currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the
34 zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought.
35 2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course
36 developed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area for a use that is not
37 currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the
38 change is sought.
39 3. Compatibility design review. This section applies to a golf course developed in
40 any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a
41 non-golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within
42 the existing zoning district or designation. Permitted conditional uses shall also
43 require conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00.
44 C. Application process for conversion applications.
45 1. Intent to Convert application. The applicant shall submit an "Intent to Convert"
46 application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application. The
47 following is required of the applicant:
48 a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and
49 application submittal requirements, including: a title opinion or ownership
50 encumbrance report establishing there are no encumbrances on the
51 property that prevent the land from being developed as proposed; the
28
I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 Developer's Alternatives Statement, as provided for below; and the public
2 outreach methods to be used to engage stakeholders at the Stakeholder
3 Outreach Meetings consistent with the County's Guide to Golf Course
4 Conversion as established below.
5 b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the
6 requirements of LDC section 10.03.06.
7 2. Developer's Alternatives Statement requirements. The purpose of the
8 Developer's Alternatives Statement (DAS) is to serve as a tool to inform
9 stakeholders and the County about the applicant's development options and
10 intentions. It is intended to encourage communication, cooperation, and
11 consensus building between the applicant, the stakeholders, and the County.
12 b. Alternatives. The DAS shall be prepared by the applicant and shall
13 clearly identify the goals and objectives for the conversion project. The
14 DAS shall address, at a minimum, the three alternatives noted below. The
15 alternatives are not intended to be mutually exclusive; the conceptual
16 development plan described below may incorporate one or more of the
17 alternatives in the conversion project.
18 i. No conversion: The applicant shall provide a study examining the
19 current and potential financial state of the golf course should no
20 conversion occur. The study shall identify at a minimum:
21 a) Whether modifications to the existing acreage, design, or
22 maintenance of the golf course and/or club house would
23 allow for the golf course to continue operating; and
24 b) Whether a change in membership type (e.g. public vs.
25 private)would allow the golf course to continue operating.
26 c) Whether any other uses allowed in the district, tract or
27 context zone are viable;
28 ii. County purchase: The applicant shall coordinate with the
29 'County] to determine if there is interest to donate, purchase, or
30 maintain a portion or all of the property for a public use, e.g.,
31 public park, open space, civic use, or other public facilities. This
32 section shall not require the County to purchase any lands, nor
33 shall this require the property owner to donate or sell any land.
34 iii. Conceptual development plan: The applicant shall prepare one or
35 more proposed conceptual development plans, consistent with the
36 development standards established in section LDC section
37 5.05.15 G, depicting the proposed conversion to share with the
38 stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described
39 below. The conceptual development plan shall include a narrative
40 describing how the plan implements and is consistent with the
41 goals and objectives identified in the DAS. The conceptual plan
42 shall depict the retained and proposed land uses, including
43 residential, non-residential, and preserve areas; existing and
44 proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing and proposed
45 trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the
46 qreenway, including any passive recreational uses. The
47 narrative shall identify the intensity of the proposed land uses;
48 how the proposed conversion is compatible with the existing
49 surrounding land uses and any methods to provide benefits or
50 mitigate impacts to the stakeholders. Visual exhibits to describe
29
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 the conceptual development plan and any amenities, including the
2 greenwav, shall also be provided.
3 3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs)for conversion applications. The SOMs
4 are intended to engage the stakeholders early in the conversion proiect and
5 inform the applicant as to what the stakeholders find important in the
6 neighborhood, what the stakeholders consider compatible with the neighborhood,
7 and what types of land uses they would support to be added to the
8 neighborhood. The applicant shall utilize Collier County's Guide to Golf Course
9 Conversion:Public Outreach Methods and Usable Open Space Concepts to
10 conduct the SOMs. An assigned County planner shall attend the SOM and
11 observe the process. The following is required of the applicant:
12 a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application
13 submittal requirements.
14 b. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in-person SOMs and a
15 minimum of one web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual
16 plan(s). The web-based survey web address shall be incorporated in the
17 mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in-person SOMs.
18 c. At the SOM, the applicant shall provide information to the stakeholders
19 about the purpose of the meeting, including a presentation on the goals
20 and objectives of the conversion project, the alternatives established in
21 the Developer's Alternative Statement, the greenway concept, as required
22 in subsection D, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility with
23 the existing surrounding neighborhood. The applicant shall facilitate
24 discussion on these topics with the stakeholders using one or more public
25 outreach method(s) identified in the County's Guide to Golf Course
26 Conversion.
27 d. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the
28 applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of
29 attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos
30 from the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from
31 outreach methods (as described in the County's Guide to Golf Course
32 Conversion), and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The
33 applicant shall also include a point-counterpoint list, identifying
34 reasonable input from the stakeholders and how and why it was or was
35 not incorporated in the conversion application. The report shall be
36 organized such that the issues and ideas provided by the stakeholders
37 are clearly labeled by the applicant in the list and the conversion
38 application.
39 4. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion
40 application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, compatibility design review) until the
41 Intent to Convert application is deemed completed by County staff and the SOMs
42 are completed. Thereafter,the applicant may proceed by submitting a
43 conversion application with the County as follows:
44 a. Zoning actions. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.1, the applicant shall
45 file a PUDA or rezone application, including the SOM report. No
46 deviations to LDC section 5.05.15 shall be approved; further, deviations
47 to other sections of the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a
48 SOM or NIM.
49 b. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For projects subject to
50 5.05.15 B.2, the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area
51 Amendments application, including the SOM report. No deviations to LDC
30
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 section 5.05.15 shall be approved; further, deviations to other sections of
2 the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM.
3 c. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, the
4 applicant shall file a compatibility design review application, including the
5 SOM report. No deviations to LDC section 5.05.15 shall be approved.
6 D. Staff report for conversion applications. In addition to the requirements established in
7 LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B.3, or 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff report shall
8 evaluate the following:
9 1. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this section and
10 development standards in the LDC. In particular, that the proposed design and
11 use(s)of the greenway, as applicable, meet the purpose as described 5.05.15 D.
12 2. Whether the SOM report and point-counterpoint list described above reflect the
13 discussions that took place at the SOMs.
14 3. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by the
15 stakeholders, to the greatest extent feasible, to address impacts of the golf
16 course conversion on stakeholder real property.
17 4. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why reasonable input from
18 the stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual development plan.
19 E. Supplemental review and approval considerations for zoning actions and Stewardship
20 Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of the Planning
21 Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the Board shall show
22 the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff report for conversion
23 applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, and the findings established in
24 LDC sections 10.02.08 E, 10.02.13 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In particular, the
25 Planning Commission shall give attention to the design of the greenway and how it
26 mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention shall be given to who can use the
27 greenway. The staff report for the Board shall include the Planning Commission's
28 findings.
29 F. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, this section is intended
30 to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by requiring the
31 conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the existing
32 surrounding uses. The land use is not subject to review. The following is required:
33 1. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements
34 for the compatibility design review application.
35 2. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements
36 of LDC section 10.03.06.
37 3. Review. The Hearing Examiner shall review the staff report as described in
38 5.05.15 D and the compatibility design review application as follows and make a
39 recommendation to the Board.
40 a. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established
41 in this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC
42 section 5.05.15 D.2— D.4.
43 b. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing
44 surrounding land uses.
45 c. Whether a view of open space is provided to existing property owners
46 that surround the golf course.
47 d. Whether stakeholders and/or other property owners are able to use the
48 greenway.
49 4. The Board shall consider the staff report and the report prepared by the Hearing
50 Examiner and approve, approve with conditions, or deny application. Upon
51 approval of the application,the applicant shall obtain approval of any additional
31
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 required development order, such as SDP, construction plans, or conditional
2 use.
3 G. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for
4 zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments.
5 1. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages identified to meet the
6 minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be
7 retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for
8 any subsequent conversion projects.
9 2. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space view for
10 stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife
11 habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a
12 continuous strip of undeveloped land set aside for passive recreational uses,
13 such as: open space, nature tails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach
14 frontage, disc golf courses, exercise equipment, and multi-use paths. The Board
15 may approve other passive recreational uses that were vetted at the
16 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings and are supported by the stakeholders. The
17 qreenway shall not include required yards (setbacks)of any individual lots.
18 a. The greenway shall be generally located along the perimeter of the
19 proposed development and shall be adjacent to the existing residential
20 properties located around the golf course. The Board may approve a
21 secondary design that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings,
22 as provided for in LDC section 5.05.15 C.3 and is supported by the
23 stakeholders.
24 b. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the conversion project shall
25 be dedicated to the greenway with a minimum average width of 100 feet
26 and no less than 75 feet at any one location.
27 c. The owner may not charge a fee for the use of the greenway.
28 d. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for
29 the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as
30 noted in G.1 above.
31 e. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and qroundcover)shall be
32 preserved and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal
33 improvements are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a
34 minimum, canopy trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet
35 within the greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however,
36 trees within preserves shall be excluded from the ratio.
37 f. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed
38 development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence
39 shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and
40 around the greenway.
41 q. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management;
42 however, the qreenway shall not create more than [301 percent additional
43 lake area than what exists pre-conversion. Any newly developed lake
44 shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide.
45 h. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the County's official
46 records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway.
47 3. Supplemental preserve provisions.
48 a. Conversion projects with sporadic vegetation, e.g. isolated preserves
49 less than 1/2 acre and/or areas of native vegetation retention less than Y2
50 acre (including planted areas)which meet the criteria established in LDC
32
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
1 section 3.05.07 A.4 may recreate up to 100 percent of required preserve
2 area if located within the greenway.
3 b. The existing required preservation areas for a golf course shall be
4 retained and maintained as established in LDC section 3.05.07 B.1;
5 however, 50 percent of the areas may be counted towards the required
6 preserve area for the conversion project if located within the greenway
7 and made available for passive recreation uses as allowed for in LDC
8 section 3.05.07 H.1.h.
9 4. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that
10 the stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an
11 equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by a pre
12 versus post development stormwater runoff analysis.
13 5. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain
14 compensation shall be provided.
15 6. Soil and/or groundwater sampling. In addition to the soil and/or ground water
16 sampling requirements established in LDC section 3.08.00 A.4.d, the applicant
17 shall conduct soil and/or groundwater sampling for the pollutants as follows:
18 Managed turf, chemical storage/mixing areas, and maintenance areas (i.e.
19 equipment storage and washing areas, fueling and fuel storage areas)shall be
20 tested for organophosphate, carbamate, triazine pesticides, or chlorinated
21 herbicides. In addition, maintenance areas, as described above, shall be tested
22 for petroleum products. The County shall notify the Department of Environmental
23 Protection where contamination exceeding applicable Department of
24 Environmental Protection standards is identified on site or where an
25 Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted.
26 7. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be
27 consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where
28 conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the
29 LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
30 H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the
31 GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards.
32 1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce light pollution. At a minimum,
33 lighting shall be directed away from neighboring properties and all light fixtures
34 shall be full cutoff with flat lenses.
35 2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a
36 minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with
37 residential uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one
38 location.
39 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
33
l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\Redevelopment of Golf Courses\5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Course amendment\5 05
15 Cony.Golf Courses CCPC review 12-15-16(12-7-16).docx
C 0
o
C.4-7,
a a) 0 0
v a) , ate) C m CU
O -g L 4, -O
C CU c E a, E Q Etc;
E tc
E a) -, Oo v,
oa0 u �a0. -0
CC t 0 a) L 3 N
I- vt i ++ V, .•-I
.6 CO aJ a) a) +• ++ N +,
ycCC C °
C i O
M C C ++ co La) n '-'
L ca N w :4- VI ,V1 .� U O_ O 4_, a) c to O >'
a) H o t i C v 'O a o ° >' N ns h Q ,=, Y
a) aa) co E v w C ra a N O L (6
ain Ei ° i i a o v E ' u N a) u i C a)
C E •,
O Z E aVi CU _ ° � �° E o o-0 n-CIa 'x _e u
as w v o •c «- E 11 v
++ E O C C C N o C• 0- •i ° ,,, aJ v,
CO c p a) c o w C C O j N 7 v, N Cu O
"0 0C c v)i +' u, -a ° 2 3 v o u r c coc co n v
CIJ aCl S r O �Ol p C N N v v�'Li O Q O N aJ E "a C a) On
r o E s L ;° a 5 ° v c ° to v Y o la
= o
°'� 0. co v
> a -Cu v - co u o v
C EN L t -C ° � Y Y U .� N "C w O CU W a) a) co
O ca L aJ c ++ u to O >� C O `� L Lam,,
/V +' eN-1 epi M us Q1 p1 N O. G O N -p ,}i, E - co YO o c 4 2 -, a, X 0
CU E ra cn L ri N �`i -0 .0 O a. L N 7 a) C V, u On 0 E L CU aa) Q) C
Ce v GJ N L `al d a c aEi c N a o r°aa o C - ons o a) Q v 0 -0 >
H a) u L ,,, a v on — c on ,n 0 ° t c 3 , co °
v v7) E E E -oc E E E C w ° p C 7 C ri Q L •L o v m° +' v o f >-
C L aJ aJ o a) a) a) cu i C c > dJ O 'O i ° +c., a) a- "O �, O_ a)
(� d' +' +' ted > > V o' -0 C O tilrE 'c--) N 'C C 0 O O. N u c O ,n o N
(11 E m u ami aai ,-%
Z Z Z p as coo �n y a o cca c o c v .� T 3 v 0 3
I H v,Ce 4. s a L v ° " v ,.; 3 c O o - 3 4 +; 3 10 -C U a,
-0 -0 Q _cy al E 0 a) r •-^ 2 v '0 v o v *' >, c _ U v c .c n3 c — +
0
W fa v v r 4-0 ° ' to c ° x c a E E 0 a) .0
O to 0 CO O _O C O C a) O O O a) L Q. .- a) '�+ t +. M
4., 7
Q L d C O 3 a N _^ .L oa a Nra a� Q -o N 4-
CU > O '- a, w �' o o °1 >• ° f6 to 0 o m nz ,; C E C 0 0
COCI
' v . - o C+ t u 0 vmya) ° I) ' u 3E �
va ca
0Eo „ cEE E > a) uV) o
E4- Cu f— — +' a) 0 -0 to ° 1ca D a) „ ca
C1,) OLrVIru OC 76
. Na 3
VO Vi C C 73 ,' '5c ;: � a) ° -0 > a 'JY
uudCVtUa) CcaOo .0N ^ Ec > *' a) v '0 ° NaJy cVOJ a) .-
U5 0E v )E co m^ Lcc ‘al; ) UvE cau v� ca) v> v� > E n Q a c o 'a-)
LO 0 a) c 0cU NJ o a c 04
CU 00covoYQ t 0 E I- c
F- Z .? a oa co • • c Q O F— o 0o H Cuo U
• • • • •O
mC
N
.3 4.. o
V)
a, u v C3a
0 c0 CU _C v V)
TS W C 3 ...1 H 4- N CO CM C. 3 CO
W y a”, 3 O 6 a
f ) O 4,
N E •i E c ,cif G) 7 '0 i > co a)
1a > -a `�°, ea c ,-, c o o o -a E VI
-g
CO O C� U o o 0 W • -0 o v
E o E = c L -0 = N L y a) OA
E o N ° o c oc v 3 u cl c 0- > -
E a isn cn ~ E " o ° m c a y o. o.
C
d v;
E -c, 4- •
-p 'O ca O
Y C
C) C Cu U-
VI C N Y �O C
Q O w a `n c
O
0 co l0 C O (-)
u 13 ut L 4.., 0 N i v,
aJ 0 +, vI
vi C) 73 4-0 C 3 c o n > 3
p i p .0 O a) Ni O Z
(7 E
J 0
m `n i C a) Lf, `n
C E O (0 0 0 F,,)
Va a_a E c .+, vi c
O 'C 0 7 ca O E0 p
CO OUa2v, DcfU
c
0
v;
44 .a 3
O
t O r.
v L C r
O
Zaa = mi
c
H
C
0
CO
C
CU
oi
EN
N
Eri
V O N
CD C
CeO
r+ ei
H min O c
C L cu
4.. O
_.0 T
E m a) 'o
.3 '0 c E
C C (13C/3 3 c
3 to
a CD 41> > 0
Ui0 o to
0 m O.
0. M
0.
f6 to
0) L vi vi a
cu
>. .N O
oa
c
U 5 .0 f0
° 13 o a
Z Z
N 4.J
To C on `* `� O w +' OJ _ C c w
C -° O ;�_+ C of (a ca — v, C
4-0 CU c o o . •c E o v 0 a) 4' v o O_ m ° C va v o c vi
c
C x o as c
+r '3 0 Q) c 'ai N CU v o o -0 „ — c E E. v m
t c ° v CU v, c +J +, ca o C v c 0. 4-, } c -a c v — o Q
N °� a� v +' QJ L °� aci c cL)C O m O ,> d aci `° v v L t
u v E O o E E v o > v E E to a >. +� +.) v m
L C a) — a) s' U LJ ° c N �, OL a) c C c L1 °a ° 2 3 C N C
CO c 0 O_ O `4- 4.) ° a) aa) c -c a, O ++ o £ v '3 3 > m E v ° E ,aa E
0 ;, . ° E °- a°Ai E o C (^ a E Cr 3 a) x +�
ti m w, c •c > `° E `—° v a) ” a ata v, v E a, v a� O_ c -o °
3 IE :Et')
- a o 0 ° =a H 7) H ccs a °v,' ° > co H 4- o Cl) o 3 -0 axi m °
N
CO i i S a +' +' C
7 4_, C v, C 4 O
O_ v,
U ,.>, v, O a) ° co c u
C C w C -° i op 4' E as
O n o °; O (0 v W co v a c cn
0 C7 0 — .0 co w o- " a E 3
CA F co ra N (a o 4+) c (a r-+ ca — Cl)
o L 4_, ,n p Y C O L +� c ) o N U > _c N = 3 p 3 Z
-O a) 3 .w rn •u o -0 v 3 +J ui c .0 +-' }, Ln
c o co c '+, c o c o c o 3 +, o c o E o a
o •as 0 L N N �' a1 0 •– ,_ N c • '0 N CJ 0 C L a t.p a) o >• X
C M (a
h
tn L
c E s O bcA c E O (a p N U, C - p ca O @ O N ,i Q
O3 6 N O G O 7 f6 N ° a au0 O_ +.. u C U1 ab O -°
O U Q c ) N (a n O U Q c cn a v OAC O o Q cn 2 in H ms
Attachment 1
2016 COLLIER COUNTY GOLF COURSES
T,,,-, i -""`°`"`°" +AVE MARIA INSET
LEE COUNTY
BONITA BEACH RD g Panther Run
Audubon CC Club @ Mediterra Quail West Golf&CC Golf Club
Bentley Village -3 I or
tiV
Golf Clubi
�� , d'Tails Park Golf Club Cypress Woods
r `�A Quail Creek Golf&CCCC d
Herka a Ba
Imperial Golf Club The Strand g B y
l �• -, ) QualllVillage Golub Golf Course.
Collier's Reserve CC i 1. l �iv.ti? Guarryj OIL WELL RI)
Old Collier Golf Club ♦ �, )'r Twin Eagles (11 z
• Jm11' + Bonita Ba ClubEast mHITH AVEN I,- IMMOKALEE RD Esplanade Golf,&.CC Y_— �,Olde pifoi,
I (Cypress$Sabal) c
Palm River CC(LaPlaya) Cy Arrowhead Golf Course •Valencia Golf Course a
Calusa Pines o
Stonebridge CC
61470 5 cBa Colon Golf ClubVanderbilt CC > >
Y Y LicitTiburon Golf Club m�Olde Florida
Pelican Marsh Golf Club "t p c Golf Club
j�m VANDERBILT BEACH RD
_ Z I Golf Club of a
Club @ Pelican Bay Vineyards of Naples the Everglades
o
Z �5 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W GOLDEN GATE BLVD E
Quail Run ; m
z
Country Club of Naples Golf Club o
_._..CL PINE RIDGE RD J x
Royal Poinciana f r' `r' If{a 1 - c
Golf Club �,, a • Kensington Golf&CC c >
it F 0 GREEN ewD Hideout Golf Club
m
Hole in the Wall O c fl. I J Wyndemere CC
Golf Club r /M E< 11 1. '
High Point CC /�� 'f�I�"a fn Grey Oaks.Golf&CC z
��i�►*'r�1 at GOLDEN GATE PKY w
Moorings CC �� F a-i .. mal' I Quality Inn&Suites Golf Resort
AI
Wilderness CC _ _
/1NaplesrGrande Golf Clubs ,, Cedar Hammock Golf&CC
Boors Paw CC ( / RADIO RD Glen Eagle @ ��
vmwooCP
Foxfire CC I r Ali)&Golf Club / a _ ),r 1: Forest Glen Golf B CC
♦, Dnvls sLUD I-N�Ar®w. "•�:a �_ ` Naples Heritage
Countryside Golf Club `ookill s x
Evergreen ''''r17.411111111,11 }P, 2P .
1y.7"1.-..
. Naples National Golf Club
Glades Golf&CC I4� S m a m Royal Wood Golf&CC
oiev kelq a:� i r`1�17 Naples Lakes CC
Lakewood CC -"1J
Windstar on Naples BayormtisRA-LESNAKROAANfOCER. Royal Palm CC
Riviera Golf Club
of Naples ► Mustang @ Lely Resort
Hibiscus Golf Club '
m 3�111
4411 Lely Flamingo Island Club
TPC @ Treviso Bay Classics Lely Resort
.1•4
Eagle Creek CC
N $s
Silver Lakes RV Resort&Golf Club r9 yr
93rr
rk,
P
F Links of Naples
Rookery at Marco
Golf Club at Fiddler's Creek }
GOLF COURSE:
ZONING - Boyne South Golf Course
o11111 A
m
GC
Hammock Bay Golf&CC
PUD G
I RMF-16 u
Hideaway Beach Club
I I RSF-3
I-RMF-6 ref,/ ot
®MARCO ISLAND i=NAPLES ! lfr��CITYLIMITS C�eA+4rtidr. Island"CC °j
0 0.5 1 2 3 0��i.°Pi/� ,
Miles 7 o a/ $
GIS Mappinp ,,nev ,,, i e�O�
U _ ani ""�G ik j�c
I 03
0 _. ..
CD
C sr,fr ' IN
T + , . ,,, , * ..
, , . .,
,,,, ,, . ,
.,, ,..- 7 461ite ' Itc-),,.;s2 "4 .,L : '
N
o
d l� ;may L. y- .- 1-=
.. °1 CC ♦ #, *- . d'
ko d N d O to j :.e„ F 1 �" ''"44`'
„itiltr
j&I1114‘.
zP
ir '.....R D m Oit .ii, ,
"" 7, ,J.:... .. 5�!***.**4•;.1141� °� x� :. Q q,l 9 sole.- l � z "° J
OwIii " lsa�oj o +; a
te. 1 311>ht
rz *. .m ;z ter, -4, 'CA
>. D z t
-11111111141.. '''.*4'* * 1111* .,* ''"‘„A,111111111'-'7714kti * *if* 1;1 TIP' -:;11)**41141 .^. lik"11(***"*.ir I 41:4":4....-"*:.'"' ..IL '
1011(
t
le
X _ :...
,z.,_,,,,,,,, _ „,,, ,.,A.a‘,412-,..JJ4 .- ''. '-': ,. '.., - . r : -1
NS ,
+�'RDVJJaege •,
1,,
�
CO ° 41- -IV T'Ct-# l'i v- , /__ 4 ,.. . .‘. , 4.'041*r' .4--•
1, ce ir — ill . wit 1"*# 944
4%1ft,
I_ ncs . ..,10, f ,L T 'om' bx = tti
cafittift L ''
— AN40. AF--4 iiiii3
„a
4iii griii0
yr'*,•''e'\
a � a *
VP.•
W
or foie Ait,
CS `fir" Z t '@!*+ ,•
nrfir 4# '• LL Cl) Aii," # 1 'l alL
F. ciLL11
444.*
e�,�- . _. �...,_J.4•
'
x
*tilt
�_fid $«t .0 d '‘,4e,,,,,�� ciO Q ?
III'
a.` +�a: � s �0e;� Ne °
z-,,
eR [` tilis ` *.90°.;LI
AtIAY r cf *, Sb r4 '. • , +moN w ' IC' :!,6, '7 i � --:-'44111
� ' t , lg . � U �
411
in*
AO
OC �'44x _ ' Q
lin
, D U Tto a3alpooJ �A Zu)Nysa ` N Ob Au _».. J s.. .__. _ DZ.. �
,,„ ... .., .4 1 Naillei it.4- „i a 4.4 ,c5
i 'Salvia LN 7'r ,4:,4,,,,,,,41.-'�,�i 6
77 <_ k 4)
MI e O LL
17
CI)
..4. 14=1 leladasoa ° !
of 0 a,. y jay' '- � `'
Net �� ��
LL.
n t 4.
o in u -
J
t iii -
r -
, r,
N
Z
C
o,
t
, ..7....: ie.',,,,, ,,,,, c...._.
w x ce 3 .
.4 �
;.. kY Z YQ
s« ir
4 *V_ '' ,:„7,_2"," -'3-4t ''4,—,:,-.4' ' ' -7"...VE" '-4 , - ''.
H .
,
....,..t_ N s t..- T_„:it, i `, "€ "..meq . ,,'
u
O d+1 4. ,4 s+ 4 t 41.
,'. ft ..t 68 f Cal
,
f
x
,
iti. 144voritiii,,, 0 ...„, ,,s.-* ,,,,,_, :' :r, 41:r_tl'i-.
—0 :1111111.4146,4
(.9 „, it -.F 00 ";0104t,
' .,,,,,::: ,e ; ,
7
4-***4C.:',.: !It''''' k--.-' '
e4- 4*
'f'.-1.-."; �N► "tet 4" "� **"4".11 '1 .. � :-.
*7 N,;S. # 4 ' • 1110 -/: '07° '-7- '
,, -v
.t414 T. ,<
p
lir
c ��...-A- v.! vim, )/,,,:?,„,_,./, Y}( --, .1t -;. ,.., 's #
- -
, Ito, .,,-.
, 4 \ '''''7, „ a- --,,,sr,,,..4
O
0
rt.
, =
a -
N ON H ueJj-allalpo0O
Q
iii6.710.1111
= p Q
O c(n)
T
• N
_
0I
V �. t L, n, ` _s.
L �f a
,,,,...., ;...soe.,.,4.... ,, ,..,4-.: ' ' ...7,..:: '''''....4.':-. '11:1--"':- ' 4:: °°
tA4
qJ co ..._ ,.. ,. , w ' .i $a«t , '�`e, o
CD 11
.,
Jm 0 ,,, „.,. ..: ...__ _, ..
0
t . . . .
.,:.
.. ,
.. , .,_,....,, ... ,
k.,.. ,..,
, . -_,,, ,..,......„,,..,..,.,x...•„•_-: ,,,,,:;,„;712,..„;:i„.•_.. ‘ _ ,=, ,,_.„..,,,. .„, 7,c. , .. , ,
::•,,..-,-:__:,-„,;:tiA.,..,...,..tlfi,4.:;:.$i„,..„,,,,.7.-”'C''.----- • .. .''‘
' .\\„......,....,:\ A
?' . .
.
_,„,„...,„.,„ .."1
' (13mN
1,_ �- ` f '
:::''''';'-'4''.''''' ' CC/)
0
y:
U
....I 1
.ter
u
i .
4 4 i
r ,
y
L. C
O
-":1';'4
U U
€ N
w
3 n 3as
.! t gam. �• � 3" ' �'
#
:*f., 'rk. -I 71r'.',t,i,:.,....-.'"'•11.';:ttrl ', '''
Gi; ,s+��e; s " 'ag�' �" �` `*- O
at
E+} '11it
4! ..> rye, m p N
N
w L
iii
N�smHn- y,f v
o
,fi,,Pga-L'''''777;::..' - ... -rq tea..*-4aw LL Q rQ '
c—
� � a'�t _ G� G1 �
C
Z
-. J � m 0 O
,
, .., ''' , ' :'1, : '
,,j
r
�p ." ' .; I ,: n� CZ
•
CZ
� a
�. t; 'b`
a"
q"
to 1 = ,y „+ ,,
. '.. �: `r.:. e '.�: : e,^sett
4.
• ,
wx;e
' � � a ,. a
1M�1ww►t 1' . r oQ
„tew....yt.-..sw..,... � 1 o v >,
.. ,,i „ Z w
sites Y.” 14:-''''''''
C. Q -
4
h
.. *# ..,, , w,,,'-' 4, , . . .k., 1. ' ,,,,
kt'• ' 4 t. i. 0 Li
A
CI) .‘.
{. �.- COo
Ico
�.+ S ` co 1 000
m
I o s:E +" *� Lake oR of*"
N
v
a3. m'= x O N d CO
--,--4'...., 47:i Ncm.-- c!
t.......
•
-- ,,,t,,— ' ' arf C '
1k h }
,:,:
s„..„..i—8.,ti, jo :
,......;
d y � j' lt . .:t r¢ Yp 1 ►
Oul4 ' .s' t
Irrii
_.
, .,,_ .
0, .
,.
-,, ,..40.- or ,, ,
0i „,0, ‘ -\ „ , 0_, r
4 .--1:_44:,,.,''..,
40
. ,$4. 0,1_.0-4_00-e -„ .. e..4...0.,,„:„._... ...„_, _ . 0 ' ''''' CI ,4
‘1 '.:H*.‘ 1' ' ' 114' ''' .j ',Iwo
CO.,,,:',.:: ,,,, ,, .,, _ 4* , L. 4A, iii,,... , . ... ;.. ,*,,, .
0
ce
t..l LY m = LLL
40
M �r ae� a 0 � c
(� 12 N
p
3 .:_:, ,, ..,,,,,,;:_ .„,... >,....
u . _
LU
toil-, * ' ...., - ,,,,,4 •• —1., itrtlr s , ' 4#* Li � /f
m
O
,.._
i -^- -`�'.. dot �`t. : ,...- k. -C,
, .. .„.„.._ ,
_._
r 11 t o ' ; /,N, ..,,,, N ...
...... 4.,_ ,...i.... e
.(7.40,,,
i
°a
ret f
s s 8
o + std
!!
0,1
444
5ucs J ,.
et - . ,rite- '. ktt .,.rlt,. .,.. .:.,.tf,. ....,6 4.0
e
(/ ,,....z..t. m , ,.. , ......, ,....„.„ • „..., ....
...e. 6 ."`.*.g , „'L..„,„...,. ' ... #, ” .., .' 4:. ,..'4-._ -..,- ›..
#4ir!'''3' ' '-' '''''' ---: , , c) ,–
,....-'4
Ci
_ Ni a�el;,xpug `- ,y .Y a - N re __
J o .. v
,_ k 4 U
re � Y �
amu ,
S :.!
rth ��
Z
5_
r
'' " 0 a
co '...-c. #. f A O It
• � CO LL
t * t 'A * • ., , .S' .1, -'/- Ar 44' i ;(.1- Yi N.°
0, .4,.
.„-„, ,„ .,. t
�
..� w
W' fN . •
CO
_� �.
•
O O titi � c) r N { �, sc r 1 `,»
C N... 0 L. C o tf °. +I �Q e F
CD 0 d N �o♦a CD CD CO
#s oaf ' u' ' 41 i N
,�.__ 4. s .ail a u,o j , C, ,. pp X
. �`ir 9t � 4 - `a+ .k*.*' ;+t.,�_ Iisf�B N!Q' o
+ 1" ► 1�" Ccq "fit
`' a,giro r ' . .
fj
it 4
•or _ ..„,10_,Alle 40. .„ .t ,, ii, 4'1' il."--. , 4
0 X`,i aJ a
1-. 4,",4
L � �a y�P > Z i r
4„ ,'11,400,,.
t "
L.
s+
lisynr
i,vii.,,,t:
CD 4t
4.
.._;,i.,,,
tli g..,,,L F.4/Øfr
C
v^fW aON 6AvDi � '' cr t3,
:4. "
4 s ,r �OU N V/ _r_
44. à i
b4 atf, -
211 _ * *" e„ )
k 0.)C? \
lleJoa '• ,• d
Cr)CI
C �tY'v
C LL o u t " O Q'
•� re 4 o f i . ' N. ,
. O
L
e'"
t..
w
y
a
i
'rx'
to`v r f
.
e -
n
,
3 ,
0
ca" • �a_ � 4 0 dtLL , sUM o
`15-
N.
NO (n�96w •, ✓ N NtiZn; . .r • , x >rr '.` fOn8r.m e , ' m�O `' 4' c � o ao/� 4 * .m ," ad` o - te
, -C 7,..,
cz
N. %...„.„ ., „deg._ ., ,,0 ,„.„ c,
c
ir`.I fix' 4 00011
O j�` w- r '-'t cs
�a
03
ca
C } F 1 It t "` j, P ,-;74,-4,-,;71,,es# '�' ` #'"'�
N I ii. tAk o �'
U
p it : �'. cam`- ., r ^fi $ y �o d� W
C N s_ t- 0 �CD + -. U,. ,l'. ..-.:4' •, , 1 N
tm.
T
0 co
J �1
r '',s , ; . 2N
O
: U .r-0
Nilo A l 9 iu e 6 0,� — 0
�d A p - r`"§.,o.,...� ..�Flmit
k X 4$� - .4�; �*_ y�
SO
x
}
1IL
ryk ` y d
; - A. .4 ,4,1141,- liffit 4.' 4 . r i ....
(1.) ;.'-iii a
a
----.0„4.-- r ,406
'k !'pro ::•-.., , '
cri "•_ �'sk C 1 os 7 y* est.- ,. ate
.41
A... )1, iidt'e. 4,,,,
.Aw
r r ;:.• ..y.,N. , olltor,o041rtit , li...T liiiiiIT:i!,,,p/ ca
cn A off i
0 .* 1 , !, N� e'
= ')'t . w
,w.U V M R .-1
war '"ir ,-_ ,a. �'- a� V
rr
t..4.—_ t'--.L.• ..,.. . 41. ..I, ' . 4N.J ,A ".. , . 4
k #
!^ y ' e Nl ) ; 3 9 ' d L
" n w , ooMae 'k.,..‘,...0.-, , ,:."4.tl .
4 rotif.,. iritksi7re..'7 4 4.: ..01,..,....g. ;
I
Er, 'q
1.
; - -- -itit - „- itt,
.10,
P , . , c., r .
11710 ' ,z- ,,,P ' ' '. .. 41,4, ut r
I os
,= tVfo1 __ 1,-,..7_,..,
24.
• ,,,,, „.../..„,..,..,,,,,,,,40.4.
iiie t
�-/ c;:lt , iii
. ,, ''',.'.7 ar o < ill 8
Y ,- Ba_ � co Ur _,,,I.� ae n
-laktili
w'S
DNa X , ' ' - .: o ,,,,72•� t '�R, A `rte .a:
# . � .< r>yMampbuao'dd .. . cu � N. .... oto1C � d �` m- s 'ZJ .1e � i, ,
,,-r. - --Ci-, ?Itg.,
.- .4 �.�
.
Linz'
"' �li
j" R o
t! ,:�' -4.^m
�. _ �^, a o
ca
en
c CD
. Y�r 'ma 4:.r..*:' 4*: iHilt‘'411.11117‘;'
,, _ , , . , ...., , ,..t. ,...4, 4
''' illilliiiii ' N
o
ix)
'
Ca
0
0 Lo 71-
441 .
. P
i -. : _, lr'.. J: ' '$ Y e0 co 25
a1 :°
q , p.ig5uiwurn'
IVI
c - r - �` �
i
Ca
o ,. .a� w a
1,.._ „„,. ,,
r - R AY �. -.
i 4.yt ,,, "�
yy F
a „ ay ..„.4..
�7 LL t *" i'
1 1
^` 1S INeA r_ + ND
'W^ .� -a Iter '�} 1 }frs ,�' .� t$ IP". L`
VJ -
w�. ra)anj�r tac. 4
�� �, ,#.0 a '• ats
r
s '
0 j z, fes° +. .•A-
O
0 �
'"c . „. ; ' .. . .. Itklt. -,- ',olirlii.,' .' " .'''; 4, - . ..
..,
11 { �,
. . . . .
....
,...
, ,
..
.. ,
i .
„..
�. �, a ' err ...,., .,.,
a
....
4.
��, A:` : "'
Azalea up "<" t'.
ar
_. {
I., li•,,:ili .V 1,- ''''-c"- 'I*, , *.- '''''' .4.41. -..- ' -. - CI.'
74
4.0111'1*
,.
R�_ '� =�;E� tet,ti�� �, Ori .` •
�
_:.,...,... . „,..„ ,...,..,,, ., ,
- - - -
,.-„-,,,,,--.. .. -
, ,, i
0
igilT
TaYlorcRD * £F °' �10. O —
O=
° tU
�e f s} al
141' eS L (n O N
' y ''#� tip!, Z' Z 1, Z COcci
>"N
mi
ifilst ? + _
- ♦� r fit„ O
Ittii
(a
o
1 _V0 co : r-
c rn
0
m
E y o
cin
c) u, in o ,
.x . -0 c in m
o i.
ccs' N i u o in CO LO le
Qfa
T-i o y
J 7 N
1 :H—
a
R
,�,� �"'c, { ' OW
`. °tea �,h
a "
t..
ti
y�{am—.� \ , ,_r� ;- _
,S.
.. , ';r Wisteria 1�yb,. }-, - °�Q 4•
Et
,,,,,,4 #: - ifnill, ,, , ,-*.' ..„4.1, ' '''.-17,-,.
:1� a,p� )itC. x'.. Vin CO
kV
ety ell1nj "
U a
*41"'''''' t 1 ° ' " '‘''' ' ' ' '' N -., -i4' --:: 0: .0, ..)* .
' . �
- 4 r
jrk , JO. + , . . L",Tuppence LN.# ,
*1 41fr
s a Fot N i
m
�,Z�r b�'. r1x ` + . pen
it
...., „.. .. ?'a a'' Ip a ' ' f . e.
,,..,.
�. Sa
" LNo�
,.,...„ .,,.
,.:„.. . , .
....„,,,,..„.„ , , ,_!".#0..,''._'.. ' '--; „ - .,.,, - -111.Lii,.
-:. --4,:i:-,:,,,-.- 0,,, ,,,,, ... . . ----_-_ ,... -. cy), _.. ..',
,- , . , '.: ' .:1.,.'r r: .:tu:::--7:.. .- , .L.--, ::ja:
liVii
''. . .iitiiv---- ; t t if •:-
4.
s d ms i a
J r n r41f-'' �1r
"
Cr)
4.
. ,,4,,,,:.,,, , _ O➢ trr ,fiU
m ay. r j ¢ 1 i . 0o+�- Z i a '' m" : d'' e ' O
•
-Nrn.. -Li„..,. m 104167i .,41'''''
a � •'a r'¢ m �%c� ZO U-8s. - � I>.c' w v. - Y« co s - .
.... ..... ,.....„, .__.t .„0...„..
3=." ate° t >°, ._ ?mrr "--
�� ? ' iy,;v y o-
At ,
v cx �` -.6,,,‘„,,,,,c,,,—5 0 . ..-,� ,(( d .4 ..yrs" gg r 1..�..,4, _4,, J U 9., -lL
O0 a s k V y a� M m.
'o N 021 l�odtlymin
v � c y
p U c
Ur
m p O :YrO
ami _ I ,.rn m 7; R dyy Pe _ 4 „ o� o
'- .,' ..,47,1
- 3. „://:▪,,,,,,.."-•,,571,,,..
j.6 " CM O
/1:Vr''''
o
�� 11;;I
�w �% y
741'
,
4.
v�
, 4,1..0,v ., 4
0 0
4r , , 4', '''',
,11
_ ›...4.
os u v ��
•
, ig:', c,„,7' ,...,....
sx ` �a15aou Wl , 1 j( t
u �. :41...;11111:1111611""1;:l'.
: °o�
N. ^bPPP '1 a96. .' ,. ; ,L { - .,7,,,., .rr.
''' 1 , f' ..;'1.-.,t „:.1'.i,:4+-...a* ..v 24
N 'b _ t„.,•`, ;,-;,•41F
�
U) > '
/ 0 w
L) 1111 ,•,, .,.•,, /i latio.-.. , - , art: , '
1S n u e d
IL; 4- w4'1!.*, 1 4. - 01 11% 1-- •
v 'Std C;.. viribio ,7:4t..".,.
.. ' 4 ,- ' q ,. �auaY olY�'�} 3
1110..r
s K 3 ::
m , a, , -
'� 4 z '� ,x�, t
ax
< _ ter" `- gif .�
.#' , 21 O oonr ., . ea"'.
f.
F.Aii..... -1,. , . ft. ,. as , ,. , ..* . A.,, . _,
t
44' ��A Q 0'
*f
r A
1 C < ` i r �•'' 41,1
�'
d .E li xk to A� 2
:' : a
•01 :,' ' 1,,.., , _*'....:'':#‘1444,, .:164 ',.. ,:)' 66.‘' '
11
a, w
e.
.
T.� e� - 5- Q SNI . rmm� ti _ sa s'f _ M ;x•lil :�'x $ i4
nnNoNvJ7Dn0 CO
0 0 v m o m C 0 -' 0
_ < 3 m w a = s 3 ao•• co
m m CL 0 0 0ma 0 3 3 a r
s I rn 3 m •• N. G
_ A
N
�_
Z 03 fD Dl fD ' O N • (ND
ID
22, .0V1
r3•. 3 r3•r * m _ e, rt
G) O1 eV
Q .- S
nN O� Q. 3
O ;_, a
r+ �, Ut cin
O3 c3
= r•r r3+ CD
0.
N y- 0 O (<D O-, (ND O s N m 0 C c Q 0 -1 v, 3 D
.•r fp
m v a o m azo -' Q N m m a m O 3 N
- UO r+ m p O .N. N O s vmi h N rN, rt, n m m 3 O
( rD
3D O 3 -''"s N 3 - O 3 S O N 3 O. C
tCL
=it '< r3+ O 13 0_ Q N d rt S 3 O m r. N 3 m fp m 3
m .r N n 3 m 3 ~' 0 3 m 3 C' DJ
N O Q Q S m01: c rt
S -e,
1/1
• • • • • • • -,+ m O „* h Z -
O 'O O Dl O n t^ r -, n D -0 D) O CD -+ -I - --I O- .ter -0 ffDD 0) O (SD CD
Oq' p�j ,, .O n -+, N p O S O S vOi 'O rN-. N 3 . S 0) 0) O n m t<D CD
-, .- -00 O m CO o y D•-• m fp Leltan -°O a -, , °. m v ' m N U a '^ = a c Pt
,Y m ON '4 .< N Q_ rt N fl- fD 0 m n• n rn7 E (' N CO r+ a t^• N - 01 a S
o C r+ m n m o n m r•. .-. _• ,y m N N r-, m fD I'D n
C 3 '< r+ ni or O O- v S fy '< '< N rt r+ m O C 3 Q S a r* .3•. _ -' 0
Lel
o s r~ n v m m -< O r*, p O fz r* "' CD °' m m a '� 3 r+ N
fD m N c o e o • Cr r. 3 m a n = m ID Q1 3 Z p
n D! 3 =. fp C p m* Q C '•i m 7 CD to
m p rN+ D p o v m , n m v. m 3 .P 0 O m Z D N
fD o in ,.. O 3 OO CO O' c „Dm C N r0-. N S el
3 3 O Qcn
O 3 r+ m O ••+ fD N `< m r+ _ Q N N rr ` O 3 m ,f fp
.G s v 3 r-+ N Q v 0' ,rt '* O m _. Q O O N M y 'a d 3 TO C n
m s -0 �• 3 DJ m o m �. c. N O m
r•. "6 C < S 3 m f'D C m '3 n n C CDD C -0 0 y
Da m o rD a v fl
m n' 7 s O o s m g Z rt 0 A
m , O m fp' 3 - rD -< -„ O m: n °° ,- m Q _. m p a H n N co O m D
• O 3 N n m 3 3 Q m < _S• n p DJ -, Ln N < 3 o '_. `c a < 3 A •<
Dpi 7' r' rO* �. v x O O rt c v N' a m to O .. 0 m n - r
a ,� m 3 tOit - D7 rr rte+ O <• fU Q N m 3 .* .3r 7 fSp m O O f,7 Q
rD < r+ S O Q * N c _ p •< `< m OO ' Q C O- • S = o a n fS rn+ N 3 0 n
F. 0 m n m r=. •G fD 'O -, 3 n O N ,..F, S m �'. Y 6 m m O Na N DJ
0 n m 7 3 O fop r+ 3+ O O ro a r* c c -• m 0 CM F. s rmi -a 3 W a m O
or a4 O c, O_ v O N o * 0 -o c m - m !D Q v ID 0 * 0 3 m• m O m -I m 3 a Q 3
.r f�
. n m d .3 , , Oq O fD c v 0 33 v0+ lO m Re 3 O 3
• o o z N m co _n. m m n as �; p X. 3 N M.
3
O m rx•. '6 c a. N 3 3 fp 3 N n n '+ N 3 -' m co 3
r•r O C` SC'. n. 0 � -r• f4.es.., vmi 3 S O! n O C a N m 0 rci
3 ,C a s �,_0 f<p fn-D. 00 -S v O M O (<D 3 m 3 C 3 011 3 DJ
CL �, N o c Q ao n O 3 -, m d a t'it V LD
,� 3 O' ,-. S 3 m O 3 rt
S m = m 3 m ,< N 0 0) r~ O a m o „ 3 o m o S Q N
m 7' * ct 3 r. c n " ° rD O f�D w' 3 3 3 n m 3 Xi
o s a(.o m m m rn --O s E. 0 3 a O ° N 0 3 ' c �D
-, N m O N o < `< Z
o s '+ 0) a_ o o ao rip rOp O m " 7• v O L u 0
p = s cm -„ n < 3 � c 7- 7 =n ri. =. S o f O
N m fD 3• �- O m 0 O �, 6 0 -s5. v O - O r+ 3 3
s m x. 0 O O -, •< 3 m �, c 3 0 ' ,n 3 s
a n Da 3 N O O
f<D •(D 5, OC a, 0- ni 3-
o 3 < OO m 7
DJ OCT O_ N m C `<" " V+' D) _ m r+ O to to to a rM m co CD
3
0 c s m c s Q
n fs m C m n DJ
M o 0 3 c ^ t_ m o
Del r, 3 0
rho 3 n m o 3 c m c 3
n , 3 a 3 3 D
IV M mx,
" m m A , a.
0 O DJ
V rt
Cr) 3 C o
y, 3
1-
DJ 70
D=J my 0
- 0- CCD
- fp 3
lD -I f1
1-1 Ol
W o
O 3
nrt W (I > C 0O � nNJNJv+ K > a 0
v o
° � u, ;, � CO� ao; � � � �. mow "+, � s 3 ao'
o v o o o 3 �• PD o -3g = 0 7 3'
(D cn• N in'
c v •• 0. co 'F-';j 0 D C G' 0 p
O 'up, j O 7 - N j 0 -'
(D ,, cD Q • r, 7 r+ fD Q
g) (D ,,, v' O N vhi N a., O
O pGi d iiin� c
o
7-7
(D O O rD
r+ r+
< o a a 0 —� n C °x -z r CD —•1
p .-r '^ p in v, O Gl fD lD rD rD 3 •• ' rD ,,. ° 3 ,-r rr crn-
D D C
a. rr rD rD 3 0 < 3 U' N NJ C — co 7 _
su
G CO i1� SU r+ 0 (D _�+ fD in ED
O. 4 0 -1O r rt
c
S 0 CD
- III
fD 01
O C
G
m W G
FD
7-1: N
w O
D
o -aa. N
,'_co
< c ,
c.
fD
3 o"CD (71* ..(5,
C
C
a 3 r
craN o C
o . < Q D
w 3
M CL 0-
7 0) CD
✓ 3 3
W
CD 0) (to
-i 3
rF
N
N A
O CD
rn C
3
3
CD
3
O 3 .,..-1
O 3 NJ 0 O a
N `
V a) rD
rF
cOi ° m fD 3 I
i -s < N
< C.
ro
A m A
a a.
I
00cu? o rt zKOICAK > 070 70
C C CD m v -
QJ c , fD
� rr Do DLJI rr rt 7 ID 7 o .0
X = :,' F. 3 S. b O O h 3 c
x 5 —I T M ~' 3 fro lD , fp
vi ao < v 3 3 * •• 3 Gl rD 3 rD er
Z T r�D m °�' m o a co 0 0.
fD
T. N v v o g r+ CT
3 0 v VI s <
C2- = a u, ~' fD
0 3 , o 01
°q (") -1
�0
, ft,-• Q 0) !D 0) E+ Q H 0) 0- rr N (D •--1
m 3 X s o o. c ° rr CD X S S
O C y' Q (D (nD , Q 3 0 W N Q Ol 0 -o cn•
3 �. UQ 2i 3 "O = fl- .— = F. < ,-r Q = 3 0) o) VI
Q)) fD `eD 3 o ° ° aro v o 3 Oa r(D CU m CU Z V 3 3 C
cu 0 v, aN 3
° �. of o eD fD a)
,� ° o - 3 -1
0) 1.1. .<
0 (A
2 .00
0 (D
el_ et
o 3 C
3 fp C
00 3
0) Z O
-20o
C <. �G
O. "I
c O n
0) < (D
0) co
13-q - r
0) 3
CO
OIn
_La o fa)
v
W Q 3
0 IV fp
Z 3 =
oo 0- O.
co
0 fp
mCU 3
-I -.g et
N a rF
_LO H
70
NJ (D
P., n
rn 0
3
3
(D
7
0 r 3 a o 0)
N n v ' n et
O1 CD 3
m0 Q Dg 3
fD N
V .. -
O
c