Loading...
CCPC Agenda 01/05/2017 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 5, 2017 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,JANUARY 5,2017,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—December 1,2016 and December 15,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PUDA-PL20150002280: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-10,as amended,the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on Tracts 7-10, and 15 of the commercial use areas, "A"parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan; by amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on tracts 16-20 and 24-25 of the commercial/light industrial uses area "B", parcels as shown on the PUD Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B to further define the areas that allow the institutional uses as permitted uses; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Beck Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 2,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. BDE-PL20160000863: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE-PL20160000863 for a 67-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 87 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility with two vessels for the benefit of Lots 58 and 59,Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision,also described as 14 Hawk Street,in Section 14,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,in Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Ray Bellows,Manager,Zoning] C. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two—Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts, section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts; Chapter Three— Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards; 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; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County, Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, AICP, Manager, LDC, Development Review] (The CCPC members have been provided copies; however, the LDC Amendments can be accessed here:www.colliergov.net/publicmtgs.) 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp December 1, 2016 Page 1 of 26 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 1, 2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ABSENT: Tom Eastman, School District Rep ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Eric Johnson, Principal Planner December 1, 2016 Page 2 of 26 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 1st 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. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, for the record, Mr. Eastman notified me he couldn't be here for a conflict, so it's an excused absence. Addenda to the agenda: Our Item 9B has been requested by the applicant to be continued to January 5th. It's the Regency Autohaus. So we would -- if there could be a motion to continue Item PUDA-PL20140001836 to January 1st -- January 5th, 2017. Would someone like to make such a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn, seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Planning Commission absences: Our next meeting is December 15th, I think. Ray, do we have anything scheduled for the 15th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. We have -- Hamilton Place is scheduled for that, and some LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So does anybody know, sitting here today, if they're not going to make to it on December 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, we have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be here, but are we talking a full-blown LDC amendment? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that part of the agenda. I know there are LDC amendments, but I December 1, 2016 Page 3 of 26 don't -- I don't believe it's a full-blown, but we can verify that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the cycle -- the amendment cycle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not a cycle. It's bits and pieces. One, in particular, I believe, is the golf course conversion amendment, and that will be rather intense, so that one's one that's a lot of pages, so that will be one of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just trying to figure out, because I'm going to travel that afternoon. I just didn't know if it was like an all -- we think it's going to be an all-day event? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If it's just Hamilton and that, it shouldn't be all day. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Five or six amendments. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: When do we get it; the week before the LDC amendments, or we get it earlier? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like we -- it's not going to be a book worth. It's going to be pages. It's not going to be as -- and we're going to talk about this in a minute. But it's not going to be 1,031 pages like you received on this. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe there was five or six amendments. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, that's what I wanted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I got the delivery truck delivering the rest of the box I got this week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five or six. You think there's five or six? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe so. There's about five or six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It won't be that bad. We should be able to finish up in the morning. So that's December 15th. And the meeting after, when we just continued this Item 9B to, is January 5th. Does anyone know if they're not going to make it on January 5th? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I won't be able to make it January 5th. But at this time nothing had been planned -- at this time nothing had been planned. I already asked Ray about that. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got something now, potentially. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have to leave at 11 today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully we might be done, so thank you. Approval of the minutes: The minutes for November 3rd, 2016, were distributed electronically. If there's no changes, anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ray, BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: There were -- there was no BCC hearing from the last time we had a Planning Commission meeting. December 1, 2016 Page 4 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we'll go into chairman's report, which is probably a good time to talk about the package that we received for this meeting. I was surprised at the magnitude of the package, 1,031 pages on the resource recovery park alone, not including the others. I asked Judy Puig why she had distributed 1,031 pages on issues that were not relevant to the case, and she said she believed that through the planner that Mr. Schmitt had requested that kind of backup. Somehow we need to kind of get a handle on it, because I don't think anybody on this panel saw it as relevant. It's old information. It's information prior to the conditional use that was instituted in 2009, so why did we get that kind of volume? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I made the decision that it should be sent given the fact that we were having some long discussions with Pollution Control about certain aspects of the potential uses. And since the EAC no longer meets on these things, we wanted Mr. Schmitt to have the complete background on it. And if Mr. Schmitt gets it, all the Planning Commissioners should have what he gets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with that portion of it, but I don't think he intended that whole -- I don't think you intended the old -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, no. I think the -- and I appreciate the thought but, frankly, what was sent to us pertained to the original permit for the original conditional use. So though it was interesting, it's the original Corps of Engineer Permit and the ERP for the conditional use. I don't think it had any -- other than some background data, it had no relevancy to the -- at least I don't think it had any relevancy other than knowing that the permit's already been issued. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. I just felt that because you're new to the board, I wanted to make sure you had the background information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically, he may have been in -- were you here in 2009? I mean, were you on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you administrator at that point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I left in December 2009, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, you were then. So this conditional use came through. So you were involved in all this originally. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason, Ray, most of the Planning Commission members don't receive things electronically; it's hard copy. That's an awful lot of copying. Maybe what we ought to do, when we have that kind of need and you feel it's relevant, send a link, and those that want to get on the Internet and read it can have the opportunity to do it, and if it's relevant, then they can ask for hard copies from staff. That might be the best way to go. MR. BELLOWS: Excellent idea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When I originally -- when Judy originally asked me, I said, that kind of backup material I can take electronically. But I understand if I get it electronically, everybody does. As Mark said, either we get an FTP site that we can go to to access the data or just provide us a link. MR. BELLOWS: I think the link will work, and then if somebody wants a hard copy after looking at the link, then we can provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is a lot of information. I mean, it was the valuable -- a lot of money spent in printing this and plans and everything that were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better be careful. You always might get what you ask for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. On a site like this, I requested a LiDAR from staff, and they don't send copies to everybody. They just send a copy to me electronically. Should you send copies to everybody? Should it -- maybe it should be, ahead of time, put into the packet that you send out. December 1, 2016 Page 5 of 26 MR. BELLOWS: That is something we're exploring to have it ready for the packet. One of the options we were looking at when the petition comes in and a zoning location map is generated by graphics, that's a perfect time to generate the LiDAR map and be distributed to all the review staff as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that gets us past that discussion. And there's no items for consent, so we'll move right into our first advertised public hearing. ***It's Item 9A, and it's PUDZ-PL20150002737, and it was continued from the November 3rd Planning Commission meeting. 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, please rise. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I only have one. I've been the secretary of the Collier Sportsman and Conservation Club since March of '92. The president is Wayne Jenkins. Wayne Jenkins lives on Jenkins Way, which is immediately adjacent to this parcel. I have visited his house many times over the last 25 years. And when I got this parcel (sic), the first thing I did was contacted Wayne to see what his feeling was about the public information meeting, your neighborhood information meeting. And, you know, I don't know that that has to be disclosed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should. No, you've disclosed it properly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I had none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I talked to the applicant and both the representatives of the applicant and actually the director and one other of the gentlemen that work in the Solid Waste Department. I don't believe I've had any contact with members of the public. So that's it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No -- nothing to report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right in. And, Tim, I know that we -- it's your -- you're always ready to do a typical presentation. Just so there's clarity, this was a conditional use approved originally in 2009. And the focus of today's meeting is supposed to be on converting that conditional use to a IPUD, but I think what's most relevant is the differences between anything that you could have or could not have done in the conditional use versus what you're requesting to have done through the Planned Unit Development. And I want to make sure we stay focused on that, because as we've all seen, 1,031 pages of information to support the original conditional use is not as relevant in regards to the changes that may be coming forth in this PUD today. We need to focus on those, and hopefully we'll stay on track. Tim, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Tim Hancock with Stantec, representing Collier County Hazardous and Solid Waste Department. And I will, really, confine my comments really to the changes before us today. But by way of a little bit of background, Mr. Dan Rodriguez, I think, would like to address the Planning Commission and give you a little bit of context for this decision today, and I'd like to ask Dan to do that before we go into the presentation. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Planning Commission. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division Director. This project you see before you -- first of all, thank you for the opportunity to present it to you -- was initiated many years ago when the property was actually acquired for solid waste activities. Most importantly, about 10 years ago, the Board of County Commissioners approved an integrated December 1, 2016 Page 6 of 26 Solid Waste Management strategy, which you've heard me talk about before, that talk about four components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to slow a little bit down. I know she has to type as fast as you talk, and you're doing really good. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. It had four components. And through the great wisdom and direction from our Board of County Commissioners, we chose waste reduction recycling as our primary goal. Another component of that was waste diversion, finding those private companies in the private sector, obviously, that could help us better manage the waste better than we could in government. And the second -- or the third and fourth option was to maximize our existing resources, take those facilities that were antiquated, old, that didn't really meet the needs and demands of the community and enhance them. And, of course, the fourth component was to buy new infrastructure, new properties where we could handle the demands of the future. This is part of that third component, and that's to maximum the existing resources that we have. And our goal, with this Resource Recovery Business Park, was to develop the infrastructure so that we could bring those partners in here that could turn some of that waste stream into usable products or help us prepare it so we could send it off to other companies that could better dispose of it. The really great news about Collier County Government and our solid waste operations is that we are diverting more than 80 percent of our waste. There's about 1,300,000 tons of waste generated in Collier County. The vast majority of it is handled by the private sector, whether it's construction demolition material, hazardous waste, yard waste, or recyclables, it's managed in that. So about 230,000 tons is actually disposed of in the landfill. The bad news is, of that 230,000 tons that goes to the landfill, more than 60 percent of it is still recyclable. And with this property and its correct zoning and Site Development Plan, we can build more of the infrastructure we need so we can move that remaining 60 percent. We already have 70 years of life available in our landfill thanks to the commitment from the community, our leaders, our residents for recycling so much. We're ranked No. 3 in the state of Florida for recycling. We're at 63 percent, which is tremendous. So, with that, I'll turn it back over to Tim, and he'll talk about some of the requirements that we need so that we can move this project forward. But before I do that, I want to introduce Dane Atkinson. If you would, Dane, stand up for a second. Dane has been a project manager with us for over 10 years. Some of the newest facilities that you see, the recycling centers, the new scale house, some of the planning at the landfill, reclamation, one of the largest in the state of Florida, third in the nation of reclaiming our own landfill, Dane Atkinson was responsible for that, and he's also responsible for getting us to where we're at today on this resource recovery park. And really good news, if I may, on his facilities. Yesterday we had a milestone. Over 150 people came to the North Collier Recycling Center, which is the highest we've had for a regular business day. And on Marco Island, over a hundred people came to that center. Those are individuals bringing us the hazardous waste recyclables so that we can better manage that waste stream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Dan, real quick question. Who's No. 1 in the state in recycling, and what percentage are they, just out of curiosity? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, one of them is Lee County and Sarasota County are above us. Lee County is higher because they have an incinerator, and they qualify incineration as a form of recycling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. Okay. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. And, for the record, he's the only person who speaks faster than I do, so... In addition to Mr. Atkinson, also here, members of our team, Mr. Jeremy Sterk, who has handled the environmental permitting for this project, really, from inception all the way through the issuance of the ERP and continues handling the long-term maintenance and management of the preserve areas on site. Also, Mr. Jeff Perry with Stantec, a transportation planner, I'm sure you are familiar with, is also December 1, 2016 Page 7 of 26 here, should you have any trip-generation or transportation-related questions. Mr. Rodriguez covered the Solid Waste Management strategy, which was adopted in 2006. Before you is a project location map. One of the surprises I had at the neighborhood information meeting was I asked those present, how many of you were here when this project went through its zoning in 2009? There were about five hands that went up out of a fairly full room of people, and that got me thinking. I went and started looking. What we found is more than 50 percent of the nearest homes around this project have been sold since 2009. So we have a lot of residents that are new to the area that weren't here in 2009. And that was a little bit of a learning curve that I didn't fully anticipate. So at the NIM we tried to step back a little bit and talk a little more in broad strokes. But as the chairman has indicated, this property was zoned in 2009. It was zoned for a set of permitted uses. The application before you today rolls those uses into a PUD without adding or deleting any of them. There are no new uses being planned for this property that were not approved in 2009. The location map before you -- just to give you a quick bearing, the property is approximately 344 acres. It is immediately north of the Collier County Landfill; it is also north of what is now a county-owned property you'll hear called County 305. That's a very clever name for a 305-acre parcel. Adjacent to that is the City Gate development here, White Lake development here, both slated for industrial, light industrial, and retail uses. The Estates zoning borders the Golden Gate Canal, which is an L bend here, and that canal is approximately 100 feet in width in that area. I think the easement is 150. The Hideout Golf Club is immediately to our north, and then you get into kind of a smattering of houses and vacant lots and agricultural zoning. There are some ag operations out here as well. It's not just residential. There are some folks operating nurseries and tree services and those types of things. But, for the most part, a rural lifestyle around that side of the project. The property -- and in your staff report it goes through the Growth Management Plan designation and our consistency with that. I won't delve into that but, needless to say, this property was carved out of the Growth Management Plan specifically for, and I quote, public utilities, including solid waste resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities. So when the rural fringe was created in the Growth Management Plan, this property was individually identified for these uses. Another aspect of that designation was that at the time the property was required to have at least 50 percent of native vegetation preserved. That would be approximately 172 acres of the site. The plan before you, as well as the conditional use in 2009, exceeded that by six or seven acres. But the preservation requirement in the GMP is being met with this project. We discussed the current zoning. Resolution 09-275 was approved by the Board. Within that were 12 conditions. All of those conditions have either been rolled into the PUD before you today or have been met and, therefore, are not called out in the PUD. Chairman Strain pointed out in our meeting with him, one of them that he did not see addressed was the requirement that 39 acres of offsite mitigation be identified prior to Site Development Plan approval. The 39 acres at the time was a mitigation number that was anticipated for the impacts to wetlands on site. This requirement has already been met in three ways: Number one, the county does own 35 acres in close proximity to the project, and they're holding those in reserve. They haven't just been identified. They have been secured. Number two, for the impact area you see here -- this was cleared in 2014, Dane? In 2014 that 40 acres was cleared for emergency storm debris and lay down. That was the first phase of development of this project. In accordance with that, because of those impacts, 1.5 wetland mitigation credits were purchased for Phase 1. As the project proceeds, it will require, in accordance with the ERP, an additional 10 wetland mitigation credits. So that's the second part of mitigation. The third, and probably the most significant and one that I'm proud of as a win-win for Collier County, was the Caracara Preserve, which was purchased by the county, was looking at becoming a form of a wetland or panther mitigation bank. As we were bringing this project forward, this project has a significant December 1, 2016 Page 8 of 26 need to purchase PHUs, Panther Habitat Units, for offsite mitigation. What turned out was a wonderful marriage that this project has purchased 100 percent of the PHUs from the Caracara Preserve. So instead of that money going to an outside mitigation bank, the Caracara Preserve now has its long-term maintenance and management funded by another arm of Collier County, and Collier County got the PHUs at a little bit of a discount, so it was a win-win. So well beyond 39 acres. What we're talking about here is 35 acres that are in hand, 11-and-a-half wetland mitigation credits that will be purchased, and I think it was about 1.5 million in Panther Habitat Units went to another arm of Collier County providing for long-term mitigation and preservation of the Caracara Preserve. So, en masse, we think that far exceeds a designation of 39 acres for mitigation and, therefore, that's why that language has not been rolled into the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tim, a question. Where is the Caracara Preserve now? Is that on site, or is that -- MR. STERK: That's a Conservation Collier -- MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Sterk just -- it's a Conservation Collier property north and east of this one off Corkscrew Road. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that was a fully accepted alternative. In purchasing PHUs, you would be able to apply it directly to that site then? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. And the agencies basically approved the Caracara Preserve's environmental permits at the same time as ours and tied the two together. We purchased all 2,200 PHUs from Caracara Preserve; however, we're not done yet. We need to buy more. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that was all coordinated through U.S. Fish and Wildlife then? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And as a matter of fact, they tied the biological permits together, and our permits are somewhat intertwined. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go off that, the stipulation is acres. How many acres is in Caracara Preserve? MR. HANCOCK: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said over 27 and a half? MR. HANCOCK: Hundreds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need that acknowledged. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, well in excess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you've purchased all of the PHUs generated by that acreage for offsetting this site? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, in essence, you've exceeded the 39 by a substantial number then? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since it called out acreage, I just needed it to be converted to acreage terms, and you've just clarified it. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was an excellent move, excellent. MR. HANCOCK: It was one of those things that just kind of falls in your lap and makes a lot of sense. And so everybody won; taxpayer and the environment. The reasons for rezoning: There really are two primary reasons we're here today. One is to improve the access to the Resource Recovery Business Park. Previously permitted under the 2009 conditional use, access was to occur through the landfill. You can see at this time there was a road that went through the center of the landfill -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to, yeah, zoom out on that. We can't see it. MR. HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I can actually slide this -- I can do it on this one. There was a road through the center of the landfill here, that was going to be the primary access, and then there were secondary accesses on either side of the landfill. Even though this was going to be a primary access, we knew at some point the landfill was going to have to kind of consume that airspace, and that December 1, 2016 Page 9 of 26 access would go away. That allowed, at the time, either one of the two access points onto either side to be used, but it was always a long-term play that somewhere down the road there would be access coming in from either City Gate or White Lake Boulevard. As a matter of fact, conversations occurred with Wally Lewis about the purchase of this property many times over the years, but a price could not be arrived at. The county also, in parallel, did the Wilson Benfield study. This is City Gate Boulevard North right here, and the Wilson Benfield study studied the possibility of a corridor, this roadway extending over and through this property, crossing I-75, and become a parallel reliever to 951 all the way down to U.S. 41. This study was reviewed and accepted by the Board. The final alignment of either Alternative 3B or 3A or over this property was not determined. So that's still yet to be decided. But this was coming in some way, shape, or form. When Mr. Lewis lost the 305-acre property to the bank, Collier County entered conversations and negotiations with the bank to purchase 305. I'm happy to say another win for the taxpayers; the property was acquired by Collier County, thus opening up the door to improved access to the Resource Recovery Business Park. What you see here is the proposed access. This was one of the primary reasons for today's rezone. As you know, we can't add an access point to a master concept plan willy-nilly. We had to go through the process to accomplish that. This will take City Gate Boulevard North -- and the county is already at 100 percent design on this roadway -- and bring it through Phase 3 of City Gate. And the building you see just north of the roadway, that's actually the South Florida Water Management District offices. The roadway will continue through City Gate Phase 3 and then turn up into the Resource Recovery Business Park. This will become the primary access points for this property. There are not a lot of trips generated by this facility, as you can imagine. We don't know exactly what's going to be there in the end, but the total net new p.m. peak hour trips anticipated is around 91. Most of these trips are already on the network. But this access point does two things: Number one, it provides a more direct and appropriate access; number two, it's safer. We don't have trucks traveling through an active landfill site carrying materials to a Resource Recovery Business Park; and, three, it gives us -- as a primary access, it retains the landfill as a potential secondary access. So should one access road be closed for some reason, we do have another way to get into the park without putting trips on the adjacent residential roadways. And I think that's important. So that was the primary reason for the change. The second reason -- and this is the master concept plan that's a part of your package. The second reason really came out of a site visit to a biosolids facility in Reedy Creek. And if you'll notice here, the tracts are identified as Tracts A, B, C, and D. Currently under the agricultural zoning, the maximum building height is 35 feet. When we were visiting the facility at Reedy Creek, we were looking at the way it was operating. And a truck pulled up to the biosolids facility, and it was dropping off material that became a part of the biosolids process. And as the truck tipped, the truck was outside. It was dumping and tipping into an open door. And there was a vacuum sealed area, so they were trying to contain odors and doing a good job with it. But the noise of the engine, the backing up, you know, Mr. Rodriguez was looking at it and he says, why didn't they just back it into the building? And the guy said, well, we'd have to increase the height of the building. So we estimated what that would take in order to be able to have that truck inside the building. And 35 feet doesn't get us there, but 50 would. So the reason for an increase in height is from an operational standpoint on Tracts B and C to give us greater opportunity to enclose, shield, or buffer potential noises where we can reasonably place things in an enclosed building instead of being outside. That doesn't mean all processes can be enclosed. Some of them are going to have to be outside because of the nature of their operation. And one of those is mulching. But this will give us better opportunity to address and abate noise and avoid us having to come back to this body for some type of a site-specific variance in the future. Those were the two main reasons that we really found our way to the PUD. And there are some lesser important reasons, such as giving us the ability to go through the hearing examiner process if we need December 1, 2016 Page 10 of 26 to to determine if a use is comparable and/or compatible. You don't have that opportunity in a conditional use. So we don't know what technologies may fall out of the sky. There's always somebody promising to turn waste stream into pixie dust. But some day one of those might actually work, and if it does and it hasn't been defined, we want the ability to come before the Hearing Examiner or this body and seek that definition. We also saw this as an opportunity to increase compatibility over what the 2009 conditional use did by focusing on a few things and tweaking them. Noise, as it relates to building height, we just reviewed that. I think that is a positive for the neighbors. Second, the native buffers: At 2009, what was shown as preserve in native areas were proposed. The majority of that has now been reported in a permanent conservation easement to the benefit of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We're permitted through the FDEP, not through the South Florida Water Management District, because of our operation. And I think at the NIM I used -- I kept saying South Florida, and I should have been saying FDEP. They use the same rules but different agency. So there's no "trust me" attached to the native preserves that you see here. The vast majority of that is in a permanent conservation easement with a specific mitigation strategy. Third, outdoor lighting. The conditional use in 2009 did not address this, so the code would have prevailed. We have taken that one step further, as you'll see as we go through some items in the PUD, to require flat panel fixtures with cutoff shields to avoid light spill, not just onto neighboring properties, but also into the preserve. This preserve has a very unique characteristic that was a part of our permit, and Mr. Sterk worked long and hard on this. This is actually an RCW recruitment colony. We are required by the agencies, and happily so, to manage that preserve to recruit RCWs, everything from houses for them to nest in, to thinning of certain types of vegetation to improve foraging, so -- and at the same time, the Florida bonneted bat hit our radar, so it turns out the RCW and the Florida bonneted bat use very similar structures for housing and whatnot. So we actually have a dual species approach here. And so because of that, the outdoor lighting could be even more of an issue. So flat panel cutoff shields, and we've also added LED to that after our conversation with Chairman Strain. The buffer language within our PUD is being clarified to require that along the western property line where we are closest to Estates homes, that the required Type C buffer be planted and reach 80 percent opacity within six months of the first building CO. That way it's not a problem that has been conveyed to me as planting scrawny stuff out there and a year from now it doesn't take and then you've got to do it and wait another year. We want to make sure the folks to our west know that we're serious about providing that screening and, in doing so, will have to plant a little hardier, sizable material to achieve that within six months. Long-term access. One of the primary concerns in 2009 was, what if you can't go through the landfill? Well, the only option then would have been to use some or one of the adjacent streets to provide emergency access to the site. By virtue of moving the access opportunity to come through City Gate, that becomes our primary, the landfill becomes our secondary, and only in a situation where both of those access points were to be cut off in some way, shape, or form would we have to use any other access. That would be probably 31st, and it would probably require an Army Corps style bridge over the canal. So, as you can imagine, the likelihood of that is very, very small. Water quality testing. Collier County is currently undergoing a review of the models for its wellfield protection zones, and that will lead into some changes to the Land Development Code to balance proposed land uses with the new wellfield protection zones. This is a work in progress. And Danette with Pollution Control is here today if you have specific questions about it. I'm involved with that to some degree. Stantec is working with the modelers on that. So we kind of knew this was coming. And while the LDC language has not been developed yet, what we have put into the PUD is language we've worked with Pollution Control on that as each SDP comes forward, Pollution Control will be a part of the review process. And should stormwater quality monitoring be December 1, 2016 Page 11 of 26 warranted based on the use, we will develop what that program needs to be and what the testing parameters are. Once all of this is done and it's in the LDC, then we'll follow the LDC. But this is somewhat of a preemptive move to make sure that this project is really kind of on the front end of ensuring that stormwater that leaves the site meets the county standards, and I think that will give assurance to the neighbors that we are not just following the rules, but there's a degree of monitoring and enforcement of same. Mr. Chairman, with that, that concludes my presentation. I did go through the PUD page by page and make some of the changes, many of which are minor. It's an 11-page document. I'd be happy to share those with you and walk through them if -- it is your choice, or if you want to hear from the public first and come back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I'd rather get into the PUD changes first. So whatever the public wants to address, they'll see what the most recent changes are. So why don't we move right into that document. And that is -- starts on Page 20 of the packet that was distributed to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Before we get into that, can Tim tell me a little more about that parcel that says "this parcel not subject to this rezone"? MR. HANCOCK: That parcel is currently owned by three separate property owners. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How do they access through the preserve? MR. HANCOCK: There are -- there's language in the document that says -- and it was actually crafted in 2009. Let me get to that language. And it's on Page 10 of your document, Item No. 4. If it's judicially determined or otherwise agreed by the county, then the county shall provide access to those outparcels identified. And on the boundary survey that was in your packet, they're called 40, 41, and 42. So the county may provide access, but the phrase "judicially determine" was a requirement that came from legal review. So how they get access, it's through the same means anybody else would, but if the Courts require that the county provide it, the county will provide it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you'd have to eliminate part of the preserve? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, the preserve only goes to the edge of what would be easements in that area. We have a hard corner there that I think it could be negotiated through, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That hard corner goes to zero. I mean, it's, you know -- it goes to zero. You somehow have to build a road -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, and when I say -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- through the preserve. MR. HANCOCK: When I say I have room there, we have utility easements in that area that could be re-purposed. And I've driven down that side where it comes down and makes a turn. It's 20 or 30 feet wide, the utility easement is, so -- and it is not part of the preserve, utility easements. So I don't have a hard answer for you for the simple reason that, candidly, it's not the county's responsibility to provide access to that property owner. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It looks like you're creating a parcel with no legal access. Just -- I don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language you're referring to is a carryover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your mike's not on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language you're referring to is a carryover from the 2009 conditional use. And if I can recall, when we did the conditional use in 2009, this parcel is currently landlocked, and the access would probably be to Garland Road. So we just left them in the condition that they were, you know, prior to the conditional use and now PUD amendment. So we don't know where the access would go, and that's something that the county, if, you know, they're approached and can work something out, would provide. December 1, 2016 Page 12 of 26 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. It just looked to me like it would have to go through the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're saying, it's going to take -- it will have to take that northeast corner, a little chunk maybe the width of the utility easement or a little bit wider to get a road access through there. I think that's the -- by being through the preserve, that's probably the simplest way to get just a piece taken off of it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know that the Real Property Department was looking at different locations but didn't want to pin one down at this point in time if access is deemed to go through the county's property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It seems like his solution is the only practical solution. We should create something now. But, like I said, I was just curious. MR. HANCOCK: The county also has the ability and opportunity to acquire those parcels at fair market value and have approached the owners on multiple occasions to do so, and they have chosen not to sell or put a price on them that far, far exceeds fair market value. So the county, much like -- you may recall in 2009 the conditional use was delayed or continued, and the reason was the county had reached terms to purchase an inholding, if you will, and so it was delayed until that could occur. So the county continues to make efforts to secure these properties and not have that problem. But should access be required and the county have to provide it, we'll do what's necessary. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And a landlocked parcel is worth less than a parcel with good access. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want to take us through the changes to the PUD, Tim? And if you -- the members of the Planning Commission have any questions as we go through the pages on this particular item, just speak out, please. MR. HANCOCK: On Page 1 what we're simply doing is changing the phrase "shall be" to "is" to show and reflect that the master concept plan has already been changed to show the appropriate buffering. On Page 2 of 11 -- and, again, many of these were reviewed with Chairman Strain, and most of them are things that are intended to make the PUD read a little bit simpler. What we're doing here is we're eliminating some language to basically show that administrative buildings are allowed in all four tracts, equipment maintenance buildings are allowed in all four tracts, and vehicle and equipment storage and repair is allowed in all four tracts. That make these two subheadings of administrative offices and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair unnecessary, so they're being removed. Again, no change in designating where the uses go; just a clarification based on verbiage. No changes to Page 3. Page 4, we had included minimum open space with a note of one here to reference this statement here which requires 50 percent of the open space or 172.2 acres. Because we had an entry without any data in the table, it was a little confusing, so that notation has been moved up here to property development regulations, and the language remains the same. The second change that we are doing is eliminating the language that says "sidewalk shall be located in the road right-of-way." There's a possibility this road may never be platted. It may be under a single SDP with multiple phases, in which case we wouldn't have a right-of-way. And you've already seen in your deviations we're asking for a sidewalk only on one side of the internal roadway. If somebody wants to carry their washing machine in to be recycled, God bless them, but we don't think we're going to see a lot of that. So we think one sidewalk that connects the internal parcels on one side of the roadway is adequate, and this language was extraneous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, before you leave that page, we had discussion about the second line up. It says "minimum lot width." You're actually writing this up as though you're creating lots, thus causing you to have various front, side, and rear setbacks and, equally so, if those lots are platted or however they're worked out even in an SDP in some -- some SDPs actually lay out the lot lines. I don't want to -- I don't think you intend to provide buffers and things like that between the lots based on any of that. And I know we talked about having this discussion so Ray could jump in, and if a deviation is December 1, 2016 Page 13 of 26 needed for eliminating the buffers and things between separated tracts and lots, it might be a time to discuss it and make sure it doesn't get confusing as we go down the road. MR. HANCOCK: We did propose that as a deviation, which I'll be getting to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you mean you added it since we talked? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: I add a lot of things after we talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: More than five? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. This was not a good day for me. It was more than five. Exhibit C, master concept plan, the changes we're proposing are just shown here in red, and they are two. Number one is in Tracts A and D we showed plus-or-minus 300 feet. Chairman Strain appropriately asked, what does that mean? What it means is a minimum of 300 feet, so that will be revised to read 300 feet minimum on each side. The second change is this leg of the preserve on the original conditional use was shown as a width of 200 feet. It wasn't addressed in the stipulations, but it was shown as 200 feet, but that 200 feet included a 40-foot access easement for Garland. So -- I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You saw me shaking. Why don't you turn to Page -- I'll give you the page here in a minute. Well, I showed you the page. Turn to Page 807, and the leg of that preserve down at the bottom where it flares out just a little bit is L35. And as I pointed out, that's 200 feet, but that's outside of the UE because the UE's shown to the right of that leg. Take a look at that survey. MR. HANCOCK: I'm familiar with the survey. I'm going to get it and put it on the visualizer so we can all take a look at it. Yes. Mr. Johnson, you lose. I was faster. The point -- and it's a little harder to see on the eight and a half by 11, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't the survey that's in our plan. MR. JOHNSON: It's this one. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you might want to blow up that right -- lower right corner of that; right there. And see the L35, you go to the left, it's the first one on the table on the left. It's 200 feet. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how do we get down to 170? MR. HANCOCK: And here's how it happens. The cord, L51 here, is at an angle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: As that angle comes in, it matches up with a line that is parallel and at the western side of the access easement for Garland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Therefore, for the bottom of that, we could say it's 200 feet wide, but for this middle section here, it's actually 170. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you verified, then, that the cord that comes down and moves over to the east doesn't move over to the east of the UT -- UE, it moves over to the east of the access easement or the Garland Road, is that -- or to the section line. Let's say the section line. That makes it simpler. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And that the minimum width for this leg through here, based on the AutoCAD drawing, was 170 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Look at L51. Now, you notice that's written in an east/west direction, which would mean it would seem to follow L35. Look at L51 on the table to the left. That's 15 -- it's almost 16 feet. So what it looks like is your section line easement is -- that's a midpoint where your section line easement for Garland Road is. Then there's 10 feet outside of that. The only thing I'm saying is I think you've got some extra footage there. This could have been clearer. Maybe that's the problem. Do you see -- I see L51 as meaning the line towards the bottom, not the December 1, 2016 Page 14 of 26 north/south line. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. L50 must be the one that is at the angle then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. So if L51 is the east/west line, it would have to add to 135 to get you the distance over from the section line, which is where Garland Road's portion of this would apply. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're 15, plus 200, so you're 215, and out of that you've got to take the section line half of Garland Road and then 10 feet for the UE. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking at, what, 45 feet? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, which leaves 170 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just calculated out, but I'm not sure that -- well, 170's better than 160, but whatever the conservation easement is is where you're going to be locked into it anyway, so... MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. And I confirmed on the AutoCAD drawing for the conservation easement itself that came from the surveyor that the width of the primary leg of that buffer is 170 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you send that to me, that -- MR. HANCOCK: The AutoCAD file? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, just that file just so I have it. MR. HANCOCK: I'll have the surveyor send it to you rather than send you my copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Have him convert it to PDF first. That way it makes my file complete. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: So in order to be accurate, we will amend the master concept plan to show that dimension at 170 feet instead of 160 feet. And, Commissioner Strain, you asked if that would cause our Tract D line to move, and the answer's no. The Tract D line will remain at 300-foot minimum from the edge of that preserve. There were no changes to the second page of the master plan. Fortunately, no changes to the legal description; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. And this is the deviation. We have discussed the first deviation, which is reducing the sidewalk requirement for both sides of the road to one. And if you remember where -- the access road is along the southern property line. To the south of that is the County 305 and the landfill. So I think moving the sidewalk to one side of the road there is a pretty straightforward approach. I'm not sure it's necessary but, for us, for example, if employees were moving from one site to another, the ability to walk and have pedestrian connectivity makes sense. We're adding two deviations based on our conversation with Chairman Strain to try and hopefully avoid problems or confusion down the road. The second deviation, which is a request to deviate from LDC Section 4.06.05, which requires a 5-foot buffer between industrially zoned lots or tracts to require no internal buffers between tracts owned by Collier County. All permitted buffers will still be required regardless of ownership. The point being, we anticipate developing this as a phased SDP. And if you do, there would be no requirement to have a landscape buffer between Use A and Use B; however, if down the road that pixie dust manufacturer comes in and their condition is that they have to have land fee simple in order to put a 20-year investment into it and the county agrees to that, we could have to have a metes and bounds or a plat created. In that case, the end product is the same, and we think an internal buffer requirement is chewing up public land with no benefit. So we're requesting a deviation so that only internal buffers are not required. All of the external buffers, which would impact adjacent properties, would be required and retained. The third deviation, which has an addition as well, is regarding compliance for the county architectural code requirements. We're asking a deviation from 5.05.08. B.2.B, which requires all nonresidential buildings within 300 feet of the boundary of a residential zoned district to comply with provisions of 5.05.08. There are very limited areas within this PUD that that could apply, but the idea that you could be coming in with a wellhouse structure on a corner of a property and have to comply with 5.05.08 because it is technically within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property is something we would rather not deal with. December 1, 2016 Page 15 of 26 So it's a limited deviation but one that we think -- again, it just doesn't make sense. The public can't really see what's going on in here for the most part. So we're asking for those two deviations as well. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I will have some changes to those deviations, and I have not been able to check the citations since we just got it now. So it won't change the substance, but it will clean it up a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: This could be just a new-guy question. So the copies we had, why weren't those two new deviations on the copies we had? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't happen until I had a pre-meeting with the applicant -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on, I think it was, Monday? Yeah, we met Monday. Was it Monday? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: We met on Monday, and I, literally, was crafting them yesterday and putting the package together. And I try not to do that in bringing items to this body. My hope is that these are straightforward and clean enough we can handle them today, but we fully expect to come back on your summary agenda to review this language, particularly with the fact that Ms. Ashton, I'm sure, is going to want to have a shot at these. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Since you didn't provide the site -- what the section is, for the benefit of the members that don't have the LDC, those are the architectural standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Patrick, since you are new -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the weekends I generally read all this stuff because it's peaceful and quiet, and then some of the applicants or members of the public who have called and expressed interest, I meet with them between Monday and today, let them know any questions I might ask so that they're better prepared to answer. And in the case of Tim, his response to some of my concerns was, well, why don't we just fix them. And so that's what they're working on now. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: It's a lot easier to amend these things than to craft them on the fly here. So hopefully we'll get 90 percent or more the way there today. On Page 9 of 11, we have under Item 2, which was the requirement for outdoor lighting fixtures, to be flat panel with cutoff shields. We've added that they would utilize LED light sources as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, on that one, before you go further, you're basically relying on the LDC for the height of these fixtures, which is 25 feet. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need to go 25 feet in that area? MR. HANCOCK: We don't necessarily need to go 25 feet. It becomes, what can we do to get minimum-security light coverage cost-effectively. And we've discovered this on a lot of projects. If we lower the height from 25 to 20 or 15 feet, we increase the number of fixtures, but we don't really change the level of illumination. In this case we have -- we prepared a sightline study that we used at the neighborhood information meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. My concern is offsite viewing or glare of higher fixtures, so... MR. HANCOCK: This was a sightline study that we prepared for the nearest residential property Estates properties to the west. And from across the canal, plus the access road, it's 150-foot right-of-way, 20-foot access. We went out and actually looked at these trees. The average height of the pines in that area are 45 feet. And so, while we prepared this exhibit to show that the building massing at 35 feet in Tract A and 50 December 1, 2016 Page 16 of 26 feet in Tract B would not be readily visible from that property, I think the key component here is at 25 feet that is going to be right in the mass, if you will, or the crown of most of the pines. Ironically, lowering it may make it more visible, but we are required by our PUD to have full cutoff shields to a preserve. So, you know, I don't think, based on the distances we have here, Commissioner Strain, that we're going to have people that are actually looking up into the flat panel portion and seeing glare. And if we are, the cutoff shields should address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Hopefully I get extra points for using the pretty exhibit, too. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I just make another comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under the environmental section, No. 4, after the yellow language, I'd also recommend that you repeat Note 1 from the master plan so it's deemed to be an inconsistency when the reviewers review it later. That's the part that says that the preserves can qualify as landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's in that area that the -- oh, you already put the 80 percent opacity in this highlighted yellow section. Okay. So we're covered both ways. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. This is the additional language we referred to earlier where we have the Type C buffer required. Where we are adjacent to residential properties, we're putting a higher burden on ourselves to make sure that is planted and reaches that 80 percent opacity within six months of the first CO of any buildings. So, you know, the shielding will be there. And, again, this is hopefully going to correct a potential issue that seems to be occurring on one or two other properties at this time. And, by the way, there was also a question about the 200-foot buffer along the west side. It has been impacted through utilities doing some work in there, and we are going to have to do some additional replanting above the buffer requirements to get that 200 feet back to where it belongs, and this is what would trigger that. So now there's -- someone was asking at the NIM, well, when are you going to do it? The answer is, within six months of that first building CO being issued, those plantings will need to be in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while you're on this page, landscaping, No. 2, the same time frame that you have in the previous paragraph under environmental for the six months that you added should be added to that one as well. That's actually where the intent's going to be. MR. HANCOCK: It might be more appropriate to take that language from the previous page and move it here under landscaping, although I think it does address both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need it both, because you could have exotic removal outside the buffer, so... MR. HANCOCK: On this page, Page 10 of 11, two changes: Number one is specifying that no access shall be permitted on Garland Road. And we got several questions on that. And you can tell someone, well, you know, the zoning won't allow it, but I think until you call it out specifically, maybe it doesn't hit home for people. And under hours of operation, the language for nonessential facilities really just provided confusion, so we took that out to keep it simple. And what that really says is that we'll have the same hours of operation as the landfill. There are some operations, however, such as public utilities has to serve a downed lift station no matter what time of night it is. So those types of operations will go on, but we're not talking about, you know, mechanical operations as much as we are service-based operations going beyond the hours of the landfill. No pages to -- or no changes to Page 11. Those are the changes that we have proposed based on the meeting we had with Chairman Strain plus some of the phone calls and input we've received to date. And with that, I just want to confirm that we agree with staff's assessment that the project, as proposed, meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. And should there be any questions raised by the public that require additional information, we certainly would appreciate the opportunity to address those. December 1, 2016 Page 17 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Questions at this time from the Planning Commission of the applicant? Anybody have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I have no questions. I think Tim already answered questions that I had, so -- in his presentation. Well done. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. Patrick, did you have something? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Great presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, what processing on this site is done outdoors? MR. HANCOCK: Primarily, it's going to be yard debris and storm debris that is processed in a grinder. Initially C&D. Some processing of C&D can occur outdoors. That's the way it is currently at the landfill. Both those processes are occurring right now in fairly close proximity to this property, the only difference being they're happening at 100 feet in the air versus at grade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 200-foot native area to the west, did you add somewhere in that PUD -- and I may have missed it in the discussion -- that you're going to be restoring all those areas that don't currently meet the opacity due to whatever reasons they don't? Not just ones that are the result of exotic clearing and not just ones that are the result of the buffer being added. But whatever doesn't meet that opacity within six months of that CO, the whole thing will. So all those areas will be restored. Is that your belief? MR. HANCOCK: May I ask a question of my team? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. HANCOCK: I just wanted to confirm. Native vegetation buffers, or even if it were a preserve, you do have planting requirements but not opacity requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you made a commitment for opacity of 80 percent. I just want to make sure wherever that opacity commitment applies, if there's -- for example, the problem project that we have is that beach house down the road where the opacity on that preserve was eliminated when the exotics were removed, and applicant's not willing to put it in right away to restore it. I don't want that to happen here. So I don't want -- if you're relying on the preserve to reach any of the opacity that's needed, then it has to be done within six months, as you've agreed to do the buffer as well. That's what I'm getting at. I'm not sure how much overlap we have between the two. MR. HANCOCK: The language was intended to address that through the Type C buffer requirement. That is where the 80 percent opacity will be achieved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on the western side of the preserve? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, closest to the residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: Because the rest of the preserve, while it's a native vegetation buffer, it's not defined as a preserve; however, we are going to treat it the same as if it were a preserve. The only concern I have is that I don't think planting ground cover in that preserve is going to help the adjacent property owners very much. But I think it's safe to say, whatever the requirements are of the Type C buffer to reach the 80 percent opacity, we will meet or exceed that within that 200 feet within six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See, the note that you have on the second page of your master plan, preserves in the native vegetation buffer tract may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic removal is in accordance with the LDC. Supplemented plantings with native plant material shall be in accordance with the LDC as well. Now, that's the piece that's going to be done within six months. The problem is, you don't show a buffer on the western side of that preserve. You show a 20-foot utility easement, which also has a road on the aerial. There's a road to the right of that utility easement that I know you -- based on our conversation, that road's going to be restored because it's now part of the preserve. So -- and this is a -- unfortunately, this piece is called a native vegetation buffer tract, not a preserve, and that's the other piece that I had to ask is, we know how preserves have to be maintained, and we know December 1, 2016 Page 18 of 26 how they have to be supplemented. We don't know how native vegetation buffer tract is to be maintained and supplemented. I want to get all that cleared up now so we don't have another problem like we had down at the beach house. MR. HANCOCK: Well, first of all, one iteration, until this iteration, we actually showed where the Type C buffer would be located on the master plan. There was questions concerning how it was shown and whether it was confusing or whatever, so that's how we ended up with the language you have. So we kind of took off the bracket that showed where that Type C buffer would be. That being said, let me ask one question of Mr. Rodriguez, and I think I have an answer for you. What we can do is add to the PUD document language that says the native vegetation buffer tract will be treated the same as a preserve by LDC standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And because you're using it as a buffer tract, you've got to maintain that opacity. That's the difference. That's what -- the problem had occurred down the road on Estey and Airport. That's what I want to make sure we don't have here. And it wasn't clear enough when the Planning Commission discussed that project and, unfortunately, it got out of hand. So we need to make it explicitly clear today. MR. HANCOCK: I think if we add the language that the native vegetation buffer tract will be subject to the same planting preserves -- as the preserves standards in the LDC section, and we'll cite the section, you then have the language that also requires that the Type C buffer be planted within six months and achieve the 80 percent opacity within that time frame. Those two can work in tandem to get where you want to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come back for consent, please have that in a paragraph so we understand it and can see it. I just don't want the same confusion. We had to have meetings on that Estey one; a lady, rightfully so, was upset, and we still can't cure that problem. And it should never have gotten that far out of hand. MR. HANCOCK: I agree. And I actually looked back on that project -- as you mentioned, I was involved with that one. And it was always my assumption that when you pulled your SDP and you went in and cleared out your preserve, you know, of the exotics, whatever buffer requirements were required of the LDC, they would be installed on the far side of that adjacent to the residential, and you would reach the opacity requirements within 12 months, and that was that. That's how it should have played out and how I envisioned it when we created that language. And here I think we're just going to shorten that time frame to six months and be explicit about how we get there and when we need to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's not changing anything you were planning to do. It's just making sure everybody understands it and it's more clearly written, so that's -- MR. HANCOCK: And, in fairness, to get there in six months, we will have to plant more substantial material and that, I think, is fair with respect to the residents and potential impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want to make sure I've -- the 50-foot height will be limited to Tracts B and C. Did I hear you say that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. But before we get off the preserve item, Summer is lying in wait. Would you like to hear from her on this item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always like to hear from Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record, Environmental Planning. So I want to clarify that it's understood that in regards to the preserve areas those would still need to follow the LDC planting requirements, which may not be as much as what a Type C buffer is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MS. ARAQUE: Is that an issue? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the preserve areas don't start till after the active part of the facilities. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the facilities, where they're active, the buffer there is called out as a native vegetation buffer, and the problem there is we don't have something defined as a native vegetation December 1, 2016 Page 19 of 26 buffer nor how to maintain it in perpetuity, which is what we're trying to get to today. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. I just wanted to make clear that they cannot install a Type C landscape buffer in the preserve areas. But I think we're all on the same page now. I just wanted to make a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. MS. ARAQUE: Great. Thanks. MR. HANCOCK: We may find a way to put back in showing where that Type C buffer is. I think that will help clarify it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. As long as we've got the opacity required, that's the key to this whole thing, so... MR. HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other questions at this time, so anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Eric, do you have a staff report? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner, zoning. Staff recommends approval of the petition, including the deviation. With respect to the changes that are being proposed today, they seem acceptable to staff. And something to clean up on Page 1, any change that is being proposed on Page 2 would also have to be carried through with Page 1 with respect to the labeling of the proposed uses. And it seems, perhaps, that Deviation No. 3 would not be needed. I'm sorry. Yes, Deviation No. 3, the one regarding the architectural review. But if -- I don't think staff would have an issue with it being in there anyway. So with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather leave it in for clarity, because there's two different departments that review these things, and sometimes they don't mesh. So this would just make sure everybody's on the same page. MR. JOHNSON: Sure thing. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public here wishing to speak? Please come up to the mike and identify yourself, and we'd sure like to hear what you've got to say. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Ryan Scott, homeowner at 2809 Garland Road. I just want to kind of touch on a few points. As this process moved forward here into the extension from the November 3rd initial date, there was never an additional mailing sent out to notify the residents in that area. I know the initial letter went out with the wrong dates and then was corrected thereafter, but the additional extension here was never notified or shown publicly on the signage. Additionally, for the residents on the east side, the sign, I think, was briefly up before tore down. So there wasn't much, you know, notification of this change of meeting date to the neighboring residents, you know, as required. On the environmental sides, you know, I just we've talked at length here regarding the Caracara Preserve. You have active tracking collars of panthers on this property here, you know, just in the last months. The Caracara Preserve, per the FWC's, you know, tracking information doesn't really show any panther stuff there. So I know as much as it is a great effort to, you know, provide additional lands, it may not be as suitable as panther habitat, even though it has been deemed as such. You know, additionally, on the environmental reports submitted for the area, you have eagles noted as being present in the area. There is a sizable eagle population there in that area that, as you get into these December 1, 2016 Page 20 of 26 uses, you're potentially impacting. You know, there's been as much as six of them or eight of them right there in that area just in the last month. So the environmental impacts there, it's a concern. And to that same accord, as we're adding this lighting, you know, there's the light pollution effect to that, that, you know, as this preserve -- you lose a bit of that use. You also -- you know, as we're trying to provide additional things for the bonneted bats and things like that, that lighting then also is a fact for that. You know, is it really going to fully gain its use as a preserve that was initially intended? I don't know if that's something where the lighting could be shut off during off hours and only provided as, you know, necessary and a limited basis. That would be something I would ask the Board to kind of look into. You know, on the traffic side, it's been stated that there's no additional impact to the roads there. The challenge is is you're moving everything from the south side of the landfill to the north. So I get it's not necessarily new trips, but you're moving it from a corridor that aligns with I-75 now up against a residential area, you know, to the north, and then ourselves as neighbors to the east. So the challenge gets to be is, yeah, it may not be new trips, but the sound impacts and everything else that those trips that were down against I-75, you know, which is a natural noise in itself, then directly is impacting the residential neighbors to the north and east. Regarding the emergency access, I know there was mention that there's potential for one at 31st, and it was mentioned that there was -- put at the NIM meeting, I think that it was said it was not going to happen. I know earlier in the meeting today we mentioned emergency access through Garland, although in Page 10 it's excluded. So I'm sure all the neighbors would really like that clarified here before it gets final approval. Additionally, I know we talked at length regarding the native vegetation buffers, Type C's. With the trees being at 45-foot there to help obstruct view, as you go to a 50-foot height, that's from natural grade. The question then gets to be is how high is this site going to be brought up? You know, some of the neighboring properties there where the Water Management District offices went in and things, it's probably a 4- to 5-foot elevation increase from what was natural grade. So really, as you bring up the building pad and go the 50-foot from there, is the 45-foot trees really adequate to shield that from the neighboring properties? Additionally, you know, with that Type C buffer that's been added on the west side of the property, you know, I know there was a fair amount of concern at the NIM meeting that there isn't necessarily adequate coverage to the north and to the east. And we would just ask that that, you know, potentially Type C buffer encompass that area to help further provide, you know, visual and sound obstruction. Just checking my notes here real quick. The other item that was stated here early on was kind of the conditional use of the property from the rural fringe zoning district notation. It is called out, you know, as allowable for, you know, as Mr. Hancock stated, solid waste resource facilities and public vehicle, equipment storage and repair facilities, but the last line of that, the actual excerpt from that rural fringe zoning district is that this shall not be interpolated to allow the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. Some of these intended uses seem to blur that line at times. You're really looking at just taking it and dumping it there and moving it offsite, but it's still a part of the process of solid waste disposal. So that -- I get it's not going to stay there forever, but it's still part of that process, and that's where I see a conflict with the rural -- you know, the rural fringe zoning district for that intended use. You know, this property was set aside as an initial preserve, agricultural, and to see it -- to make a change into industrial is a significant and massive change. So we'd just like the Board to take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, as far -- or, Heidi, I wanted you to address the concern first of the advertising and the extended date of the continuance. How do we -- we announced the continuance at the meeting where people would have shown up if they were interested originally, and it's through that process that they would have then realized it got continued. December 1, 2016 Page 21 of 26 Do we do anything -- is there anything required for advertising beyond that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a change of date. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: The typical procedure is to announce the continuance date to a date specific. There is no further advertising unless it's generally over five weeks; then we would get new advertising done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's consistent with state statute and all the other rules that we have in place? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the RFMUD, the RFMUD district was written excepting this particular parcel out and specially treating it, which is why it was able to go forward as a conditional use in 2009. And I understand the concerns of the reading of the language, but that language was written with this intention in mind. I was part of that. I remember those days. So it's not -- I don't think there -- I can't see how it's inconsistent with the intent of the RFMUD, although it's a good question. But that's not the way we looked at it, and that's not what we intended when we did that back in -- right after the governor's order. So as far as the clarification of Garland, Tim, you agreed that you will not be utilizing Garland. So you will be adding that language to the PUD, and there won't be any conflict with any other part of the PUD? MR. HANCOCK: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I think the emergency access, perhaps, that he was referring to is the outparcels that are in the middle. They would be provided access to Garland if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Garland Road, yes, that is one of the conditions, that's correct. Garland Road would be used if those outparcels needed access for legal access to their property and it was worked out, but the county's not going to use it for landfill operations or for this property's operations. That's what I believe we just heard, and I see Mr. Rodriguez and Dane nodding their head yes. MR. SCOTT: I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Do you want to address that? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I think it was more the survey that was put up at one point. I know it was shown on some earlier surveys and probably corrected. I think you started to bring it up, and we changed subjects, Mr. Strain. MR. HANCOCK: The survey was never modified or corrected from the initial application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The survey's not going to carry any weight in regards to how the zoning is addressed. What's going to carry the weight is the language in the PUD, and it's going to be prohibited in the PUD. MR. SCOTT: Fair enough. And the same for the 31st access then as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. 31st isn't one that's been eliminated. They -- for emergency purposes, that's still on the table, but we're talking about Garland. MR. SCOTT: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And, Tim, one other thing. And we've worked this out on other projects, and it seemed to work okay. When you're operating or as you cease and get towards the end of your operations or start up in the morning, you have more need for working light versus security light, and proof in mind is the dealerships that we currently have conditions on. Car dealerships are asked now to reduce their nighttime security lighting to a certain percentage of the overall lighting. And I'd like to have you take a look at that and consider, when you come back with your language and changes for consent, that that be an option that is in there; would that be something that you can commit to on a percentage basis? Do you have any objection to that? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. We'll certainly take a look at it. One of the issues that came up repeatedly at the neighborhood information meeting that has been problematic in this area is the degree of ATV use of the well easements. Every time, you know, public utilities puts up a solid fence, it gets broken down. No matter what we put up, they find equipment bigger, December 1, 2016 Page 22 of 26 larger, and heavier to find their way in. And one of the things that I think will help security in this area is a physical presence and having somebody there operating who may be able to patrol the lands on a daily basis a little better and that kind of thing. So, certainly, we will look at the ability to reduce lighting levels to a minimum security level at night. But as Public Utilities facilities go, there's going to be a base that we have to maintain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and I understand that. What do you do now at the landfill in regards to nighttime operations? And I don't mean lighting. But do you have personnel there at night round the clock? MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. We actually don't have personnel there, but we do have, as you stated, lighting. We also have security alarm systems there. Some motion detection on our lighting systems as well as building alarms, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, whatever you're doing there seems to work. I don't read in the paper about a lot of theft of trash, so... MR. RODRIGUEZ: We wish. To the tune of 200,000 tons, we wish. But actually what we do get, believe it or not, in that preserve area as well as at the landfill, we do get occasional break-ins. We've had stolen cars abandoned on the public property. Like Tim stated, they break in the fences, they take down the signs, and we're talking maybe two, three incidents every other week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please take a look at the possibility of reducing some of the lighting in the nighttime and come back -- when you come back for consent, we can consider the language. MR. HANCOCK: And Mr. Rodriguez raised the issue, and Mr. Scott did, too, of signage. We actually did update all of the public information signs with the corrected date once it was moved. So not required by code, but we did it anyway in the hopes of informing more people of today's date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who have not spoken that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are none. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For clarification on what Mr. Scott brought up, in regards to the panther tracking and bald eagles, just for the record, can you state, is there any requirement now to update any of the existing permitting on site for this use? I would think not. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The permit you have is adequate. It's already been approved through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 7 consultation through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It was a full colonoscopy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I know the pain. The -- regards to the bald eagle, you have no intent to issue for any take permit for existing bald eagle nesting on site? As far as you're concerned, what's there, at least if there is existing nesting, will be protected? It should be protected. It's endangered species. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We do not have any active nests or even roost trees that I'm aware of on the site. But what is there will remain there and be protected through our management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make that clear for the record. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no additional public speakers. Do you have anything -- any final comments you want to make, Dan or Tim? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. I'll let Mr. Rodriguez address you, and then I have one comment. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity again to bring this great project before you. We look forward to going to the Board of County Commissioners and getting their review and potential approval and moving this to the next step following the County Manager under administer direction to just deliberately execute this and bring this service to our community and enhance what we are currently doing as it relates to recycling and waste reduction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be nice to hear, when you come back for consent, that you've already beat Lee County and we're number one in the state. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well on our way. December 1, 2016 Page 23 of 26 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You want an incinerator? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, without an incinerator. MR. HANCOCK: We'll just send it up to them and let them burn it and take credit for it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I remember that pain from many years ago. MR. HANCOCK: The only comment I need to make is Mr. Scott indicated that -- the blurring of lines in the Comp Plan. I want to be very, very clear. The Comp Plan does not allow for disposal on this site. Disposal is a permit act. This project does not include any form of disposal on site; therefore, we are 100 percent consistent with the Growth Management Plan. There is no inconsistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you've got a Comp Plan letter to that. But back in those days, Tim, I remember the concern from at least reviewing the standards was that the landfill operation, as the mountains that we have out there wouldn't move northward, and that was my understanding why that language was put there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is not what you're planning to do, and that's not what you're going to do. MR. HANCOCK: That is absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't have anything else. And you're finished. And with that, we will close the public hearing, and we will have a discussion and entertain a motion. Part of discussion, the motion should include a review of this project coming back on consent for clarification of the language, which means, especially for Patrick's viewpoint since he's new, a consent is not to revote. A consent is simply acknowledging that today's vote is reflected in the language that staff cleans up and brings back on consent. So we don't go to that consent hearing and say, oh, we're going to change our vote. We can't do that. It's got to stay -- the vote stays the same. It's simply the language is right. And with that, I have some items besides the language we talked about in the PUD that was presented today here, some items that may be considered by the motion maker. We're going to limit the 50-foot height of the buildings to Tracts B and C, Tim already put the buffer opacity in, we'll accept changes to the PUD language including the two new deviations, and the applicant will consider reducing the lighting during the off hours when they come back on consent. Those are the only three notes remaining after all the other changes that were shown today. If there's a motion to approve and have it come back for consent, the motion maker needs to consider including those if they would like. Is there a motion? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? Over here. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, or in my own edification, I think that in the PUD document, you wanted to repeat note -- some note under Environmental No. 4 and then under Landscape No. 2, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Tim made the note on the PUD. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll bring it back in formal language, but he wrote it in as I was speaking. That was the one involving the six-month opacity issue. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: I'll scan my notes in this afternoon and forward them to you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve subject to the three changes that you cited, also subject to the changes that Mr. Hancock introduced in his presentation to the PUD document, and subject that it come back to be reviewed on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick made the second. And I just want to make sure there's nothing that we've missed before we vote. Hold on just one second. Nope, there isn't. December 1, 2016 Page 24 of 26 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you-all for your time. We will see you on consent. It will be two weeks. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***And that takes us to Item 9C. This will be an interesting one. It's not -- it's an ordinance change for Ordinance No. 92-43. Back when the Comprehensive Plan was put together, there were some stipulations on parcels to be consistent by policy through various actions. And this particular group of parcels had some accessways that were requested, and in today's world it's kind of hard to make those work. But it is the -- Item 9C will be amending Ordinance 92-43; it will be Demere Landing Subdivision located at the corner of Bayshore Drive and Becca Avenue. 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. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Michelle Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't speak with Michelle, but I think I've talked to everybody else on staff for -- I think David Corbin, we've been working on this for, I don't know, maybe a year. It seems like forever, so I'm glad we finally got here. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michelle, it's all yours. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division Director. I'm here representing the county but on the -- in the capacity of the Community Redevelopment Agency. The chairman has kind of summarized why we're here. We're making an amendment to an ordinance to remove the access requirement that is very difficult to conform with under today's standards. The existing property is located on Bayshore Drive on the corner -- on the southwest corner of Bayshore and Becca. And there are five lots that consist of this property, and at the time of the zoning reevaluation process, there was a requirement that with a unified plan that is put in place, that they were required to provide access onto Bayshore Drive. The Bayshore Drive location is currently inconsistent with our Access Management Plan. The Access Management Plan for this particular classification requires a 220-foot spacing requirement, and the bridge that is on Bayshore Drive would be in conflict with that. So I'm here trying to just help clean up the process and ask that the Planning Commission consider December 1, 2016 Page 25 of 26 this removal of that requirement. There is an access on Becca Drive, and that will be the primary access for the particular project that is being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Michelle? Michelle, just for the record, has the CRA reviewed this? MS. ARNOLD: The CRA hasn't reviewed the access per se, but it has reviewed the project that's being proposed and is in favor of that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess there's not a staff report, because you're the staff and you just provided a report. So thank you. Any members of the public here to discuss this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, we've made a couple people wait all morning to hear this. We need to take longer on it, but I can't see how we can do that. So hearing that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second, because I've seen this project a year and a half ago, and I -- Rebecca showed it to me. So all in favor of it. I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion's been made to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for this action. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michelle. That was probably the simplest presentation that anybody could possibly have today, so... MS. ARNOLD: I wanted to drag it out so that we would stay till 11 o'clock and have Stan -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Stan would have to wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just woke up. Uh-oh. MS. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have no new business scheduled. There's no old business scheduled. Are there any other public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen, seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. December 1, 2016 Page 26 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:32 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. December 15, 2016 Page 1 of 41 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 15, 2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative December 15, 2016 Page 2 of 41 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 15th 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. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda: We have three items on today's agenda. The first one is the consent item for the Resource Recovery Park, the second item on our regular agenda is the Hamilton Place RPUD, and the last item we'll be discussing today are proposed amendments to the -- or the first review or first reading of the proposed amendments to the Collier County Land Development Code. And now we'll move to the Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting -- and several times a year, we have more than two meetings a month. January's going to start the year out that way. So we have -- first is January 5th. That's a regular meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane will not be here. Our next meeting -- and I'll verify attendance on the 5th -- but is the 19th of January, and then we have been asked by staff to have a special evening meeting for final reading or one of the readings of the Land Development Code amendments that are going through the process, including, I believe, those that we're going to talk about later today, and that's on January 30th at 5:05. Does anybody know if they cannot make the January 30th meeting in the evening, 5:05 in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that a Friday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a Monday. Okay. We'll have quorums, so we look good. Approval of the minutes. We all received our November 17th minutes electrically. Are there any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. December 15, 2016 Page 3 of 41 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray, with the first meeting of the new commission. And, by the way, I watched it, and it was a pleasant one to watch. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners last Tuesday, they continued the Naples Heritage PUD amendment and rezone to the January 10th meeting. They heard and approved the Courthouse Shadows PUD. It was approved 5-0 subject to the removal of Deviations 6, 8 and 10. I believe part of that may deal with the free-standing service station that was involved with that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the outcome of that, basically I think we heard during that meeting, the Sam's Club has not currently contracted to go into that location, but they still got approved for the additional square footage, so there's some flexibility. And something that I know Summer has now gotten into a lot is Starbucks is going to go on the corner of 41 and Airport Road, so that's a good thing. I'm glad it got approved for that. And, Mike, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. BOSI: Sure. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. I just wanted to mention to you we also were directed to bring back an ordinance on the 10th of January to the Board of County Commissioners to enact a moratorium on specific land uses: Gas stations, car wash, self-storage facilities, and pawnshops along the East Trail. It's correlated to a East Naples corridor study that was done in 2010 that Commissioner Fiala wanted to see analysis provided towards how those specific land uses that I mentioned fit within the compatibility and the vision of the East Naples community. So those -- we'll work through the process of working with the stakeholders and then bring back something through the land development amendment process eventually for the Planning Commission to contemplate and provide direction to the Board on. But I just wanted to provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I thought that the direction was to take a look at some -- because there's every kind of zoning from C1 through C5 in that corridor, and the elements of C1, 2, and 3, with the exception of those you mentioned, aren't too intense, but there's 142 elements in C4 and 180 some odd in C4. C5 is our light industrial. C4 contains some of that. And I thought that the Board wanted to take a look and make sure all of the intense uses were considered in this, too. Did you get any input on that? MR. BOSI: Yes. And we -- and it was to provide a list of all of the uses within the C4 and C5 that are beyond that C1 through C3, the more intense uses, to see if any other uses would be singled out. And what they did -- and it wasn't a strict moratorium in terms of what they directed. They did ask the staff to provide for a mechanism for circumstances for any one of those individual uses to be brought forward for evaluation as to whether they're appropriate. From a staff's perspective, what we're going to suggest is within that ordinance and during that period of time those specific land uses will be not a permitted use but treated as a conditional use. So if they wanted to move forward, it would require a public hearing to move forward on it because the Board did say they didn't want to close the door 100 percent potentially on a use that maybe fit within the right location. So they wanted to provide that opportunity. So we'll work with Mr. Klatzkow and the County Attorney's Office to make sure that we find the right nuances within the moratorium that will be imposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That scenario of a lot of old strip zoning, and it's caused a lot of problems, so I'm glad to see we're looking at it. MR. BOSI: It most certainly is. And one of the things that East Naples trail or vision study was looking at is that strip zoning and how do we take advantage of the strip zoning and maybe in terms of bringing a different -- a variety of different type of uses that enhance the overall land use arrangement. But, I agree. December 15, 2016 Page 4 of 41 And, ultimately, the Planning Commission will have that first crack to give the guidance to the Board of County Commissioners on what's brought back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to ask a question, Ray. What was the reason for the denial of the deviations, just out of curiosity, do you know, for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I actually discussed some of that with one of the commissioners in particular, and they -- the Sam's Club pulled out because Walmart, which Sam's is a part of it, has invested heavily in another operation. So what we were told is they've kind of curtailed some of their expansion. So Sam's pulled out. Without Sam's, the issue of the gas station, especially one being membership versus non-membership, wasn't really needed anymore. And then the other piece was the massing for the architectural criteria, and until they know what they're going (sic) in there, they don't really know if they need that deviation. So that's how those were wrapped up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And then buffering? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Those all stayed deviations. Okay. That gets us to the chairman's report. Ray, it's the holidays and I found something humorous that I thought I'd share, at least I thought it was humorous because it shows what our county was like before July 12th, 1968 -- July 25th. Now, if you read this, it says, we have had several complaints of drinking during working hours, and a motion had to be made to the Board of County Commissioners at that time that it would no longer be tolerated. So the assumption is prior to that date, you could just have a free-for-all in the county offices. And I can assure you it's not like that today, but I thought that was interesting they had to actually vote on that back in '68 as a motion. The Clerk's Office happened to have that, and paralegal working for the County Attorney's Office saw it and pointed it out to me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm not coming to your party then if you're not having -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll drink to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it has changed a lot, hasn't it? And the last item I'd like to mention is good morning, Nora Francis. We're going to keep an eye on your husband today and make sure he does a good job. Please tell her I said hi. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. And with that, we'll move into our first item up. It's a consent item, and it's for the PUDZ-PL20150002737. It's the Collier County Resource Recovery and Business Park IPUD. Now, this is just an acknowledgment from the Board, the Commission, that staff has interpreted and the applicant has interpreted the directions of our prior meeting. It's not a revote of the issue. It's simply acknowledgment that the issue was addressed. And with that in mind, does anybody have any questions from what was presented to us? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Is there anybody else? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, wait a minute. There's a wave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you're going to change this? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make it better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to change your motion, Karen, to denial? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: I'm going to make it even better. Thank you. Tim Hancock with Stantec, for the December 15, 2016 Page 5 of 41 record. We discovered, after we submitted all the final changes to staff, what I think is a necessary clarification. On the bottom right-hand side of the master concept plan, Mr. Chairman, you may remember it reads, 40 feet easement for Garland Road. What we discovered is it's actually a 30-footer, it's not 40 feet, which solved some of the issues you and I were having about trying to figure out how that 200 got to 170. So Ms. Zimmerman worked with the Property Appraiser's Office. We confirmed that it is, in fact, 30 feet on either side of the section line. The 10-foot utility easement lies within the 30 feet, and so we thought a 40-foot designation was an inaccuracy that needed to be corrected to 30, and we would simply ask that that correction be made a part of the motion today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the overall distance -- I can't recall based on this survey -- it's too small on the screen -- but is it 170 and 30, so we're at 200? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what we were expecting in the first place. So there's nothing -- there's nothing reduced in intensity; it's actually better. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I'll change my motion to include the change from 40 feet to 30 feet on that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the second -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could say something. There's also another change related to -- it looks like on the water management tract, there's a line. MR. HANCOCK: That is not something we're requesting. There was a question about it yesterday. I made that change on this exhibit in the event we had to address it, but it's been solved at the staff level as it relates to the SDP, so this is the only change; the 30-foot is the only change we're asking for consideration today. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion was made by Karen. And, Patrick, did you affirm the second on that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thanks for the clarification, Tim. ***Okay. Our advertised public hearing, 9A, is next. It's PUDZ-PL20160001255. It's for the Hamilton Place RPUD. It's located east of Livingston Road, south of Pine Ridge Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None. December 15, 2016 Page 6 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. I got an email through Eric. And on the mail it said, the information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individuals to whom the communication is directed. If you were not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure, or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies. Doesn't the Sunshine Law apply in stuff like this? Can you just say everything -- this is confidential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you ever hear of that item that's going around now called false news? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you got a false statement. Heidi, do you want to comment on it? It doesn't -- I don't believe it applies based on our Sunshine Law. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, that's correct. Every email is public record and not -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I could take that and forward it to anybody I want, and this means nothing. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's what I was curious about. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you talk to anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I didn't. But yesterday something about this wording made me nervous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the private sector, at least when I was there, too, all of our emails had that information on it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't apply when you send it to government, though. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Just so long as I get that on the record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I spoke with Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I, too, spoke with Wayne. I think he's the only -- other than staff, the only person I've talked to about it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Arnold and received emails. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I spoke to Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like Wayne was a popular guy. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Five for six, Wayne. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He was making many phone calls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will start with the presentation by the applicant, and for those members of the public who are here to speak, then we do a staff report, and then we go to the members of the public. So, Wayne. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have to comment (sic) him on his tie, though. It's very nice. Can you show us all your -- look at that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Very Christmas-y. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Michelle made him do it. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm with Grady Minor Engineering, and I'm here representing WCI Communities. With WCI Communities, we have Kevin Cross and Barry Ernst in the audience today. We have Tammy Lyday, who's our environmental consultant; Mike Delate, who's with Grady Minor as the engineer of record; and Jim Banks is here as our traffic engineer in case you have any questions. I'll do the primary presentation. And if there are questions that the other members of the team need to answer, then they December 15, 2016 Page 7 of 41 certainly will. But with that, we're here on a project that's on Livingston Road just south of Pine Ridge Road. You can see it on the visualizer. It's about a 9.8-acre piece of property that lies between Brynwood Preserve and the Positano Place apartment complex. And the parcel clearly is an infill parcel. It is located partially within your density band of the activity center. More than 50 percent of the property lies within the density band; therefore, we qualify for the density bonuses that are permitted when you're within the density band. So we are asking for a density just under the maximum of seven units per acre, so we're asking for a density of about 6.7 units per acre. It's a residential planned development. We've asked for a variety of housing types. We held our neighborhood information meeting. We had several attendees. And one of the comments we heard was about density of the project, that we exceed the density of our adjoining parcels. And I just want the record to be clear, there's nothing in our code that requires every property to have the same density that you're adjacent to. If that were the case, about most of the properties in Collier County would have a density of about 1.5 units per acre. So, clearly, we have opportunities, especially for infill, to have densities that are higher than the base densities, and that's the only way we're going to have infill development that's going to make sense economically. And, also, it's much more efficient for the infrastructure. You know, some of the ills that we have is the focus that we're on golf course communities force the density down very low, meaning that we had to spread out further. So I think now you're seeing sort of coming back is the premise that we need densities that are at the higher end of the range, and it make sense here. And I think the density that we're seeking, we have -- took a look at some of the adjoining properties, for instance, that are in the immediate vicinity. And I'll put it up on the visualizer. I took these right out of the county's PUD list that it prepares, and they assign a density with each of them, and it's -- maybe if we can zoom in on that, Eric; do you mind? We have densities that -- these are in that Pine Ridge/Livingston Road corridor. You can see that the densities range from three and a half to over 12 units an acre. So we clearly have a range of densities in the corridor, and the density that we're seeking is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. We think it makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, before you go too far, and since you produced that, the Brynwood preserve, the PUD that I've found says 160 units, so that may change your density count. It may have had an addendum that I'm not catching, but did you take a look? MR. ARNOLD: I've got the PUD document here. I can pull it up and look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, since you brought it up, I'd rather -- whatever it is we do it accurately. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Give me a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 0073, and a maximum of 160 residential dwelling units is what's -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think it's 185 (sic) homes in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: In the Preserve, it's 185 (sic) homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've got to use the mike, too. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I believe Brynwood Preserve is much less than the 170, 160. I believe it's 85. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. It may be built out for less, but they're approved at a higher number. That's the number he's using for calculations. MR. ARNOLD: And I stand corrected, Mr. Strain. It is 160 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brynwood. December 15, 2016 Page 8 of 41 MR. ARNOLD: They, too, qualified for a maximum density of seven units per acre. And I agree with you; they have been built at a lower density, and that's not that uncommon, but we established the maximum densities as a part of the PUD process. So, again, I think the data suggests that the density is well within the range of other properties that are in the immediate area. I can go through the master plan. It's pretty basic. The master concept plan shows a single access point off of Livingston Road. It's located near the northern edge of the property boundary in order to get spacing from the access point to the Positano Place property to the south. Probably, we envision two larger residential tracts on the north and south of the access road. We have an amenity center that's located along the eastern portion in our water management lake and then preserve. The preserve wraps around a little on the northern edge, and then we have a water management feature that will be a dry detention system along our northern boundary as well. But in that, that provides some natural separation from our neighbors at Brynwood, and then we also have an easement located on the southern boundary that's going to provide some additional separation from Positano. And then, of course, if you look back at the aerial photo -- and I have some information for -- I have some distances that I established, because I saw some emails from the Arlington folks who are located to the east, and their access is off of Whippoorwill. But they have part of their preserve that's part of this Whippoorwill flowway that separates this property from Arlington. So we have our preserve that abuts their preserve. So we have a natural separation of well over 400 feet. And we also, in our development standards, have established a maximum height of the 35 feet for the project. And I know that at one of the neighborhood information meetings, the community asked if we could limit that to three stories in height. But I can tell you that with 35 feet, WCI Communities would only build a two-story product. And just to give you some sense, south of us is the Positano project. That's kind of just a snapshot, but that is a three-story project at Positano Place. WCI Communities -- what we had at our neighborhood information meeting and as something they're building at Livingston Lakes a little farther north, is something like this. That's some of the multi-family that we would envision, which is a typical six-plex-type project that WCI Communities constructs. We've also made provisions for single-family homes. You can go to any other WCI community and see what they are building. But that's an example of the type of multifamily structure that we're envisioning to be built here, which we think is very compatible and transitions well between Positano at three stories and Brynwood, which are largely single-story structures. That's really all I have to say about the project. We're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We have staff's recommendation of approval. We're not asking for deviations from the code in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into questions, I just need one more clarification. You keep referring to a project called Positano. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the Arlington PUD. MR. ARNOLD: It is part of the Arlington PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it's not Positano. It's Arlington. It just happens to be a different segment of Arlington. MR. ARNOLD: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arlington wraps around both the east and southern boundaries of the PUD that you're proposing. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: This single-family, what do you all envision as far as lot size if you do do single-family, and how many do you envision being single-family as opposed to multifamily? December 15, 2016 Page 9 of 41 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I can let Mr. Delate answer it. I'm sure he's laid it out, but typically for single-family you're going to net anywhere from three to four units per acre. So you're probably looking at somewhere 30 units plus or minus if we did single-family. We have development standards that allow 50-foot-wide lots for the detached single-family product. We made provisions for what's called a variable zero lot line, which would be a lot at 40 feet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Forty, yep. And how deep? Out of curiosity. MR. ARNOLD: Lot depths are a hundred foot minimum. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record, if Mike could come up, because I want to -- for the record, I asked him right before the meeting -- and just correct me if I am wrong. I did ask if they submitted for their federal permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, they did, individual permit; it's still pending, correct? MR. DELATE: Correct. For the record, Mike Delate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And also, no Section 7 consultation, so no listed species habitat from a standpoint of the federal permit process. MR. DELATE: Correct. That's anticipated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. And state your name for the record so we can -- MR. DELATE: Mike Delate from Grady Minor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, let's move into your Page 1 of your PUD. Under B2, I had suggested when I met with you that that wasn't an appropriate accessory use to residential, on a Residential R tract. That's going to go on the roadway. Did you move that to another segment of the PUD? MR. ARNOLD: I have not moved it, but I understand your comment. I agree with you. We have sort of a road tract shown on our master plan. The area that's highlighted in gray on that plan is our road tract. I don't have separate development standards for our road tract. And if it's understood that gatehouses and gate structures and things of that nature are -- can be located in a private road tract, then I don't know that I need to address it anywhere else other than we could strike it from the residential tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not appropriate there, because the way it reads now, it would be the residential tract. So I think you don't intend to put it on any of the areas labeled residential, but this would allow it to be there, and we've customarily, for all the years I've been here, not allowed that language to be misplaced, so... MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm okay with removing it from the residential tract. Our master plan does reflect that that's an access control, so I think we're covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, one way or another that needs to come out, I believe, of that section of our PUD. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And B3 is the same -- a similar situation, and it's also redundant to No. 1. And I think you had said, then, that probably wouldn't be needed. Are you in agreement with that now? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think 2 and 3 can both be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the development standards table, I notice that your PUD boundary for principal and accessory uses was 15 feet, but in no case are you closer than, from what I could tell, 40 feet. So why wouldn't that be 40 feet instead of 15? MR. ARNOLD: And after you made the comment to me, I did check with Mike Delate, who has submitted for the environmental permits, and the 40-feet minimum would work for us. We have an easement of 30 feet on the south side, and then our water management area varies beyond 30 feet to the north, so the 40 feet works well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the beginning of the lot would be 40 feet back from the perimeter PUD boundary, then the lot is where you measure your rear setbacks from, and you also got buffers that will December 15, 2016 Page 10 of 41 be in that area, too, at the same time. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- okay. Accessory structures, your front references 20 feet, but you needed to make a reference to Footnote No. 1 in case it would happen to apply. For the 23 -- actually, Footnote No. 2, I'm sorry, where it says the 23 feet. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It would need to reference Footnote 2 just as well to make sure that we're at least 23 feet for the garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the master plan, apparently -- and this is the first time I've seen this -- and it's language that, if it stays, we've got a lot of changes to make in the other PUDs that have been approved in this county. Footnote No. 4, the development of the project shall be in compliance with appropriate fire codes and will be shown on the SDP plan. So if you didn't have that note on there, you wouldn't have to abide by the fire codes, because we have a lot of PUDs, and this is the first one I've ever seen with that note. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to taking it off? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. This was a request, I believe, by staff and the fire district to ensure that we were going to comply with their fire codes at the time of site plan or plat. But, I mean, that's kind of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's the law, isn't it? MR. ARNOLD: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have to anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And this is the redundant language we keep telling staff not to put in the PUDs and the plan, so I'd to see that one removed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a separate chapter in the building code as well as it's part of the fire code, state fire code. MR. ARNOLD: We have no objection to removing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I do -- it may be appropriate. I think Heidi has a comment on another note that's on the master plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The Footnote 4, recommending that we change it to the standard language that we're now using, which we established a couple weeks ago, and it reads: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic removal in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 and LDC Section 4.06.05.E.1; supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, Heidi, that that is the right language. Again, I think it's in the wrong place. Why wouldn't it be under Section 4 of the PUD environmental? I mean, clouding the master plans up with this is going to become problematic in the future, and I would suggest we not do that and leave it in the text of the PUD. Is there any reason that wouldn't work? MR. ARNOLD: It works for me, Mr. Strain. I'll defer to the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, do you have a problem putting it as text in the PUD? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. I agree, that's a better location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. So Footnotes 3 and 4 or Notes 3 and 4 of the master plan can be deleted, and 3 will be repeated -- will be restated in Section 4, which is the environmental section of Exhibit F. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: For clarification, I show those at Notes 4 and 5 on mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four and 5, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're right. You're right. And, Wayne, if you could go to Page 8 of the PUD. December 15, 2016 Page 11 of 41 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation Item 3. I read this and I thought, well, I didn't know that we could do platting that wasn't consistent with the LDC. So what kind of platting were you guys proposing? MR. ARNOLD: We're asking for no deviations from the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, and that's another thing I was going to point out that says, unless a deviation's approved. So there's no deviations approved, but there's a statement here that says you're going to plat consistent with the LDC. That's a given. You can't do anything else but that. Why is that in your PUD? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'll defer to your transportation staff, but I will tell you that part of the preliminary plat process you can obtain certain administrative deviations during that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that allowed by the LDC? MR. ARNOLD: It is allowed by the Land Development Code, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to focus on what you could do that isn't allowed by the LDC as a purpose that Mike must have added this transportation language. Mike, would you answer Wayne's question as to why you needed this? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Quite honestly, Chairman, I'm not sure why that language is in there. If I had noticed it ahead of time, I would have actually required it -- or requested that it be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have a problem removing it then? MR. SAWYER: No. And besides that, the sidewalks are actually shown on the master plan anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: We're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. So, Wayne, that's okay then. We'll see that one removed as well? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under environmental, the last sentence, the preservation plans shall meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC. Again, why is that there? You've got to do that anyway. You've either got to meet the LDC, you've got to ask for a deviation, or you can exceed the LDC. So I don't understand why we have to keep having this redundant language in the PUD. I'd like to ask in the future, since you do a lot of them, that this be avoided so we haven't got to waste time discussing it. MR. ARNOLD: Sometimes we do disagree with your staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff insists? Oh. Summer, did you request this? She's shaking her head no, so I'm not sure how it got there, then. But in the future, let's see if we can avoid it. MR. ARNOLD: I have no problem deleting the last sentence of No. 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are all the comments I have right now, so thank you. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Eric Johnson, Principal Planner, Zoning Section. Staff is recommending approval of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the shortest one I've heard you say in a while. It's safe, Eric, and it's a nice Christmas present for us. Thank you. I do have a couple of issues. And I know that there's -- and, by the way, I didn't disclose that I've received emails because they're in the packet, so they're all there. But there have been some emails received by the neighbors -- or from the neighbors. One of them was about the capacity of the road system and the additional trips. Based on the staff report it says there is a remaining capacity of over 1,600 trips in that segment of Livingston Road. So is there any issue with transportation? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I'm going to defer that to Mr. Mike Sawyer. December 15, 2016 Page 12 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Joe, do you like his tie, too? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I really like Rudolph much better. Well, let me see the bottom of that one. Oh, nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got Santa Claus or whatever that is. MR. SAWYER: For the record, it is Santa Claus and Rudolph. Yeah, they're both on there. For the record, again, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We have looked at the Hamilton Place PUD and, as reflected in the staff report, there is capacity on the road system. I can put up a couple of things just to illustrate that a little bit. Just a reminder, we are in a transportation concurrency management area. It simply means that if we do have capacity issues on the system, we are able to approve projects in those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same kind of system we just ran into with Arthrex? MR. SAWYER: Exactly the same, yes. It is a different area, but it is consistent with that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But unlike the Arthrex location, which was Immokalee and 41, and there was traffic issues up there, based on what I'm reading here, you still have capacity in this location for this one. MR. SAWYER: Certainly on Livingston we do, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: This is basically just giving you a rundown of what the capacities are on the existing road system. You will notice, however, on Pine Ridge we are in an F condition, and we are actually over capacity. But, again, being in a TCMA area, we are able to approve; there is just additional mitigation that is needed in those cases. I believe -- I'm trying to remember exactly how many trips are actually on that particular segment of Pine Ridge. I thought it was somewhere around four trips peak; not a lot of trips. So -- and it is proportional as far as the number of trips that are put on the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last night there was an accident on the south side of Pine Ridge and Kraft Road, and it was backed up all the way to Livingston. What a mess. MR. SAWYER: Well, then that's why we've got a classification of F right now on Pine Ridge. We are looking at both that corridor and also some intersection improvements; again, that corridor. So we are looking at that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else. Anybody else have any questions of Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My next question is concerning the fact that -- a statement that was in the staff report under the findings. It says, the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, and the response to the finding was, there are no other RPUDs located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Ray, RPUD means residential PUD, does it not? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Brynwood considered a residential PUD? MR. BELLOWS: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is Arlington considered a residential PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there are two other RPUDs, and they may not be designated as "R" because we just started that determination, what, a few years ago. But they're PUDs; they're residential. So that finding should be corrected at some point. It's not one that I think we can then say is consistent. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The PUD nomenclature did change where we provided the extra clarifying designation of R or M or CPUDs. Those that are adopted prior to that just had a PUD designation, and so there could be a mix of uses or could be all residential. But I believe the ones you've identified are what we would call today residential PUDs. December 15, 2016 Page 13 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, most of the time this stuff never gets elevated to any issue unless there's an appeal and we get into a case or something like that. But since a lot of people sign off on these PUDs before they get to us, maybe someone can check this if someone who is writing it hasn't been here as long as these code changes have occurred. Because I know Eric's been here, what, a couple years now, two, three years? MR. JOHNSON: Less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less? But the RPUD versus the PUD started before he got here, so he wouldn't necessarily know this change, but that's where your-all's sign-offs of everybody from you afterwards is supposed to double-check that stuff. If you could, I'd appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We'll make a better effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just checking to make sure there's nothing else, and then we'll move on. I don't have anything else. Anybody else on the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And for the public's concern, we have two types of speakers. We have registered speakers, those that filled out a speaker slip -- but we are here to hear you, and I'll ask afterwards if anybody who has not registered that would like to speak, you most certainly would be able to. So let's start with the registered speakers. And you can use either mike and identify yourself. And if your last name is something more complicated than four or five letters, please spell it for the court reporter. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, our first speaker is Mr. Glenn Brown, followed by Mr. Paul Lyons. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, members, good morning. Glenn Brown; G-l-e-n-n, B-r-o-w-n. I live together with my wife, Jane, in a home that we own in Brynwood Preserve immediately north of the proposed Hamilton Place RPUD. And, basically, my concerns fall in four categories. Some of them have been addressed today: Density; height; traffic flow, not traffic volume, but traffic flow; and buffer. With respect to density, whether or not the code may allow density up to 6.6 units per acre is one thing, but I think for good land use planning, we should look at what's built and what would be a good transition between one multifamily use in Brynwood Preserve, which is single-family detached. And I believe the petitioner's actually requesting maybe slightly higher density than its multifamily use to the south of its project, Positano or Arlington, and -- at 6.6 units. And compare that to the as-built Brynwood, which has 85 units on approximately three times the acreage of the proposed Hamilton Place. So if you were to approve the density that they request, that would be an incredible -- more than tripling, I guess, if you do the math, of the density to our community, Brynwood Preserve, to their north. And we just feel that that's a little bit overboard in terms of a transition from multifamily to single-family detached, so we would ask for your consideration on reducing the density requested by the petitioner. And kind of part and parcel of that is the requested height limitation of 35 feet. That seems -- and I was relieved to hear Mr. Arnold say that they wouldn't consider building anything more than two stories, because the neighborhood meeting we understood it could be three stories. That's a relief that it wouldn't be more than two. But 35 feet still seems like it would kind of be buildings towering over our single-family homes in Brynwood. So we would appreciate it if you could take a hard look at maximum height that they're requesting. Traffic flow, not traffic numbers, but traffic flow's a huge issue. And, first of all, I'd like to thank Eric Johnson and Daniel Smith, your staff members, who were very kind in accepting my phone calls and answering my questions that they could answer. And I tried to reach Mr. Sawyer to talk about these traffic-flow issues, but I wasn't successful in getting through to him. But the concern is the -- there's a turnaround on Livingston Road that's right now right in front of the entrance and exit to Positano or Arlington Place, and on the other side of Livingston Road, Kensington. So even right now it's already kind of a crazy situation because you have traffic traveling north and south on Livingston Road that want to use that as a turnaround. For instance, I would want to use it as a turnaround if I'm traveling south on Livingston Road and want to go home. That's the closest opportunity I December 15, 2016 Page 14 of 41 have to make a turnaround to go into Brynwood. Also people who want to turn left into Positano use that. At the same time you have people coming out of Positano and out of Kensington and the other side of Livingston Road that are allowed to turn both left and right. So you've got cars going every which way, and you've got cars piled up in the left-hand turn lanes, and that's only going to get magnified if you permit 6.6 more units per acre. It's going to be that many more cars trying to use that one turnaround to get to their homes. And it's just going to be an extremely dangerous situation. So I don't know if the Planning Commission can look at those things or if that's some other group that studies that, but I can only tell you that it's going to be a huge problem. It already is a problem, and it's going to get worse. And then with respect, again, to traffic flow, where is the entrance to the new proposed Hamilton Place RUP (sic) going to be? On the drawing they show it moving north, much closer to Brynwood Preserve. We do have a right-hand deceleration lane, or whatever the correct terminology is, to get into Brynwood Preserve, but where is the Hamilton Place RPUD right deceleration lane going to end with respect to where ours begins? That just doesn't seem to be much space there to do all of that, so that is a real concern to us. And then lastly is the buffer. And I did learn from Mr. Smith the details of a Type B 15-foot landscape buffer, and I think I understand that well. And I was told that the water management area that's shown on the north side of the RPUD being requested is on a minimum required hundred feet. So I wanted to see if we can confirm that, if that is, in fact, correct. Does that water management district (sic) need to be a minimum width of 100 feet plus the 15-foot Type B buffer? So that's a question. And I'm probably past my three minutes, but those are the concerns that I have. And I'm on the board of directors and president of our HOA, and I know there's a number of other people in our community who aren't here today who have shared with me their same concerns about matters that I have just discussed with you, so thank you for your time and consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Do you -- sir, before you sit down, do you realize that your zoned height is 35 feet and two stories? MR. BROWN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it is, and theirs is -- they're requesting 30 feet. And they've volunteered two stories, so that's something we can stipulate. Thirty-five feet is actual. There's no actual listed in your PUD, so you actually could be higher than they are. The buffer on your property is 10 feet on the south side. On their property it's 10 feet plus an additional 30 feet of distance before the boundary line is met. So those two things may have been resolved in regards to your concerns. Now, the other ones, obviously, we'll look into. But, I mean, that's comparable to yours. MR. BROWN: Well, I appreciate that. And, again, I don't -- I didn't know the details about what was approved for Brynwood Preserve, but I'm kind of looking at how it's actually been built, and I don't believe we have any structures that are near 35 feet tall in our community. But I appreciate your pointing out to me that we could have had that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's -- and I'm just trying to express some logic that we have to go by. Throughout the county there's projects that come in and ask for density. Rarely does the county build out to the full density. There's very few times that I can remember that's happened. But we don't -- we don't set zoning based on what someone else has decided not to do. We set zoning based on what the code allows them to do, because that's considered their property rights. And that becomes an area that we have to look at very carefully in regards to the issues you've raised, so... MR. BROWN: I appreciate that. And, sir, can you address the water management requirements in terms of minimum width? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the minimum -- there's a water management detention area on this site. There is no minimum width that I'm aware of. Our county engineer's here, and if he's -- since he's here, he definitely must be here because he wants to address these kind of issues, so we'll ask him to come up and put something on the record. December 15, 2016 Page 15 of 41 MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. McKENNA: Thank you for the opportunity. For the record, Jack McKenna. No, I'm not aware of a minimum width. There's minimum width for lakes, but as far as just a water management area, there is no minimum width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we do know that this water management area will be sufficient enough to handle the drainage that's approved to them by South Florida. But it's probably going to be about 20- to 30-foot wide because they're going to have a 10-foot landscape buffer, or 15-foot, whatever the product is beside that. Okay. Eric, next speaker. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Next speaker is Paul Lyons followed by Frank, and I can't read Frank's last name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll have to spell that one, huh? MR. LYONS: Good morning. Paul Lyons, L-y-o-n-s. I'm a resident of Brynwood Preserve. Much of what I had planned to say has been covered by Mr. Brown, but I just want to point out a few things, one thing kind of historically. Brynwood Preserve was developed in 2002/2003, and following that Positano was developed to our south in 2005/2006, about the same time Marquesa Plaza, which is in the corner of Pine Ridge and Livingston, were developed. So I just say that in the sense that at one time not that far back we were very much all by ourselves there, and since then things have cropped up around us, and it seems more like we're in a different situation than we were in the early 2000s. In any case, moving on. And, again, Mr. Brown touched on this, the traffic situation, just to really clarify, because it seems to me that traffic lights really should be in that location between Positano and Kensington. A particular problem is people coming out of Positano wanting to go south have to look through a landscaped island in order to move out. Same thing on Kensington. If they want to go north, they have to look across the roadway, across a landscaped island to turn north. We, as residents of Positano, heading south have to take a U-turn sometimes with traffic bearing down on us coming north. The same thing will apply when residents of Hamilton Place want to turn from the north. In terms of the borders, I think I understand better now the proposal, and hopefully there'll be enough landscaping so that the people living on the south side of Brynwood Way will still have the view of the landscaping there and the trees. Of course, I think as these PUDs are developed, it's required that the exotics be removed. So as I look just casually through what seems to me a lot of barrier there now probably won't be there because I see quite a few of the melaleucas in that strip. So that's a concern. I don't happen to live in that part of Brynwood, but it is a concern for the people who live on the south side that I'm sure they'd like their view to remain somewhat the same. That's really all I have to say. As I said, Mr. Brown covered a lot of what I had planned to mention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other registered speakers, Eric? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Frank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there is a registered speaker whose name you cannot read. So he'll -- please identify yourself for the record, sir, and we'll be fine. MR. CAMPOAMOR: Hi. Good morning. Frank Campoamor, C-a-m-p-o-a-m-o-r. Thank you. I also live in Brynwood Preserve, and I actually live on the south side, so I will be, you know, most affected in our community there. And so I have some concerns. The first one is the median and obviously the traffic. I know one thing that's kind of been highlighted are the traffic trips, but I think you need to look at how these neighborhoods are going to be getting in and out of there. And I think what will make clear from the prior two speakers -- I sketched something out real quick December 15, 2016 Page 16 of 41 this morning that I'd like to share with you so you can kind of see this median cut-through and the effect it's going to have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, you'll have to leave that for the record. MR. CAMPOAMOR: Absolutely. Okay. I know that's hard to -- I don't have the fancy drawing tools like these guys do, but -- so what you're seeing in that median there is you're going to have Kensington coming out, going in through that median. You have Positano Place going out through that median. You have Positano Place and Brynwood Preserve going through that median. So right now what you have are five different traffic patterns going through one median cut-through. It's a mess, and I've seen road rage out there at peak travel times in the morning and the afternoon. It's an absolute mess. I know some people, they are having to travel down to the next median because they're tired of waiting. My concern is now once you add another traffic flow from Hamilton Place in there -- so now there's going to be six people accessing that median -- it's just going to be a little bit too much for everybody. I think it's going to cause accidents. It's going to cause road rage. I think it's going to make for a lot of unhappy people all around there. So, you know, I think some consideration needs to be made to the density. What else you can do with that median, I'm not sure. One suggestion may be is -- in front of Brynwood Preserve, that would at least cut us out of having to go through that median is to do a median -- a left turn lane for us coming from the north directly in there so that that gets our community out of that median cut-through. You know, I think it's just a dangerous situation there, and it's just going to be made worse by another development. You know, if they do go forward with the 66 units, you can imagine that's probably going to be well over a hundred cars that are going to be coming in and out of that community. I know most cars in my neighborhood, they at least have two or three cars. There's only two houses I know where they have one car. So I think you're going to be looking at easily maybe 120, 140 cars coming in and out of there, and I think it's just going to be a very dangerous place. The other thing I'd like to address is the density and the height. I am concerned with the 66 units. I do -- you know, I am certainly more agreeable to a neighborhood like ours where it's single-family detached with approximately 30 units. You know, I find that more acceptable. I think what Glenn and Paul were trying to communicate is it would seem to make more sense to have sort of a step-down process where you have Positano Place multifamily, and then in between you're having Hamilton Place, and then you're going to have Brynwood Preserve, that you should have something that should kind of maybe be in between those so it just kind of gels a little bit better with that. I mean, look, we understand a neighborhood's going to go up there. We just kind of want to make it the best for everybody concerned. And, you know, the height, I don't know a whole lot about that. I do know, as Paul was saying, if they removed those melaleucas, I know with a Type B barrier, it looks likes there's a 5-foot-high hedge. I can't tell how tall the trees (sic), once they're put in there. But you can imagine from the front of my house to the other side of our access road is 60 feet. And it appears that potentially from the northern barrier of Hamilton Place to where those buildings start may be about 60 feet. So if you have a 5-foot-high barrier here, little trees, and you have buildings going up to 30 feet, both communities are going to be looking at each other, and I think it would be helpful that we look at, you know, a pretty significant vegetation barrier so that, you know, from our perspective we have privacy, we have a sound -- you know, sound buffering, and also I'm sure the people in Hamilton Place would prefer not to have to see us every time they look out, you know, their backyard. So we would like -- and maybe what we can do -- I don't know if the developer or any of their agents have actually been on our property and had a chance to look from our property over to where Hamilton Place would be, but I would be happy to have them come on and look at it so maybe we can try to reach a solution that would be more agreeable, because I think if we can fix that barrier thing, I think that's going to alleviate a lot of the concern that my neighborhood has. The median, I think, is still going to be a difficult thing. I think that's going to be a problem no December 15, 2016 Page 17 of 41 matter what happens. And so we're going to probably have to think outside of the box on that one to find a good solution that keeps, you know, all the constituents safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you aware that Brynwood Preserve has a 10-foot Type A buffer which is not as intense as the 15-foot Type B that they're putting in? I mean, you guys could assess yourselves and buffer your community further if you'd like. MR. CAMPOAMOR: Well, you know, I think why they did that, because that was a very wooded property, you know, when Pulte did that, you know, back in 2000. But, you know, I'm not sure it would be fair for us to have to rebuild up our barrier because, you know, the last person to the block is coming in. So, you know, I would be concerned with them coming in with the minimum barrier which is going to not provide a sufficient barrier, and then we have to assess our people. You know, we've been there for 15, 16 years. We have to assess us in order for us to build up a barrier to protect our view and have privacy between the communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you bought at Brynwood, the theory was that that property would have to buffer more than you guys are? More than code requires if they were to build there? I mean, you-all could have done -- someone could have bought that property concurrently with yours and built it out -- MR. CAMPOAMOR: They could have, but I think at the time everybody probably looked -- and I don't know. I wasn't involved with that process, but I'm sure they looked at the neighboring property. I think there's just one house on there. And so, you know, at the time, you know, they probably thought a Type A barrier was sufficient and, you know, obviously the property owner who's wanting to sell to Hamilton Place didn't have a big issue with it because he had huge, mature trees blocking the view. So, you know, I would just ask that maybe we could get involved with them and come and just maybe do a look at the neighborhood and see if we can't come to a reasonable solution. You know, everybody in my neighborhood, they're very nice people. I mean, we understand development has to happen, but we just want to try to work something where, you know, everybody's kind of happy with the end product. And I'm not sure as it's kind of set now that, you know, we're going to be too pleased with it, but, you know, we would ask that, you know, whatever you can do to try to help us out would be great. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not a question just of the applicant, because I'm just looking at Google Maps, and I'm trying to figure out, will that just be a right-in, right-out into your development, Mr. Arnold? I'm trying to look at this traffic -- MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. Yes, it's my understanding that we would be restricted to a right-in, right-out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I'm trying to -- the other street is a -- Briarwood (sic) Preserves is just a right-in, right-out. The only full opening is at Positano, of course, and that's across from the Kensington entrance, yeah. MR. CAMPOAMOR: Right. And then, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone, sir. You've got to be on record. Thank you. MR. CAMPOAMOR: Okay, thank you. And, you know, looking at my sketch and see, that's -- that's kind of the problem you run into because you have Brynwood here, and it's right-in, right-out, you would have Hamilton Place in, and it's right-in, right-out, but, you know, in order for us to access those, we have to come through the median this way, okay. And you already have Positano coming that way. You have Positano exiting that way. You have Kensington coming this way in there. I mean, you're looking at six different traffic patterns that are going to be utilizing one median cut-through. And, you know, I was kind of envisioning up and down Livingston, even a similar road, you know, Goodlette Road, and I just -- I can't seem to picture any three residential neighborhoods with entrances stacked on each other like that so close together. It's just something -- if I'm not aware of it. But, you know, I grew up here in Naples. I just don't know of something else. December 15, 2016 Page 18 of 41 So I really do think that some kind of accommodations need to be made for the traffic, not the number of trips, because we can see it's under right there, but for this median, because it's going to be a disaster. It already is a disaster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will ask the traffic department in just a second how to -- if they're going to address that, so... MR. CAMPOAMOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, there already is an access to the existing dwellings back there now, and they have every right to have an access off of Livingston. I'm not sure -- I hear your concerns, but I'm not sure what you -- is it your position that you think they should be denied an access to Livingston? MR. CAMPOAMOR: The Hamilton Place? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. CAMPOAMOR: No, of course not. What I'm thinking is -- because, look, something's going to go in there, and I recognize that. But it may be that maybe in front of our neighborhood, what I was just suggesting earlier, that our traffic coming in from the north, that, you know, perhaps -- and I don't know if the developer would have to do this, but put in a left turn lane directly in front of our entrance so that we don't have to be utilizing this median, because I think it's just getting too congested with, you know, four neighborhoods trying to use this median to get in and out of their properties. It's just a little much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd have to defer to staff on -- MR. CAMPOAMOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we finish asking you questions, we'll get staff back up. Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And then with staff -- I know we have Google Earth on the computer. So if staff could pop it up so we could all see what they're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not an active -- you can't scroll around on that one and look. You can't zoom in and see what they're talking about. That's just an aerial photo. But they loaded Google Earth onto the computer, and they can pop it up -- or not. I don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's what you need to be familiar with it, then hopefully staff can do that. I drive that multiple times every day, so I'm very familiar with the whole place, the traffic, the jams, and how long it takes me, to the second, to get home. Thank you, sir. We're going to move on to staff comments if there's no other -- anybody else in the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, would you mind -- Mike Sawyer. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just wanted to thank the speakers today for coming up here, the residents from that community, and voicing your questions and concerns, too, today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, while Mike Bosi's doing that, can you -- that median, is there any -- now that Livingston Road is a somewhat of a special road in the county in regards to its style. I guess, Nick, had -- when he was in transportation, used to try to protect that road from any kind of additional issues entering or leaving it. Remember the issue with Manchester Lakes and GL Homes project to the north and how that got into play? MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any plans for any improvements on that median area that the gentleman was pointing out? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. I'm glad it actually came up. Again, Mike Sawyer with Transportation Planning. We actually had a discussion with the agent, you know, when we came in as far as our concerns December 15, 2016 Page 19 of 41 about that particular intersection. Quite honestly, it is on our operational department's list of full openings that we need to look at both design-wise and also making changes to. Not knowing what those changes are actually going to be, the more likelihood is that at some point, along with all of these -- all of the other full openings that we're seeing on our six-lane road segments, we would probably be directionalizing those so that you would be able to do lefts and also U-turns at those movements, but you would not be able to do a right -- I'm sorry -- a left-out. And those left-outs tend to be where we have the most conflict. So the idea in all of these full openings would be to look at them -- prioritize them, look at them, and revise those openings according to each of those particular areas. As far as getting a left-in on the single-family development, looking at it, it may actually meet distance requirements. If it does, they would simply be able to come in and do a right-of-way permit and be able to do that improvement. Now, we'd certainly have to look at the spacing of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, when you said "they" -- MR. SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't want anybody to assume the county would then foot the bill for that left turn lane. That would be -- may have to be done by probably the HOA if they've taken control of that development. Wouldn't you -- MR. SAWYER: Most definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that how you would look at it? MR. SAWYER: Yes. Most definitely. That would not be something that we would have budgeted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would not be lighted, so it would be a decel left lane. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Directional left, so they couldn't go left out. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Curved median, the whole nine yards. MR. SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would probably run a substantial amount of money. The last one I did was about 150,000, but I think they've probably gone up significantly since then. MR. SAWYER: I would think prices have probably gone up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. So okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Well, Diane, then Patrick. Sir, you'll have to sit down. We're done with public speaking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, so you're saying a left-out. So you're saying Kensington can no longer come out and go north? MR. SAWYER: Not directly, correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Positano cannot come out and go south. MR. SAWYER: Correct. The reason for that, operationally -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand, but does that mean that they have to go all the way to Pine Ridge and make a U-turn? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't make a U-turn at Pine Ridge. I found that out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's these flashing lights that come behind you... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh. Well, I was just trying to figure out where something else is. MR. SAWYER: Again, I haven't looked at the whole area as far as all of those movements, and that would certainly be part of that overall study that we would do. Again, it is on the list. We are well aware of it, as well as all of the other median -- full median openings that we've got throughout the county. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. Mike, I had a question in whether this plays into this or December 15, 2016 Page 20 of 41 not. But, obviously, I think we all can agree that there's some traffic issues on that road and that segment, notwithstanding the Hamilton. But Whippoorwill, that's just a smidge down, I believe. Marbella Lakes is right there, right on that screen we're all looking at. My question is, is Whippoorwill and that extension, a cut-through from Livingston, still in the works and, number two, would that alleviate some of the issues, or is that a totally different subject? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you ought to go ask Marbella. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. I heard the stories and the chair throwing. I heard the stories, but I'm just curious. MR. SAWYER: Honestly, that is a different subject, quite honestly, and I don't have any updates currently as far as any progress on that connection. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Should -- the road traffic and these stats that were told to us earlier today, wouldn't those factor in, though, potentially with this thing coming down the road, good or bad, and affect these communities and the traffic in that section? MR. SAWYER: Honestly, in this particular location, that particular road segment -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. MR. SAWYER: -- would more be a -- more of an assist, actually, to Pine Ridge. Where we've actually got a failing road segment, having that cut-through as it were, would assist more for the benefit of reducing some of that traffic that we're experiencing on Pine Ridge, not necessarily affecting that much of this portion. We've got good capacity on Livingston, so just to make sure everybody's understanding that. We've got good road capacity on Livingston. We've got plenty of capacity there. What we've got in this particular location is an operational issue. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Access issues, yep. MR. SAWYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Convenience access issues, I think, is the biggest issue I'm hearing here for those residents, not just in Brynwood Preserve, but Positano, but Marbella. Those communities all there in a row seem like they're -- with these medians there, they're not afforded that left-hand turn or right-hand turn. There would be a light, though, at that Whippoorwill that will ebb the ease and flow of that traffic that could potentially affect good or bad this next section, correct? MR. SAWYER: As far as the light goes, I don't -- I'm not sure if there was a light scheduled for that or not. It would certainly have to meet warrants in order to put it in. So, I mean, there's 12 different, you know, separate criteria that we use as far as figuring out if a signal is actually warranted or not. Certainly, that would be something that would be part of that overall study for that connection. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. MR. SAWYER: No problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim Banks. You've got Jim here for a reason. He wants to earn his money. So, Jim, could you come up and tell us -- MR. BANKS: I'm getting paid regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just more concerned what you're getting paid for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make you earn it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wears a lot of hats, Jim does. The gentleman talked about the number of vehicles coming from the facility. Would you talk to us about the peak hour and how your calculations were in regards to peak-hour trips affecting that roadway? MR. BANKS: Sure. For the record, Jim Banks. For 66 multifamily dwelling units, the project will generate 37 a.m. peak hour trips total two-way and 43 p.m. peak-hour trips two-way. December 15, 2016 Page 21 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so the example that was used is that there's 66 -- let's say there are 66 homes, and each home has a couple of cars. You're looking at 132 vehicles, but they don't all leave at once. And the peak hour, both a.m. and p.m., are the standards that we look at as the most intense for calculation of impacts on the road; is that a fair statement? MR. BANKS: Yes. And I would further say it seems to me that the concerns expressed was the access conditions, so you would focus on those a.m. and p.m. peak-hour periods as when it would be the most congested periods of the day. And, again, during the p.m. peak hour, we generate 43 trips two-way, so that's both entering and exiting. So the U-turn movements that we would create down there at that intersection would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 12 trips during the p.m. -- 12 to 15 trips during the p.m. making the U-turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on traffic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. And, Wayne, I think we've exhausted the public input, and we definitely will -- if you have a rebuttal period, you're more than welcome to. MR. ARNOLD: I'd just make a couple of comments. I think Mr. Sawyer told you how they deal with the median issue and the traffic flow, and I think that makes sense. That's how it's handled countywide. There are median closures, there are median openings, there are left turns, and there are standards for all of those. And then, secondly, you know, the gentleman talked about, you know, the Brynwood Preserve density and the number of units, but keep in mind Brynwood Preserve also allows for multifamily development. The developer chose not to build a multifamily product there. They chose to build single-family. Not unlike Brynwood, we've made provisions for everything from single-family to multifamily. And as Mr. Strain pointed out, their zoned height for multifamily is 35 feet in Brynwood Preserve. They chose not to exercise that option, but for an infill project of just under 10 acres, that makes sense. It's a -- yes, it's near the top of the density range that we qualify for, but it makes sense for infill. I think this Planning Commission is going to see more and more people trying to utilize the higher end of their density range because of economics. It's infill. We're dealing with smaller properties. We're not dealing with 100-acre tracts very commonly anymore. So I think this is something that you're going to anticipate. We think it's very compatible. Staff agrees it's compatible, and hope you can support the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item that was brought up is your -- besides the height is the stories. Do you have any problems limiting your product to two stories? MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't think so. If you want to look at the development table, I mean, it would be most appropriate to put it under where we have maximum height, and commonly we put -- where it is expressed as 30 feet and 35 actual height, we could say not to exceed two stories in each of those columns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we typically do. I don't have any other questions. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing, and we will entertain a motion by the Planning Commission. I did make some notes depending on whatever kind of motion's made. Some of the listings under the principal uses need to be cleaned up in regards to they're not necessarily residential, and that was Items B2 and B3. The PUD boundary distance will be a minimum of 40 feet. The accessory footnote will be modified so that the front takes into consideration the Footnote No. 2. The Notes 4 and 5 of the master plan will be deleted. There will be new text added to the PUD environmental section as proposed by the County Attorney's Office. We're going to remove the transportation note in the text of the PUD, and we're going to remove the December 15, 2016 Page 22 of 41 last sentence on the environmental note, and then it will be limited to two stories. Those are the notes that I've got. Eric, do you follow those, or any questions? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I do follow. One question I do have is on the Development Standards Table, I know that you talked about the PUD boundary being 40 feet for the principal uses. Is that the same thing for the accessory structures as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gate is the one, Diane, that is removed, Notes B2 and 3. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Wayne, is there anything there that's not clear in case this is made a motion to -- that's part of the -- if these are made part of the motion? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. I have all of the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, is there any discussion from the Planning Commission? Hearing none, is there a motion? Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I certainly understand the concerns about traffic and lived the days of the county when we talked about Livingston Road, protecting the flow through there, so fully understand it. But I find no legal reason to deny the request, so I make a motion to approve subject to the comments made by Mr. Strain in regards to the amendments he put on the record for the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Stan. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, all. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will take a break until 10:30, then when we come back, we'll start the LDC amendments. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll all please go back to your seats, we will resume the meeting. We finished 9A, which was Hamilton Place. We're moving into 9B, which is the Collier review -- actually, it's the initial review of a couple of elements of the changes to the Land Development Code. And Caroline Cilek is here to make a presentation and walk us through it. We're going to start with the golf -- there's two of them; golf course and storm water management. So we're going to start with the golf course one first. And, Caroline, would you tell us the schedule that you see evolving as far as what we're hearing today, when it's coming back, and when it's finally coming back? I think the 30th of January we have set a meeting up. I believe that's the final one. And would you elaborate on all that? MS. CILEK: Absolutely. Caroline Cilek, LDC manager, for the record. We're here today to present to you an overview of the golf course amendment, conversion of golf December 15, 2016 Page 23 of 41 course amendment, and then we will be back in January for the meeting on the 5th, the meeting on the 19th, and the nighttime hearing on the 30th. The meeting on the 30th is actually not for this specific amendment but for a different one that we'll be bringing before you in January on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does this amendment today require an evening meeting as well, the golf course? MS. CILEK: This specific amendment does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: But we could talk about it on the 30th if we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm kind of wanting -- there's going to be -- there are a couple gentlemen here who want to hear this today, and I know there's going to be more coming in as this heats up. MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I want to understand the schedule. So we're going to just kind of dive into it today, throw some ideas on the table, kind of talk about it, get familiar with it, and you've got this particular one for golf courses scheduled to come back on January 5th? MS. CILEK: Fifth, correct, and the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 19th. And, theoretically, if we've got everything worked out on the 5th, a final draft will be presented on the 19th? MS. CILEK: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we haven't, we can still hear it again on the 19th and finalize it on the 30th. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the general time frame for the two gentlemen in the audience and anybody who may be watching. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So okay. And let's move into the golf course one at your discretion. MS. CILEK: Okay, great. So I will be going through a big-picture level of the amendment. All right. So to start off, I'd like to discuss a little bit of the board direction that we received earlier this year. In April the Board discussed and asked staff to pursue an amendment specifically to address golf course conversions. In addition, they also asked us to amend LDC Section 2.03.09. This is the one that requires the night hearing, and so we'll be back in January to review that with you-all. We are currently under a golf course moratorium. The moratorium extends to April 11th of next year, which means we are on a bit of a fast track, and so we have about four months from today to put together the best materials we can for the Board to take a look at. I'd like to go over a range -- excuse me. I'd like to go over the issues that the Board discussed to provide a context for the amendment. What we did was try to incorporate as many of their concerns as possible, and those are before you today. So one of the concerns that the Board brought up was that GMP supports preserving open space and that the loss of open space would negatively impact the community. Another one was that surrounding property owners had an expectation when they purchased their home of a golf course view. Another one was that they experienced higher taxes compared to a home without a golf course view and that there, therefore, is a concern about a reduction of property value for these homes. In addition, they wanted to ensure that the neighborhood was involved in the process for the property owner of the golf course to demonstrate that they were no longer economically viable as a golf course and as well to identify any legal encumbrances on the golf course before the project got rolling. All right. So over the summer staff did a lot of research on golf course conversions across the nation and in the state of Florida, and what we found is that golf courses are converting, particularly there have been a lot on the east coast of Florida. After reviewing case studies of golf course conversions, two things stood out. The first was that December 15, 2016 Page 24 of 41 obtaining input from stakeholders and the residents surrounding the golf course was really important to building consensus about what the development should look like. When -- in case studies where the stakeholders were not involved, it led to a much lengthier time period for that development to get approved. Sometimes they became very contentious and sometimes litigious, and that is really not in the best interest of the stakeholders or the developer. So by including the surrounding residents, it recognizes that the golf course is a community asset; that it provides green space, which has value to the neighborhood, and open space view for people to look out on from their backyards, as well as a place for community members to recreate. Further, we are seeing that developers are actually starting to reach out before they submit applications to the municipality to get early buy-in. And, ultimately, we found that successful golf course conversion happened when stakeholders and the developer realize that collaboration results in the best outcome for all parties. So I'm going to talk about the two main concepts here: Stakeholder engagement and the open space view. Based on the research, we have come up with a new concept called a stakeholder outreach meeting. And as you can see from the photos, these are intended to be a collaborative process with lots of engagement between the two parties. The applicant would be required to do something like a charrette or a survey or a poll to gauge what the stakeholders are looking for in their neighborhood and where they could find compromise. This is different than a neighborhood information meeting in the sense that we feel this is -- a conversion project rises to a greater level of impact to the surrounding property owners. And similar to a NIM, though, we would require an audio of the meeting as well as photos to demonstrate what took place at the meeting, and a county staff member would be present at the meeting as well. Next, I'd like to go over one of the development standards that we're proposing. There are several in the amendment, but I wanted to highlight this one, which is titled "The Greenway." So this would apply to all of the conversion projects, and we are defining the greenway as a continuous strip of undeveloped land consisting of passive recreational uses such as a golf course, a walking or multi-use path that would border the residential properties that surround the property. The purpose of the greenway is primarily to provide an open space view for those existing residents. And one of the requirements in the greenway is to retain the existing preserve areas identified already on the golf course as well as to retain the backyard vegetation that many people are looking on from their backdoor. Staff wanted to see what the current greenway requirement looks like when imposed upon several golf courses across the county. So in your packet there were a handful of golf courses where we applied the greenway buffer distance of a hundred feet, and all of the ones in your packet are zoned GC. And as you can see here, development would be more feasible than in a situation like this, and so we have introduced an alternative design for the greenway that's a little bit different than the standard perimeter buffer around the residence. And as such, here the applicant can propose a design that would meet many of the requirements but may not be located specifically around the border of the golf course and those existing residents and still meet the idea, and that would be approved through vetting and support by the stakeholders and then final approval by the Board. All right. The next slide I wanted to talk to you about is the big-picture framework what we're proposing. As you can see in the green arrow, this is a process that would happen before the traditional approval process of a rezone or a PUD amendment or an SRA amendment. And I'm going to walk you briefly through the steps of the overall golf course conversion. The applicant would meet with staff with a -- to do a pre-application meeting before they submitted a new application called an intent to convert, and the intent to convert would provide a mail notice, or with the intent-to-convert application, there would be a mailed notice to the surrounding residents, those stakeholders, to let them know the intentions of the developer. The intent-to-convert application includes through things -- at a high level it includes three things. The first would be no conversion. So here we're asking the developer to take a look at the golf course and December 15, 2016 Page 25 of 41 identify if there's any other feasible options rather than conversion. The second would be an option of county purchase. So that doesn't mean that it would be feasible or even appropriate for the county to purchase any specific golf course but rather that it would be a consideration. Just want to make that pretty clear. The next would be the conceptual development plan. So here the applicant would put on paper what they're thinking they would like to move forward with and vet with the stakeholders and take through the approval process. From there, they would conduct their stakeholder outreach meetings where they would meet with the residents that surround the golf course, and then from that, they would produce a stakeholder outreach meeting report, and that report would identify all the input that they gathered through their engagement process, and that report would travel on to the approval process whether it be through the traditional land use petition approval process or a new compatibility review process that we have identified in the amendment. And with that, I am happy to walk through the amendment with you, answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start moving through the language. And we normally go through a few pages at a time, and then we'll ask questions. You've got a long narrative introduction, and that will -- I mean, in the document, I think it starts on Page 18 and it goes on to -- before we get into the actual language -- and some of it's what you already showed. It goes all the way through to Page 27. So is there any part of the narrative that you need to speak more on, or do we have questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Thank you, Mark. On the presentation I just have some questions in general, the general statements. Now, you mentioned taxes paid. Is that somewhat intuitive, or did you actually go out and evaluate properties bordering various golf courses in the county to validate that statement? MS. CILEK: Well, what -- the comment of taxes paid was brought up by one of the board members. And, Mike, if you want to chime in. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning and Planning Director. When they discussed the issue and decided for the moratorium, they mentioned that they felt that the tax paid over the years were increased because of the presence of that golf course, and because of that increased taxes, that there was more of a vesting that was provided to those properties that bordered the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I understand the principle, but I'm asking, did you validate that by reviewing any of the tax data to validate that, in fact, the houses bordering golf courses did, in fact, typically pay more? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You didn't, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it backs up to the premises that -- since I did work on some golf course communities, in fact, one that Mr. Schmitt's familiar with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we sold homes on the golf course, we attached a premium to that amenitized element. And then a premium became a higher value, then, for that house when the tax assessor recorded it. So they automatically paid more money versus a home that was not on the golf course. That's what I think the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that. I just was wondering if you looked at some of the golf courses, because -- and I went and looked online to try and understand the study that you did. But the motivating factors for golf courses converting, frankly, are two: One is, of course, it's not longer profitable, but the main reason golf courses in most cases no longer become profitable is because they're simply outdated. These are golf courses that were probably designed in the '30s or '40s and certainly are not considered at the caliber of a golf course design for today's equipment. I know. A play a lot of golf. So I guess with that, I didn't know if you looked at two golf courses in particular that have been identified as converting. Have you looked at those properties bordering those golf courses, not the golf courses in the PUD, but golf courses or homes bordering some of the golf courses? And I think that would be valuable just to see a sampling if, in fact, that premise is valid on the two golf courses I know that were in the December 15, 2016 Page 26 of 41 county that are being looked at. But second thing is -- and just as a general statement, did you evaluate the various ownerships of the golf courses? Some golf courses are bundled communities so everybody in the community, some are member owned, some are developer owned, some of them are private owned that are built as private golf courses that are built -- the communities that built around, and this is a general, broad amendment to cover all aspects of all ownership? MS. CILEK: That's a great observation. So we know that we have 69 golf courses in Collier County, and they are all different types of membership, and there's not -- we wanted to make a process that would really apply to all of them should they seek to convert. And so if they are, indeed, a membership that you have identified, that would -- basically, they would be more likely to convert than others depending on the type of membership, and we recognize that aspect. So when Mike presented to the Board earlier this year, it was recognized that those that are zoned GC would be the most likely to convert, and I think staff feels that those that are -- have really complex membership identities would be less likely to convert. But if they did, the stakeholder engagement process would likely be very easy to go through. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because, I mean -- rule of thumb, typically a golf course is 90 to 120 acres, maybe some even more. Ninety is small, tight; 120, 130 acres, typically, for an 18-hole course, and that can run anywhere from 1.5 to somewhere over $2 million a year just to maintain. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I just -- I don't know if those are the kind of facts and figures you guys looked at when you did this analysis. I didn't see any of that in the report that was provided. MS. CILEK: Well, we did definitely take a look at the fact that they're different memberships, absolutely. One of my staff members is an avid golf buff and so, you know, he's very familiar with the types of golf memberships out there and the different sizes of golf courses. But we basically needed to prepare an amendment that would cover all different possibilities. We realize that there's, you know, no silver bullet that's going to address any, you know, particular conversion project, especially if there's a membership issue involved in that. But we felt like this would allow for whoever is a member and maybe even owns part of the golf course to be involved, and that was our main objective here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question, general in nature. You talked about the buffer. What I -- we may get into it in the language, but I really don't understand if after the conversion -- or after the conversion, who's responsible for that buffer, who maintains the buffer? Is it some sort of funds in perpetuity? I didn't understand or know what was planned in regards to -- for that piece of the management. Because as you well know, I mean, you looked at this, the houses bordering the golf course have no right to that golf course unless they're a member or they pay to play. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have no right to recreate on that course. I mean, it's -- so I did not understand how, then, we can say, okay, if you're going to convert, then you create a green space. What entity is responsible for managing that green space? MS. CILEK: Well, I think it's important to recognize that the greenway is, at basic level, a compatibility measure and that for so long these homes have been looking onto green space, and we wanted to preserve that view for them, and we recognize with 69 different golf courses out there that the way that they would convert and manage that green space may be different each time, and that would be figured out through the process and it, ultimately, couldn't get approved until it was fleshed out in more detail. But that could happen either at this stage or even through the land use petition stage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just what you said now answered my question, I think. But when we get into the language, we may have to look at trying to clarify that and state that. MS. CILEK: Be happy to hear, yeah, what we have to add. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'd like to say I think this is really well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, Karen wanted to go first. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's okay. December 15, 2016 Page 27 of 41 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just think it was well done, and you did a terrific job, both of you. MS. CILEK: Team work. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm very agreeable to everything that I see here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As long as we recognize what Caroline just said, that there's 69 different courses. You've got 9's, 18's, 27's, 36's, and each one may be different. MS. CILEK: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So, you know, great job, but I think you're going to be -- I think you're just going to look at every one differently. MS. CILEK: Yep, we recognize that, and I think that's a good thing. They all have different residents that live around them; they all are designed differently. We want to create a process that would allow for that difference to happen and to go through the process and everyone can partake. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For the record, I have never had the urge to pick up a golf club, ever, ever. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I second that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I warn you, don't do it. It's addictive. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I made it this far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language is a good start, but as we'll go through in the next couple of hours, there's a lot of cleanup, and I'm going to be asking a lot of issues that need to be further addressed before we can decide on it. MS. CILEK: Sure; absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to bring everybody up to date as to what's going on with golf courses in the county right now, because there are four of them now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four of them under conversion consideration. The first one is the Golden Gate golf course out on Golden Gate Parkway and 951. They had come in with a plan to produce 6- or 700 units there. The neighborhood got together, hired an attorney. There's now some issue going on with some old deed restrictions, so that's kind of on hold. The plan that they produced was certainly not consistent with what we're going to be talking about today. The second one was the Evergreen Golf on Davis -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evergreen Golf Course on Davis and Lakewood. It's a small golf course that I believe is nonoperational. They came in with a plan almost a year ago to put 80 or 85 units there. There were a myriad of issues that the plan couldn't function with. Nothing's come back in since then, but that has got new ownership, and the intent is to try to do something with it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can I say something here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is where -- I think this is -- the charrettes and getting a whole community within a thousand feet is -- must be done because this person, particularly, that owned that golf course came to an annual meeting where we invited all the community, and he stood there and said he's keeping a 9-hole golf course and building some units, about 30. And then all of a sudden he works with somebody in another -- in part of the community and comes up with 86 or 87 or whatever it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that's -- and no one knows, just a few people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the third golf course that has been questioned is the Lakewood golf course itself. And the questions were about converting it. It was not a total conversion, but maybe perimeter properties or sections of it, and that one hasn't followed up only because the moratorium, I believe, was put in place, and it's kind of stagnant right now. And then just recently -- and these two gentlemen are here from Riviera. Riviera golf course has received a letter from the owner of that golf course that they intend to sell, and they're going to try to market it to various people; the first one was the county. So that's sitting currently in that position. December 15, 2016 Page 28 of 41 So there's four of them, and they're under different stages. I guess they're all on hold, basically, until this moratorium issue gets resolved and this language gets resolved, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Caroline, the county owns no golf courses at this time, is that true, or do they own a public golf course? Just checking. MR. BOSI: I'm not -- Mike Bosi. I'm not aware of any municipal ownership of a golf course within the county's inventory. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I had kind of heard that about the Golden Gate. You know, actually, you know, when you read in the opinion page, why doesn't the county so other people can use a golf course. I mean, that's why I ask. So at this point the county owns none? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And a couple other points I'd like to make in general. First is Joe's starting comments about the value of the homes on the golf course and taxation. It kind of dovetails on one of the issues I didn't see in here, and I think it would help support the county's position in instituting whatever language we end up doing, and that is a bonified appraisal between before and after condition. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What a golf course home sold for now with a nice golf course on it, and then if it was instituted with this language that we're proposing, what the result in value of that home would be, because if the home is worth, say, 500,000 now and we put a 50-foot greenway, and it's only worth 250,000, that's different than if we put a hundred-foot greenway and we then retain the value of closer to 500,000. It helps preserve our tax base, and it protects the person whose home's bought. But it would be an example of why these standards could be important and how they could be utilized. It's something that I would hope staff could explore. MR. BOSI: I'm just trying to think how we can -- that's a subjective evaluation. I guess we can talk with our real property folks to see what their experiences are with actual golf courses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subjective? Everybody that's an expert that comes before us is giving subjective evaluations. And we hire appraisers all the time, plus we hire people to do traffic studies, and that's almost as subjective as everything else I've seen. So I would suggest we at least make the attempt if it can be -- and we have plenty of appraisers that are on county standard purchase orders that we could have -- just take two examples. MS. CILEK: I will definitely look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's something to look at, though. MS. CILEK: Given our time frame, I think that might be one of the limitations here, but we will go back and we will do the best we can to accommodate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing is case law for the state of Florida. One of the things that I would expect if I was a homeowner in a golf course who is having this happen, what my chances are of winning if I fight this, and that's something we also need to assess in this conversion process. Do we really have to do these conversions, or can we say no? And if the standard in the state is that there's -- it's not going to win, you're -- basically, you're kind of stuck, you've got to deal with it because you can't force someone to operate something at a loss and force them to pay for it, then we need to understand how that's worked through the courts if it has. Has anybody done a case-law study or has anybody asked the County Attorney's Office to do that for the state of Florida? Because I know there are cases in other states. I've read them. But I'm not sure -- MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how many recent ones are in the state of Florida that would shed light on that. MS. CILEK: We have one case study that we looked at pretty closely over on the east coast, and in that situation it took many years for the Board to approve the development, and then in that situation it got very litigious between the homeowners association and that approval. And at the end, there's still no development today but there are development rights following the Court's decision, and it's going through some selling because it was so contentious. So one of the goals here is to kind of remove that possibility and try to build consensus before it gets there. And it's going to hold the stakeholders and the applicant accountable for being reasonable so that December 15, 2016 Page 29 of 41 something can happen in the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, if we institute language for a conversion, it's almost, then, acknowledging that they have a right, then, to convert. I would like to make sure that they don't have that right if it's not already been decreed to be a right by the courts. And I know each case is different, but I'd sure like to know if there's a chance to say no, but to me that's perplexing. I'm not sure how that could apply. But if it's been tested, I'd like to see it. And I'm just asking; if we've got that data available, it would be nice to read. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, on that same thought pattern or thought track, if they don't have the right to convert, what right do the homeowners have? I mean, you can't tell them to continue to operate at a loss, so they're just going to pick up their toys and leave. Then, of course, then the grass grows to three foot high. And I just don't know what -- then we get into code cases and legality and forcing them to maintain the property. I just don't know if they're -- it would be nice to see what kind of past record there has been in Florida, if there's been any issues in regards to those kind of attempts or just picking up -- the owner just leaving. I mean, I know of one golf course in northern Collier. It was Twin Eagles but that, of course, went under, the second course. And then when the new developer went in, they redid the course, the course in the back. But during the bankruptcy years, they just walked and left that course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last I think any of us on this board and especially our elected officials would want to see is to have to go out to the public and say, hey, we've got a conversion study now, and then for the public to find out that somehow we could have said no instead of for a conversion. So I think that's a piece that we just need to clean up and do the research, and I'm sure you -- I saw Rich nodding his head yes; you probably have done some of it already. Just give us the benefit of some of that, if you could. MS. CILEK: We can pull some information together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you're right, Mark, a lot of these golf -- each one is different. I live in Olde Cypress. It was brought up to us back when everything went down, 2006/2007, and it was very contentious. At the time the homeowners wanted to purchase it, and they wanted more money. He ended up keeping it. It is now thriving. You cannot get on the golf course. You know, so each one's different. And, actually, right now Quail Creek just turned it over to the golf members, so now it's the golf members that pay for everything. If it would be a greenway type of deal, which, you know, we always say about the preserves, you can do this, you can do that, the trails and everything, because people are running, biking, walking, we actually -- we're in an Audubon one. So they would like to get out there. And, Joe, you're right, if you do not belong to the golf course, you cannot go out on those trails. I mean, that's -- so it would -- to me, if it were to be a greenway, then it would have to be turned over to the master association and everyone would pay for this. So there are several ways. And you're right, I would prefer that it would be something more along those lines, and so the bikers can get out there and more people can use the property that way. But we've got a long way to go before that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move into the narration that was provided by staff, it completes on Line -- Page 27. Page 27 begins the actual LDC language. If you all are comfortable, we can start questions from Page 27 and 28. Does that, Caroline, work for you, too? MS. CILEK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's take 27 and 28. Any questions on those two pages? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have the same pages as we do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. I keep having different pages than everybody else. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because ours is on 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Yours is printed. Mine's -- December 15, 2016 Page 30 of 41 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Twenty-eight. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ours starts on 28, so you're one -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just add one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we go to 28 and 29, how does that sound? Let's do a couple pages. You're right, I did add one. Anybody have any questions on those first two pages? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2B, Subparagraph I, and we talk about the financial state. In what other zoning application do we, as government, ask for the financial state of an applicant? I know of none that I can recall. I just don't know -- and I turn to the County Attorney. Do we have a right as government to ask for the financial state? Is that validated by whom? I just don't understand how we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Based on my conversations with Caroline, my understanding is that that was something the Board wanted to be included, and I think that there's not much detail as to what they would have to provide. It could be a very simple statement that this is no longer, you know, lucrative. You know, it's not real clear on what is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, dovetailing with Joe's comment, we get market studies on certain elements of the GMP and LDC. Does anybody really think, when those market studies are produced, they're not produced to come out to the way that the applicant wants them to? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what do you think this is going to do? If a guy wants to sell a golf course, he's going to come back and say, gee, when you pay my salary of $2 million a year, there's not enough money left to fund a golf course. So one way or another, they're going to get there, and they're going to come back with a statement that becomes absolutely worthless and a waste of time. And the other side of it is, there's really nobody within -- there's no economist employed at staff who could really review that and argue for or against it. So I'm not thinking it's a logical thing to use because it gets you -- it's too ambiguous, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wouldn't a banker require that, if a developer's coming in to do this? I mean, they would need a -- if they're going to finance it, they need a banker to finance this, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you that when you produce financial -- documents like that, pro formas for a project, you produce them yourself. You can say a lot of things. Ave Maria came in and said they're going to have 5,000 units sold after the first five years; that's why they wanted to have a rereview after five years or something like that. They didn't have 5,000 units sold, but that's what they said, and that's okay. That's what you anticipate. That's what you try to achieve. So the same kind of thing, though, Diane, is not useful for anybody to make a decision on because it's just arbitrary. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As presently written, they have to provide this study, but the study isn't really considered anywhere in the amendment except for to check off that they did it. So, you know, it's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I think, too, somebody could buy a golf course that's working and let it go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- just because they wanted to develop it. So I think that was what the purpose -- their intention was by wanting this information. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's easy just to -- believe me, the members would know if it's no longer profitable because all that cost is going to be passed off to the members, and dues go up. But, again, we're talking, who owns the course, how is it operated, all those other things. But I agree with what Mark said. It's -- I could -- you want a financial statement, I'll give you a financial statement exactly to defend the position. Maybe that would be of some interest during the charrette or during the initial offering. But, again, I -- to come to the county with that -- December 15, 2016 Page 31 of 41 MS. CILEK: So if I may add a little bit -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- unless it's audited and validated by a CPA or somebody that's -- or an appraiser, I just think it's useless. MS. CILEK: Just a couple of pieces of information. First, we were trying to implement the Board's direction here. That was actually one of their explicit ideas, but I recognize that if the Planning Commission sees that it wouldn't be beneficial to the program, then we can think of something else. One of the ideas behind the no-conversion concept was that when you're looking at change, you look at no change as one of the options. It might not be where you go, but you often look at that as a concept. Third, we wanted to be able to share something with the stakeholders that would relate to them, hey, this isn't working out for the developer anymore for whatever reason, and partly one may be being financial. Perhaps there is another way to get to the no-conversion concept. Commissioner Ebert brought up that in prior years the HOA had been looking to purchase the golf course. Maybe that's an option here where it wouldn't convert, per se, from -- to something like a development but would stay as open space. I would appreciate keeping something regarding a no-conversion idea, but it could look differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that. I just think if we require them to produce a financial statement, it's going to be made as instructed, and so what good is it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Simply going to be annual revenue, annual cost, profit or loss. MS. CILEK: Well, I appreciate you providing information if it comes up later. Thank you. So would we be interested in looking at no conversion, and that would be associated with the HOA or, you know, the master association? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, it's -- each one is so different in the PUDs, because then you have -- I know in ours, if we do anything large, 86 percent of the homeowners have to agree. If this -- if it weren't just the golfers buying it out, I mean, if it went to a greenway or something, you need a certain percentage. So, you're right, each one is kind of individual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the no-conversion one ought to be relooked at and maybe figure out a way to still allow a no-conversion process but maybe not one that relies on a study and financial state that requires them to produce something that is going to give us what they want to say anyway. I mean, there's probably other ways to look at it. For example, if we didn't convert, we'd have to upgrade the course, we'd have to do this to get additional membership, the membership fees would have to go up, and all these other things, and that may be the reason why it's not financially feasible, but it would be different than a study in a potential financial state of the course. That, I think, is too easily construed. MS. CILEK: Okay. We'll take a look at it and bring something back on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on the first two pages. So does anybody have anything else on those? I go all the way back to the very first 2.03.06, conversion of golf courses. Golf courses within a PUD shall adhere to the process established in the LDC. I would like to suggest we need to qualify what form of golf courses in a PUD. Have they started development? Have they got sales around them to any outside parties or anything like that? So maybe massage that language a little bit so that we're -- if a developer owns a PUD and he comes in, he hasn't done anything yet, he doesn't have to go through this process just to get the PUD redone. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if he sold some of it and people relied on it, that's a whole different story. MS. CILEK: Understood. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Item C on the bottom of that page, C1A, it's the administrative code shall establish the procedure and application submittal requirements including: A title opinion or ownership encumbrance report -- and this is the part that bothers me -- establishing there are no encumbrances on the property to prevent the land from being developed as proposed. Well, that's a legal opinion that's currently being fought on one course through the courts, and I don't know if the County Attorney's Office wants to get into issuing -- establishing those kind of conclusions based on a title opinion or ownership encumbrance. I would suggest, just ask for the title opinion and ownership encumbrance so that the people December 15, 2016 Page 32 of 41 surrounding the course can see it. And if they want to utilize that in their private methodology, that might be one thing. But for the county to establish that there are no encumbrances on the property that prevent the land from being developed as proposed may go further than I think the county may want to go, unless County Attorney's Office wants to get into doing that in every one of these courses. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not sure if I'm following your concern, because the title, you know, opinion's going to identify the owners and all the encumbrances and exceptions and so forth. So I'm not real sure which part you have a problem with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a problem with that statement that says, after that title opinion's issued -- you're right, it will define and will lay all that out, then someone has to establish that because of that information that the land can be prevented from being developed as proposed. Did you -- does the County Attorney's Office want to get into that kind of decision on interpreting those encumbrances? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't think it would be us that's interpreting it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who would do it then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- there's probably some extraneous language in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the piece I've got -- I'm concerned about is where that was going to go. If it's not to the county and you want to ask somebody else for that legal opinion, I guess you'll get that the same way you'd get the no-conversion scenario, too, because every attorney's going to say what their -- you know, you're going to have a different opinion from every attorney. That's why we have the courts. MS. CILEK: Well, I can work with Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I think what he's -- I get what you're saying now. You're saying that the title opinion is going to say that there are no encumbrances on the property, and I think what you're asking for is that they produce, like, a title commitment. That's why the other option, I don't know, was -- you were -- I think you're talking more about a title commitment that identifies who's the owner, the exceptions, and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better. MS. CILEK: At the end of the day, we just want awareness if there are any encumbrances on the land that would prevent any type of project to move forward. That's what we're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just was afraid to see -- the conclusion is what was worrying me, whose got to draw the conclusion. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I think it should just be, you know, clarified that it's an attorney's, you know, title opinion on ownership and encumbrances or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- a title commitment from a title company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave it at that. MS. CILEK: Yeah. I'll work with Heidi to craft the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the section Joe had brought up, the no-conversion section, you know, we've got no conversion, we've got county purchase, and we've got conceptual development plan. What about the purchase by -- the offer to the HOAs, the surrounding neighborhood? Could that be added in as a possible element? MS. CILEK: Yes, and perhaps we can shape it with the no-conversion option if that's what they seek to do; otherwise, if they wanted to develop it, they would go through the conceptual development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, for example, the Riviera golf course, if they wanted to offer it and give some time for the HOA to consider purchase, like the county would, that might be a good thing, and it might be actually something that could be done. MS. CILEK: And I think that will work well together, so we'll craft that language for your review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the only comments I had on the first two pages. The next two pages, which I believe are 30 and 31, I hope -- MS. CILEK: They are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. December 15, 2016 Page 33 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3B, I just wanted to make sure I -- is this something that's easily done? A web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual plan. And I know I asked you that, and kind of wanted to have you explain it so everybody knew what it was. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that like a fly-through thing where they visually take a drone and fly through the course, or how did you see that coming about? MS. CILEK: That would be fascinating, but we had more in line something that would be like a survey monkey, survey that would go out to individuals, and it would have pictures, so visuals of what the developer is proposing to do on the project. And we're actually pulling together an example for you so that people can see what we're thinking, and we'll have that for you on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. MS. CILEK: It's really easy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only comment on that, it's a survey that's web based. In order to be statistically accurate, you would have to control -- have some kind of control measure that only one time per applicant so the thing can't be flooded by -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- various processes that would basically render useless the survey itself. I mean -- MS. CILEK: Yeah. And we can provide guidance that people need to, like, identify their street name or something like that, if that would help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. D, you already clarified one of the -- I thought the audio part was missing from there, but you indicated in your presentation that was going to be part of it. MS. CILEK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're on Page 31. And I'll keep going till anybody interrupts me. B and C or somewhere, you keep saying "shall be improved." Instead of saying "shall be improved," why don't you just say deviations are -- these are prohibited? Prohibitions are a little easier to overcome than things that shall not be approved. So no deviations, the LDC shall be approved. I would suggest just say no deviations -- deviations are prohibited, so... MS. CILEK: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: D3, the third line -- second line, it says, stakeholders, to the greatest extent feasible. Do we need to have language in there? Can that be dropped? MS. CILEK: To be honest, that language was part of our early draft, and we had input from stakeholders, actually, to put the word "reasonable" in. And I think that catches what we're really talking about here. We're looking for reasonable input to be incorporated. Whether it's to the greatest extent possible or not is kind of irrelevant at this point. I think "reasonable" catches what we were thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 4 actually uses the word "reasonable," so 3 should mirror that. I think you'd be better off. MS. CILEK: Yeah, and so does 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On F3, the Hearing Examiner -- actually, the Hearing Examiner only hears things that are final. If it's to go to the Board, it's supposed to be the Planning Commission, so we need to make that to the Planning Commission. MS. CILEK: Okay. I can make that change. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So remove that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then that's all I've got through 31. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 32. Has anybody got any questions on 32? December 15, 2016 Page 34 of 41 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top on G1, just out of curiosity, Caroline, G1 says, previously approved open space, golf course acreages identified to meet minimum open space requirements for previously approved project shall be retained as open space. A lot of times they're just identified as recreational space. By identifying them as open space, I'm not sure they're done that way. I mean, it might be identified as a use that would be considered open space, but I'm not sure they're identified as open space. MS. CILEK: Sure. And I may need to tweak this language to make it a little bit more clear. But our goal here is to make sure that any acreages of the golf course that were identified to meet, perhaps -- the 60 percent open-space requirement for residential project are not still being used so that when the developer goes in, none of that land is being attributed to any open-space requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what they'd have to do is show that they have the open space that they need made up on other parcels that don't include that existing golf course? MS. CILEK: Exactly. And they could do an amendment to their plat, their SDP. If it's in the PUD, perhaps through this process. So there are ways to work around it, but we just don't want any overlapping requirements. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But there's something about that wording that's just bad, because they never identify the 60 percent minimum open space. They say we need 60 percent. We have 80 percent. We have 61 percent. We have 62 percent. But you never see a drawing that shows this is the 60 percent minimum, and this is above and beyond that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the piece -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- that's the wording that needs to change. MS. CILEK: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2A, use the word "adjacent," and I -- adjacent and abutting used to be the same definition in our code, and then it changed, and we got two definitions; one for adjacent, one for abutting, and, of course, they mean something different. And each one has little ways to sneak around it. We've learned you're abutting unless you put a 1-foot cheater strip. You're adjacent if you're on a roadway, but then there's all kinds of things that may not apply. I'm a little worried about the way that's worded, because if it's adjacent and they want to put their perimeter road in the back -- along the backyard property lines before the greenway starts -- MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the only piece. So could you take a look at that? MS. CILEK: Absolutely. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2C, the owner may not charge a fee for the use of the greenway, and that goes back to, I think Diane and Joe both talked about, that these are private now. So what are we -- what are we insinuating by that? MS. CILEK: Well, one of our early concepts was that this would be available to people around the golf course. You know, through the process, we've kind of identified that it would -- that that space is private golf course, and people do pay a fee currently. So perhaps this language isn't necessary anymore. We would hope that if there is a residential development to go on the golf course, that that would be available to those residents at the least, and I'll let Mike add something, too. MR. BOSI: Well, I've heard from the Planning Commission was the recognition that that has to be addressed within the redevelopment process where predetermining the ownership and who will pay for it, I think, is premature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I agree with you. MR. BOSI: And I think what I can say is the maintenance of the greenway shall be established during the code enforcement and rezoning process, something to that extent that says that that has to be addressed, but we're not going to predetermine what that is based upon the variety of the situations that may happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maintenance and use and how greenway's to be used. December 15, 2016 Page 35 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike is going to need to identify, during the actual proposal process, the maintenance and use, whether it's going to be publicly accessible, whether it will be bike lanes, will it be -- whatever. But I think that has to be identified because that will then dictate who's going to be responsible for managing it, maintain it, whatever, from a -- whether it's the homeowners association or some other entity. That should be part of the conversion process. MS. CILEK: Understood. We'll work with that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will take us to Page 33. Does anybody have anything on 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way to the bottom of 33, Caroline, we have lighting. The discussion of Dark Sky's has come up quite a bit at the Board level when Commissioner Nance was here, and I know the last meeting he brought it up. Is there any way we can weave a Dark Sky's initiative into the lighting requirement? MS. CILEK: Well, a couple things to keep in mind is that from Commissioner Nance's work with the county, they are -- we are looking at amendments that would actually take into account different aspect of Dark Sky's. We're going to be looking at that in the next of couple years, which is great. Here what we tried to do is pull out the biggest concept of Dark Sky's, which is reducing light pollution. And so this at least covers that aspect. We'd be happy to look at Dark Sky's and see if there's other concepts out there, but it's a very big book, Dark Sky's is, and it changes over time. So we just wanted to get to that idea, but we were not sure about putting that specific term in the LDC at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're going to potentially add some terms in the future, could we reference, in Paragraph 1, that there may, that somehow this is applicable to this process? MS. CILEK: And I believe it would be like, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this doesn't reference any other section, so I'm just wondering, would they rely on this section, then? And if they did and it wasn't sufficient and we change another section, do we need to make that clear? MS. CILEK: I can make it clear, perhaps some reference to something. But in the future if we do adopt language regarding Dark Sky's concepts, then that would be -- they would be held accountable to that when they convert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we'd make that applicable, the GCO section. MS. CILEK: Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. Number 2, now the greenways have an average of a hundred, they go down to 75 or some mythology like that. How does No. 2 fit in with that? MS. CILEK: Sure. That's a great question. So we wanted to have a safeguard setback for any conversion project, and this is applied in a couple different ways. First is for a conversion project where an alternative design to the greenway is approved by the Board, there would be still a minimum 50-foot setback. So, for example, if the stakeholders support it and agree and the Board approved a large -- larger area for greenway, let's say 300 feet wide on one side, then the remaining sides of that development would still need to be 50 feet, a minimum average of 50 feet. So it's a safeguard here. And then this section also applies to anytime a golf course zoning district redevelops. So if that golf course zoning district redevelops and uses a conditional use, these would also apply, these setbacks and lighting standards, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a -- again, a question, general question, because I'm trying to understand the legality of this. In some cases, golf courses are an integral part of the PUD, and some cases the golf course is a stand-alone -- MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- maybe houses on the perimeter, and in some cases communities came in and built around the golf course. I live in Fiddler's Creek. There was a golf course that existed there, and the PUD basically surrounded the golf course that had been there for years and years. And then they -- of December 15, 2016 Page 36 of 41 course, there's a second course there, but any one of those cases regardless of conversion, they're going to go through this process, is what you're saying. Whether the golf course was there first or the golf course was developed later, it does not matter. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Under the old chicken and egg theory here, it just doesn't matter. They want to convert. They have to go through -- anybody has to go through this process. So it's one size fits all. Hopefully you're going to take a ball-peen hammer and try and pound a square peg in a round hole or vice versa, I guess. MS. CILEK: Well, hopefully the stakeholder engagement process will be flexible enough to deal with all of those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. CILEK: But, yes, this would apply to any conversion project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I think it's a great idea. I just want to make sure that, from the legal perspective -- and I think the County Attorney's -- that's one where the county's going to have to indemnify itself somehow so they don't get wrapped up in a lawsuit by preventing somebody from doing something with their property that they own. They inherently have property rights. MS. CILEK: Absolutely. And part of this is designed to help that process go smoother so that when it hits the land use petition phase, the details -- like, kind of the nitty gritty has been worked out, and the stakeholders are engaged already, and, hopefully, some consensus has been built on that project. And keep in mind, the vast majority of the stakeholder outreach is about providing reasonable input. And at the end the applicant can say, hey, he worked really well together or it didn't work out, you know, but we tried our best. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other thing -- and I'm looking at, on Paragraph 4 you talk about stormwater. I guess that's F4. But almost all golf courses have stormwater management that was approved through the ERP process, so going through the state water management, either part of it or they're integral to the entire community, and in the same regard there's federal permitting. So they still have to comply with all the state and federal permitting requirements. Whether it's waters of the U.S., they would have to comply with the Section 4.04 of the Clean Water Act and, likewise, the same with the ERP requirements. And we ought to state that somewhere in here that this does not in any way alleviate the responsibilities; that the development plan would have to go through the rest of the permitting process, because that is going to have a significant impact in any type of development that is proposed if, in fact, the golf course is abandoned. MS. CILEK: Yeah. And keep in mind that the development standards are more or less supplemental to any of the other LDC requirements, and so LDC/stormwater requirements would be -- they'd be held accountable for those, and then, obviously, they would be held accountable to the South Florida Water Management District. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Caroline, are there that many that are just plain abandoned? MS. CILEK: That's a good question. I don't have that number off the top of my head. I think also the term "abandoned" may need to be a little bit defined there, but we can provide that information at the next meeting if you'd like. And Mark might know as well. Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of them; Evergreen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I do remember one. I do remember -- I think there was one in Cape Coral, but I don't know -- and especially in Naples, I don't know of very many that just say, okay, forget it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if you -- if she's asking you to look them up, I don't think you mean to go outside Collier County. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only one I know of was -- like I said, was the one in -- I just December 15, 2016 Page 37 of 41 said it, Twin Eagles. That was the back golf -- that was a new golf course. The development hadn't yet taken place back there, but that was through the bust and, of course, they went back in, and somebody ended up -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- having to refurbish the entire golf course and took it over, but... COMMISSIONER EBERT: And now when they sell out, the homeowners, the 750 will have to pay for both golf courses? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, a developer has the full -- typically has to plan to eventually, when they're done, it becomes an equity membership, and they turn over to the members, and then legally they're the owners, but I -- so they're involved in any type of conversion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Here's what's going on. A lot of them are going from equity to non-equity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right, to non-equity, right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that makes a difference, too. I do not play golf, but I do know ours was originally -- was Hardy. It was part of the PUD and it still is, but at the very last moment they took the golf course out and made that separate. And so, I mean, there's a lot of things. Now it is a different owner, and he could come in and just say, okay, I want to do this, although the golf course is phenomenal, and it's one of the top ones now. But if they ever decide they just plain want to sell it, that really would -- that really would bother me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so. Let's see if our -- if there's any members of the public, and I know the two gentlemen here are from Riviera. If either of you would like to speak, just so note, come on up and use the microphone. You just have to tell us your name. And I was corrected on the previous discussion about when you need to spell your name. The court reporter said can usually figure up to maybe 10 letters now. MR. DANZ: Good morning, Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. DANZ: -- Commissioner. My name is George Danz, president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association. We are an over-55 community consisting of 692 homes, and we surround the Riviera golf course. I just wanted to commend the staff on an excellent job they've done. I think it's a great start and also to indicate that we're going to be following through and looking at that with a fine-tooth comb and come into your meetings to follow with this, because we're concerned with what may or may not happen in our community. So thank you all very much for the time that you spend and that staff has put into this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we do hope it helps with yours. MR. DANZ: Happy Holidays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you, sir. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline? And that is something -- I know there's all kinds of compatibility standards. We don't get into specific compatibility standards. We just create standards. Is there a need to refine any of that to take into consideration other compatibility standards for a case like Riviera where they have 55 and older as a restricted community? Would we be able to do it by the language here to say to be compatible? If the golf course was converted, it needs to be a 55 or older community as well, or is that something that we need to consider at this stage and make sure it's written in? Things like that. MS. CILEK: If I may, first, I think that's a great question, and one of the things that would occur through the stakeholder outreach meetings is that there would be a point/counterpoint product produced which would identify all of the issues that the stakeholders brought up. So if they said, hey, we really feel like the proposed development should be a 55 or older community, then the applicant would have to respond and say, okay, we agree with that or, unfortunately, we can't do that, and this is our reason why, and so that December 15, 2016 Page 38 of 41 way everything is out and transparent for everyone to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of what I thought you were going to say. MS. CILEK: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: And I would agree that the rezone findings and the PUD findings that are contained within any one of those land use petitions that are presented to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners contains a variety of the compatibility consistency with the surrounding land uses, the type of land uses that are -- that do surround these projects that would provide you enough latitude to make those connections in terms of whether you felt what was being proposed was compatible and based upon the past history of land use arrangement. So I think there is enough opportunity within your rezone questions or your PUD rezone questions to provide for that type of analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And, you know, I was thinking of something in particular, because I was looking at the Riviera outline and how that course fits in the midst of their community. I don't know who owns the roads in their community but, you know, a sidebar to this whole thing is, if the golf course wants to develop, to get in and out of that course, they're going to have to go on the communities' roads, and if the communities' are privately owned roads, they may have an opportunity to really hold a big stick on how this happens. Now, that won't occur in, like, Golden Gate, because they're surrounded by public roads. And I don't know if Riviera, for example, are private, but communities out there might want to keep their roads private for that very reason, so they can control it. So it's an opportunity. Anyway, I don't have any other questions on the golf course. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, we're good with that one. MS. CILEK: Super. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm glad we're going to be bringing it back. MS. CILEK: Oh, absolutely. We recognize this is a very lengthy, complex amendment, and we are really happy to be here today to get your feedback to make it better. So we'll put together materials, and we will see you on the 5th of January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's for the golf course. So we'll be coming back with the golf course discussion on January 5th. And so for this meeting, that item's complete, and the only remaining item is the one that Jack McKenna's patiently been waiting for, and that's the one on the stormwater one, the very first one up. Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Good morning, just barely. My name is Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner with the Growth Management Department. And I'm just going to hit some highlights on the amendment to LDC Section 6.05.01 related to stormwater management, touch on some of the history as well. So looking at the current standards in this section, what this section does is it identifies maximum lot coverage and impervious area standards for single-family, two-family, and duplex lots. You can see on the screen the difference between lot coverage and impervious area. One covers just the buildings or structures. The other also includes things like driveways and other impervious surfaces. So I said these maximums apply to single-family, two-family, and duplex homes. That would be in your developments that do not have a master stormwater plan. So this would be places like Naples Park, Pine Ridge, Golden Gate Estates. It would not apply, or it does not apply, to areas with a master stormwater plan like a development in a PUD. So the other thing that this section does is provides or allows for those maximum lot coverage and impervious areas to be exceeded if an engineered stormwater plan is provided with retention from a designed storm, and that's really the crux of this amendment. We've gotten feedback from the community that the thresholds for when those engineered stormwater plans are provided are inequitable, especially to larger lots, so these maximums are determined based on the overall lot size. And we'll see in a moment how that changes as lots get larger. December 15, 2016 Page 39 of 41 But first what we've done in preparation for this amendment was to analyze one year's worth of staff reviews of stormwater plans. The LDC staff also sat down with the site plan reviewers and got a really good sense of how this process currently works, where there are other issues. We mapped the locations of those reviews. I'm not sure how well this comes out on your screens, but you can see the map up there. It demonstrates that these stormwater plan reviews occur throughout the county in a number of different zoning districts. All of these areas have their own concerns and have different issues. So we also looked at standards in other communities, and basically what we found was that in addition to the identified issue of the maximum -- or, sorry, the thresholds for engineered stormwater plans, there are also some other areas for opportunities in these provisions. So here you can see how those thresholds for engineered stormwater plans actually apply to different lot sizes, starting on the left with smaller lots, and then the maximum lot coverage and impervious areas decreased significantly as lots get larger, and you can see above those lines -- a lot with an impervious area above those lines would be required to provide an engineered stormwater plan. So we proposed to do a couple of things in this amendment. First, we're no longer going to be looking at lot coverage. We'll simply be considering the impervious area on a lot. We will also be applying these thresholds differently based on zoning districts rather than on lot size. Again, the applicability in this section will be for new construction or additions to those single-family, two-family, or duplexes. That would be things like adding a new garage or a new room to your home. It would not cover things like a new roof or windows on your home. So what we're going to change is that all lots will be required to provide a stormwater plan. That would be a Type 1 stormwater plan and would be demonstrating the direction of stormwater discharges only. So it's a very simple plan but ensures that there are no stormwater impacts on neighboring properties. These plans could be created by a design professional, a licensed contractor, or an owner/builder. Once a lot exceeds the new thresholds that we've established, an engineered stormwater plan would be required again with the same standards for retention to the five-year, one-day storm event, and these would be provided by a licensed engineer. We'll also use these two different stormwater plans to address code violations. Currently, we don't have a process to address violations when they've been identified, so this will give us a tool to do that. So the last couple of slides that I have will just show how these standards will apply to different zoning districts. So on the screen now you can see in the RMF6 zoning districts, this chart shows the percentage of impervious area of all of the lots within that district from the one year's worth of reviews that we analyzed. So at each segment of that chart, that would be about 25 percent of the reviews occur within that range. So in this case for RMF6 lots, the current and proposed threshold is, for the most part, the same, set at 40 percent. Currently, it's -- there's a small range, but these lots are generally very small, so they'll be, most of the time, right around 40 percent now. Switching over to RSF1 lots, again, you can see the range of impervious area in this district. The current threshold is somewhere around 9 to 12 or 13 percent depending on the lot sizes. Again, there's a range of lot sizes in this zoning district, so there's not one threshold, but we will change that to one threshold, and that would be at 30 percent. So you can see we anticipate that the new threshold will reduce the number of engineered stormwater plans required in this district. And then, finally, in the Golden Gate Estates, similar idea. Here's the current threshold for engineered stormwater plans; falls below the percentage of impervious area for a lot of the Estates lots that we reviewed over that one year. The standard proposed is at 25 percent; that's when an engineered stormwater plan would be required. So that's all that I have to present to you. I'd be happy to walk through the amendment, take any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 10, fiscal and operational impacts, you said there's no December 15, 2016 Page 40 of 41 anticipated fiscal impact, but there actually is, is there not? It would be the cost of the plan if and when submitted? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. It will definitely change the cost to the property owners, to the applicants. Typically, for that specific line item, we address fiscal impacts to the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well warranted. I'm finally glad to see it. I know Stan's been pushing it. Jack has. I think it's good. I went through your language. I already mentioned the couple questions I had previously to the meeting. You answered them, so I'm fine. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 15, second line, is that a cool deck or a pool deck? MR. FRANTZ: I've had a couple of questions about that. As far as I understand, it is, in fact, a cool deck. It's a type of -- I think it's a type of treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a type of construction deck for a pool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You walk on it, it's cooler to your feet instead of hot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, it's a cool deck. Okay. I didn't know. I thought it was pool deck. I think it has a cool deck. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Cool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it. Thanks. Great -- I think perfect amendment, well warranted, and it's a great step. Stan, you -- I just envisioned you were going to say a lot about this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no. I was the "author" -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He already did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- in quotes, of the original ordinance. It was written right before the crash, and for years nobody built anything. And we didn't realize all the changes that needed to be made until we started building again. And I am so glad to see this come through. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This still does not negate the requirement that you cannot have water go on a neighboring property. You still have to make sure you cover -- those things are still required in the LDC. MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And I'll just add, I neglected to mention we did work collaboratively with the Development Services Advisory Committee's Land Development Review subcommittee, which is -- Stan is a member of, went through a number of meetings, worked really hard with those group of folks, and they were extremely helpful in preparing this amendment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you, Jeremy. On culverts, I'm just going to take Logan Boulevard further down between Vanderbilt and Pine Ridge. Has a -- it floods a lot in there during the rain. Who is responsible for taking care of the culverts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, what does -- this isn't -- this is lot coverage. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This has nothing to do with culverts and roads. It's strictly lot coverage for impervious and pervious areas for homes on lots. That's all it is. Nothing to do with the issue you're bringing up. And, I mean, I think that someone at staff -- I would call -- Jack McKenna would love to talk to you after the meeting on an issue like that, but, honestly, it's not part of this amendment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He did mention culverts in here, and I don't have it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to the point that they're across the driveway in the front of a lot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, it's true, but there's where a lot of the problems seem to occur, too. MR. FRANTZ: I'm not personally familiar with the ownership or maintenance of those culverts. I December 15, 2016 Page 41 of 41 would have to get back to you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, I'll just ask Jack. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions relative to the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we've finished, then, with the LDC amendments. They'll come back for a final review. Actually, the first one I don't think needs to. Just come back with the second one for final review on the 5th, or semifinal, whatever we decide. That takes us to new business. There's none listed. Old business? None listed. There's one item under public comment. Merry Christmas, everybody, and Happy New Year. We won't see each other until afterwards. So you all have a good holiday, and is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Okay. We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 5,2017 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20150002280: TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD PROPERTY OWNER,APPLICANT& AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: Sky Angel Center, LLC Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 1300 Goodlette Road North Coleman,Yovanovich &Koester,P.A. Naples, FL 34102 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 Toll Gate Naples, LLC 3845 Beck Boulevard, Suite 807 Robert L. Duane,AICP Naples,FL 34114 Robert L. Duane& Associates 4880 Tamarind Ridge Drive Naples, FL 34119 REQUESTED ACTION: The Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits various uses as shown in Ordinance 92-10. The Applicant requests amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on Tracts 7-10, and 15 of the commercial use areas, "A" parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan; by amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on tracts 16-20 and 24-25 of the commercial/light industrial uses area,"B"parcels,as shown on the PUD Master Plan;and by adding Exhibit B to further define the areas that allow the institutional uses as permitted uses GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 100.23k acres in size and is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Davis/Beck Boulevard.The site is within the boundaries of Activity Center Number 9.The site is partially developed. (See location map on the following page). • Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 1 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC. a ilit%. �d a g+ r 1 Z fa o or ■ U i a Q a. .B . e. 2ii ti7AY ill -; i i \ i 40 Mil r— ___ ,. "it Ell I ,.i>,,r.�,04 nt-s --- z . ., . . ���- , a. _ O 1 d?jEE�;�F````;t d.16�``F+�.+ d nd� b aO E • gii �41daasr'1"3 a °b Z r.glill! : Iwil[ -usN k 2 ,, .;;:: :,ir, ,..,\ 1 ; tr „„ a. E s L / co-,!11P 0 X Ilse rev ammo earls %• Use 1rJ7 ammo ■mao N in /.....------- f, ... .,1/1"- ....0--, . , . c, 4,• nsp 9, ,.. . g 21 5 l // 2 J MOS OA.ION Q D d u N Z F E $ b I«1 - :2 g k a 3. .g 5 n oLU F a Ua 1 a e Wa 5� Q o d J o „k N 4 Z N _ � 0- _. < r� i SV M P r , N g 2� r-51 g r � al _ _I 11 11 333 i5N'tl'J eeee� Yi0 OHYA31/108 V31'110� tS6'N'�1111 4 MIMI --_ r� @NA31110e U31T10'J .r m 3 1.7( ,.888 .1wa+xawoYs >Y w - <ei F r j �� O ,� r 11 ° is r Ie4 g o ig Z} 11 4 Plik6:4 S., 1- ik �I� g .�s'iv ` /011: 1 aenoa $e INi ✓x a< r 2 FIE 4 rvn� F a _ - WYA3lfWe gi Vim Id- 4 M e 111 ,-,5 �- „rr of * w ix r z hid i w M < B Q 1-<o - j v Z n = c m a H _ - jz til § A8 2 n115 g,71 ,6,3 'g g ,, ilEN Q fig €s! 1, e 4 l .. r Ao f 11041, i pi4111 t d _y S ww r 1 Iv ' o♦ -7-.- , 21 01,11/14j lic_. 3 III a, 1 �i 8/1 ,,,„ 11 • i;��";;,111 i/'�/lam E �, ` #• !l/�/qIto f fie,,` 141 lid'' i"-�,' ' t i #�is /`riin�i�ial��` "st �►>' pi .11!, 1 slur 14.111:r , `Jitil 11111r2 \ai yg �' � ( ' ;1 it 9 82.1 . —;— ocnrll m ^`�Ra R,1 9 g • iU ra all= K 1 xinv $ 1`\Iittlllllll'III11 Yiiii%ii ? @r g ,, $ ,,.n aglow ..,7.,.„ �' 21 o 11 nn� tip,, uuriil ,pea, ' ur111111111Vja if IA r uuxn num nnlini4 r u► llllfilq(1 I+ IN¢.•Ill I/II"NM MM In 4 r S■!) 11111 It II ..�.w7 a++... ft 41 t �. �` 211 7 :.,..,,,,,,,,,,::::.„,,,,,:_,���2■u.■n e +��-= y;y�`..,.RN..Y. ” rj �i orx■■pan �Illvf rgmI I i( 111Mihhh.pQ q Ii m ii rl `f F `may y �i lA ii ii= '4 ! Ls MS GO NB tittopitip TIBC :. 404,%-`'3 M•iq��4 ii / �1111{1�f►�It $t s c 11{1 n• I s -= +��r !i t44 — f i`= ►� -, 9=S r i PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Tollgate PUD was originally approved on January 17, 1984,as a commercial/light industrial project. It has been amended several times over the years. The proposed amendment would add institutional uses and would not affect the maximum square footage or development standards. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Interstate- 75 ROW, across which is the White Lake Industrial Corporate Park PUD; intensity: 136.5 acres of industrial and 7.8 acres of commercial. East: State offices and a communication tower,zoned Rural Agricultural(A). South: Beck Boulevard ROW, across which is the residential and (undeveloped) commercial Forest Glen of Naples PUD; intensity: 100,000 SF of commercial uses. West: Collier Boulevard ROW, across which are developed and undeveloped parcels; zoned I- 75/Alligator Alley CPUD; intensity: 265,000 SF of commercial uses; and General Commercial(C-4); intensity: per LDC Section 2.03.03.D. %. \:t. 1 ,. . .led 4.,,, 1 • ��, 1 ....,.,, AWA .....,..L i.,:„..4. 411„/,. ,. ,,, ..,n, • ..17,......„.toc,„„./„. or :, , ... ...,0 „tst,„_,.„. , . idstlCIP 1 4,..„ ,...ill iI.l T .-* °..."1""2 ^ F ;1/41: 1 _ 1. f1yyRRj i dLff.F$i ^ t Subject "i r' Site s ic Aerial Photo(CCPA) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The Tollgate Commercial Center PUD was determined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone.Staff reviewed the proposed amendment to determine if the petition can be found consistent with the goals, objectives,and policies of the overall GMP. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (CCME): The proposed amendment to the PUD will have no effect on the requirements of the CCME. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District,Interchange Activity Center(IAC)Subdistrict#9,as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PU20150002280 Page 4 of 10 January 5,2,017 CCPC Plan(GMP). The proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it consistent with the Transportation Element. ANALYSIS: 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 Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F.,Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as"Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission's(CCPC) recommendation.The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request.An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below. In addition,staff offers the following analyses. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document for environmental sufficiency. 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 Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review:Transportation staff reviewed the PUDA and found the Level of Service continues to be acceptable. Zoning Review: The Applicant wishes to add institutional uses to the existing PUD. The subject site is within an Interstate Activity Center(Number 9). FINDINGS OF FACT: This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b, "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 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"(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of certain institutional uses are compatible within an Interstate Activity Center. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 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. Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20I50002280 Page 5 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add institutional uses does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP,therefore,staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed change is the addition of uses. Staff believes that the approval of this amendment will not cause any compatibility issues. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Applicant proposes to add uses.Open space will not be affected. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. } It is staff's opinion that the addition of new permitted uses will not affect public or private facilities t beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The current PUD was found consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of the proposed permitted uses is consistent with the uses in an Interstate Activity Center. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular 1 case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed amendment is consistent with the uses in an Interstate Activity Center. Rezone Findin2s:LDC Subsection 10.02.08.E states,"When pertaining to the rezoning of land,the report and recommendations from 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"(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): i 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. The proposed use is consistent with the uses in an Interstate Activity Center.Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 6 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. No new districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Staff believes that this location is appropriate for institutional uses in addition to the approved commercial and light industrial uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Religious institutions and other institutional uses are generally compatible with both residential and non-residential uses. 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. Transportation staff reviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The PUD is required to meet South Florida Water Management District standards and therefore, will not create a drainage issue. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The site planning process,PUD dimensional standards,and LDC requirements will ensure that light and air circulation are not seriously affected. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Since the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD is existing, the proposed amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as • contrasting with the public welfare. Tollgate Commercial Center FUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 7 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property has been developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses; however, the addition of institutional uses to the current permitted uses will be consistent with the uses in an Interstate Activity Center. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The subject PUD was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale,density,and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the 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. There are other parcels in the County suitable for institutional uses.However,an Interstate Activity Center is deemed to be a place for diverse uses. 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. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. However,since the site is partially developed,this process will be minimal. 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 This petition has been reviewed by County staff who is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. 18, Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is not seeking approval of any deviations from the requirements of the LDC. Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 8 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC)REVIEW: This project does not require review by the EAC since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): A NIM was held on April 21,2016 at 5:30 PM at the Tollgate Commercial Center.Questions were asked, but no objections were voiced.The NIM summary is attached as part of the back-up. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on December 20,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20150002280 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Application&Support Material is F E Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 9 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC - I PREPARED BY: i ele__-.___. /07 •tea -/, , FREE ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ,. RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION � /-Y32-79,,:. --- 327 ( i -Zc - ( � MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: (. — Ir ` �/►/ /.�4-2/66 FRE CH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MAN.GEMENT DEPARTMENT (7.,,G -d"-: t lir-Z-219:-{ ' - 1 2-42., A 4, DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,PUDA-PL20150002280 Page 10 of 10 January 5,2017 CCPC ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-10, AS AMENDED, THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ADD SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL USES AS PERMITTED USES ON TRACTS 7-10, AND 15 OF THE COMMERCIAL USE AREAS, "A" PARCELS, AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN; BY AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO ADD SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL USES AS PERMITTED USES ON TRACTS 16-20 AND 24-25 OF THE COMMERCIALILIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES AREA "B", PARCELS AS SHOWN ON THE PUD MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING EXHIBIT B TO FURTHER DEFINE THE AREAS THAT ALLOW THE INSTITUTIONAL USES AS PERMITTED USES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR - 951) AND BECK BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA- PL201500022801 WHEREAS, on February 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-10, which established the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (the "Tollgate PUD"); and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 93-91, which amended the Tollgate PUD; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 15-49 which further amended the Tollgate PUD; and WHEREAS, Sky Angel Center, LLC and Toll Gate Naples, LLC represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of Robert L. Duane & Associates and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koestner, P.A. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Tollgate PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to PUD Document. Exhibit "A" to the PUD Document, attached to Ordinance No. 92-10, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced with the Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. i I6 -CPS -01517129 1 oft Tollgate Commercial Center —PUDA-PL20150002280 9130116 SECTION TWO: Amendment to Add Exhibit B, legal description of areas allowing institutional uses. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board. of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2016. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Document and Master Plan Exhibit B — legal description [ 16 -CPS -01 S 17129 2 of 2 Tollgate Commercial Center —PUDA-PL20150002280 9/30/16 DONNA FIALA, Chairman PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PREPARED BY. TAJ7T T 7A ,14 U TJI AXP VIh/T'C A A SOCTATT, 7h/6' ,Wg, 7i;5 TT'h7TG7 —rte— C'TAG'G•T .�,. .......�..., , C/1F_ITI-7 .._ AW -L 44731 G'P GLORIT1 A 37040 416.4 .262 RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH COLEAJIEN YOVANOVICH & KOESTER P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SUTIE 300 NAPLES FLORIDA 34103 (239)435-3535 And ROBERT L. DUANE ROBERT L. DUANE & ASSOCIATES. A.IC.P 4880 TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE NAPLES FLORIDA 34.119 (239) 353-4167 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: DATE APPROVED BY BCC: ORDINANCE NIJMBER: AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: Page 1 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinanee 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words a"c1 4mWgb are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 of 28 'Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PC, 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.62.16v.1 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *" Indicate break in pages. PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLE ii- 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE iii- 4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 4-1— 5 - 9 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2-I- 10-12 SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN FOR PARCEL "A" 3-I- 13 -17 SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS 4-I 19-22 FOR PARCEL "B" SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-1- 23 -27 Page 2 of 28 'Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PC, 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.62.16v.1 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *" Indicate break in pages. LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" PUD Master Plan 64 EXHIBIT "B" Legal Description for lots 7-15 & 16 17 18 19 20 24 and 25 as shown on the PUD Master Plan in Phases 2 & 3. TABLE I Schedule of Development 2 3 Page 3 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-P1.201500022800rdinanee 92-10 Date; 11.02.16 v.1 Words sfrxekhhreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 100.23 acres of property in Collier County and within an Interchange Activity Center, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Tollgate Commercial Center, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and its provisions for Interchange Activity Center development. This compliance includes: Activity Center Project 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as an Interchange Activity Center in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth management Plan for Collier County. 2. Interstate Activity Centers are the preferred locations for the concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. 3. The subject tract is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of CR -951 and CR -84. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial/industrial activities. 4. The project is in compliance with all applicable County regulations. In addition, the project complies with the Growth Management Plan with the adoption of the Plan amendment which allows for specifically approved heavy business/light industrial uses to be developed in designated interstate activity centers. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and the proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and naturalized open features which serve as project amenities. 8. The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan and the existing PUD document as approved. In addition, the project shall be developed in accordance with all Collier County regulations in effect at the time of Final SDP or building permit application. 9. Bind the owner's successor in title to any commitments made under in this document. Page 4 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.1 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. `** Indicate break in pages. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Tollgate Commercial Center. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida; thence along the east line of said Section 35 North 10 - 56' —55" West 200.14 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); thence along said north right-of-way line, North 890 -45' -01" West 331.23 feet to a point of intersection of said north right-of-way line of State Road 93 (I-75), and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley) on the following five courses: 1) North 890 -45' -01" West 2398.66 feet; 2) South 890 -56' -16" West 1547.43 feet; 3) North 800 -43' -58" West 709.38 feet; 4) North 390 -52' -42" West 209.91 feet; 5) North 100 -24' -33" West 209.94 Feet to a point on the East Limited Access, right -of way line of State Road 93 (I-75); thence continue along said Limited Access, right-of-way line of State 93 (I-75) on the following nine courses: 1) North 30 -19' -52" East 285.34 feet; 2) North 230 -37' -28" East 149.83 feet; 3) North 640 -12' -39" East 149.83 feet; 4) North 860 -37' -01" East 778.54 feet; 5) South 870 -55' -12" East 318.82 feet; 6) South 780 -44' -38" East 318.32 feet; 7) South 740 -09' -17" East 1199.30 feet; 8) South 730 -00' -33" East 1904.96 feet; 9) southeasterly 233.67 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.2116 feet, subtended by a chord which bears South 750 -35' -07" East 223.67 feet to the north right-of-way line of State Road 84 (Alligator Alley); and the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; being a part of south %, Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to easements and restrictions of records; containing 69.40 acres of land more or less; bearings are based on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road 93 (I-75). Page 5 of 28 Toll Cate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201.500022800rdinance 92-10 Date; 11.02.16 v.1 Words stench -through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. -*' Indicate break in pages. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: Description of part of Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and part of Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida COMMENCE at an iron pipe marking the Northeast Corner of said Section 2; thence North 89° 45' 01" West, 337.83 feet along the North line of said Section 2 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 59.98 feet; thence South 89' 57' 41" West, 2,300.70 feet; thence on a course traversing from said Section 35, South 89° 56' 02" West, 2,448.74 feet; thence North 45° 46' 16" West, 71.58 feet; thence North 010 28' 34" West, 705.25 feet to the Easterly Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 951 (Section 03175-2409); thence South 10° 24' 33" East, 209.94 feet; thence South 39° 52' 42" East, 209.91 feet; thence South 80' 43" 58" East, 709.38 feet; thence North 89' 56' 16" East, 1,547.43 feet; thence South 89° 45' 01" East, 2,396.67 feet to the Southerly Existing Limited Access R/W Line of S.R. 93 (03175-2409); thence South 00° 02' 19" East, 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Less and except the East 100.00 feet thereof. Containing 30.835 acres, more or less. The entire project area is 100.235 acres. Number of acres devoted to various categories of land use: Development area 70.72 Water management area 17.84 Road Right -of -Way 6.7 F.P.L Easement 4.98 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Tollgate Commercial Center is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate I-75/CR-951 interchange, approximately five miles east of the Naples Airport at the eastern terminus of Davis Boulevard (SR 84). 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by and under the unified control of Tollgate Commercial Center, a Florida General Partnership. Page 6 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PODA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date. 11.02.16 v.1 Words struck throng : are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *-- Indicate break in pages. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated Interstate Activity Center on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. B. CURRENT ZONING: The project site is currently zoned PUD. C. EXISTING LAND USE: At the present time the site is unoccupied except for a 104 room motel. D. ADJACENT LAND USE: The adjacent lands are predominately vacant at the present time. The northwest and southwest corners of CR 951 and SR 84 are presently used as gasoline service stations. The properties north of the I-75 right-of-way and the properties south of CR 84 are vacant. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The elevation of the project site varies form 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet. Tollgate Commercial Center lies within Zone X as identified on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X is identified as those areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood. This means that no development will be occurring within the I00 -year flood prone area. A. SOILS: There are three types of soil cover on the project site. They are Arzell fine sands, Keri fine sands and Pompano fine sands. The distribution of these soil types is shown in Map E. B. VEGETATIVE COVER: A breakdown of the vegetative cover of the project area is as follows: VEGETATION COMMUNITY Pineland Saw Palmetto/Rusty Lyonia Transitional Zone/Cypress Functional Wetland Cabbage Palm Heads Improved/Platted Cleared/Filled Unplatted Former R/W F.P.L. R/W TOTAL Page 7 of 28 ACREAGE 1.00 4.21 29.40 9.40 .30 30.67 21.66 3.60 100.24 roll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words Or iek-dwmuto are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.'" Indicate break in pages. There are no unique features of the vegetation. All species and associations are "typical" for soil types common to pine flatwoods of level sandy areas of Collier County. C. WILDLIFE: Wildlife, observed or noted from tracks, nests, etc. consisted of the representative species, such as raccoon, snakes and wading bids, which normally occur in a habitat such as the Tollgate Commercial Center site. No endangered or threatened species were observed on the site. D. HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: John Beriault, Field Representative of the S.W. Florida Archaeological Society, searched for such sites and believes none exist on the tract. E. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT: Waste water treatment is being provided by the Collier County Sewage Treatment System. Temporary on-site wastewater treatment facilities for which all necessary permits have been granted may be installed during any period of time in which sewage treatment service is not available from Collier County. F. WATER MANAGEMENT: The Water Management Plan provides for site runoff transport to a system of hardwood forest, marsh, and open water ponds. The Water Management Plan is designed to meet SFWMD and County criteria. Minimum road elevations and discharge control will be designed for the 25 -year, 3- day rainfall event. The finished floor elevations will be established by the 100 year -zero discharge design event. G. WATER SUPPLY: Potable water is being supplied by the Collier County Water - Sewer District. Non -potable water utilized for landscape irrigation and other non -human consumptive uses will be procured from on-site wells, or from the County treated sewage effluent distribution system. H. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste is being disposed of at the Collier County Sanitary Landfill. Collection is provided by Waste Management of Collier County, a franchised hauler. ELECTRICITY: Electricity is being provided by the Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. J. POLICE PROTECTION: Police protection is provided by the Collier County Sheriff Department. Page 8 of 28 lot] Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdina nee 92-10 Date: 11.0116v.1 Words.,tF-el, through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. "- Indicate break in pages. K. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. L. TELEPHONE: Telephone service is provided by United Telephone of Florida. Page 9 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words sir4ek4hr oug1i are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otberwise noted.'" Indicate break in pages. SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally described the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations, requirements and references for development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall be in accordance with the contents of this document. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of Tollgate Commercial Center shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless specifically waived through variance or waiver provisions within the PUD, those applicable regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect. E. Each tract, as identified on the Master Plan, shall require the submittal, review and subsequent approval of a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of a Final Local Development Order. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT Project development is underway and will continue to build -out. Page 10 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11,02.16Y.1 Words stwtekxhrnugh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in Peet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. The following schedule indicates the anticipated start and completion dates for the various project development Phases. Phase boundaries are indicated on the Master Development Plan. TABLE % OF PHASE ACREAGE SITE START COMPLETE I 54.51 54.4 1988 1993 II 26.44 26.4 1992 1995 III 19_29 19.2 1993 1996 TOTALS 100.24 100.0 A. Table I is a schedule of Development, with the approximate acreage of the total project indicated. The arrangement of these land areas are shown on the PUD Master Development Plan (Exhibit "A"). The Master Development Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. Design criteria and layout is illustrative on the Master Development Plan and other exhibits supporting this project. It shall be understood that these exhibits are to remain flexible so the final design may satisfy development objectives and be consistent with the project development, as set forth in this document. Minor changes to the master plan shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5, Division 2.7 ^i4iele 2 10.02.13.6E Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for drive patterns, parking layout and requirements, and development parcel size and configuration. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A", such utility and other easements as are necessary shall be established within or along the various tracts. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, and the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit "A', PUD Master Development Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if Page 11 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.1 Words straek-threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. "** Indicate break in pages. applicable, shall be submitted for any area to be subdivided. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The development of any tract or parcel contemplating fee simple ownership of land shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with the requiremer4s of Divisie�3 rtiele 3, Section 10.02.04.2 Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats of the Collier County Land Development Code, prior to the submittal of construction plans and plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. E. The developer or subsequent owner of any platted parcel or platted tract shall, prior to application for a building permit, submit a Site Development Plan (SDP) or Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the tract or parcel to the Development Services Department for approval for applicable development subject to the provisions of Division 3 3 Artie of the Collier County Land Development Code, 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section—� - 210.02 13 6EPlanned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for within Section .'t �'.^� r B� ', ^ ' 10.02.13.6D Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.7 POLLING PLACES As provided for in Section 3.2.8.3.14, Division 3.2, ^ 4iele3 2.01.04 Polling Places of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.8 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6, Division " ^ w;^l~ 2--10.02.13.6F Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 12 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words ;mssh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. —" Indicate break in pages. SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas so designated on Exhibit "A", as "A" Parcels. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "A" It is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels be used for commercial purposes which serve the motoring public using Interstate I-75 as well as providing limited commercial goods and services of an area -wide nature for the Naples, Marco Island, Golden Gate and the Immokalee urban areas. Further it is the intent of this document that "A" designated development parcels shall be used in accordance with all current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.3 COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: (a) Automobile service stations including engine tune-ups and minor repairs, and car wash facilities which are accessory uses. (b) Banks and financial institutions, business and professional offices. (c) Cocktail lounges and commercial entertainment. (d) Convention and exhibition halls. (e) Department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning shops and dry goods stores. Page 13 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-P L 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words slrxek{lwoug{t are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. "-* Indicate break in pages. (f) Electronic games and furniture sales. (g) Ice cream shops and dairy drive-in stores. (h) Motels; hotels and other transient lodging facilities. (i) Research and design labs; restaurants and fast food restaurants. 0) Shopping centers. (k) Souvenir stores and stationery stores. (1) Supermarkets (m) Variety stores; vehicle rental -automobile and U -haul type of vehicles and equipment including outside display; veterinary offices and clinics; no outside kenneling. (n) Any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures (a) Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. (b) Caretakers residence. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures (a) Car wash facilities which are principal uses. (b) Permitted uses with less than one thousand (1,000) square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. Page 14 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 9240 Date: 11.02.16 vA Words s{ AK*4hromgh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. -- Indicate break in pages. 3.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in section 3 3 A the following principal uses are permitted on the property described in Exhibit B only. -Amusements and Recreational Services Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999); limited to: Gymnastics Instruction Judo Instruction Karate Instruction Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 833 11 -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 86211 -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322) -Social Services not elsewhere classified (SIC Code 8399) B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (a) Any Accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures including outdoor eating areas for special events Bake sales Christmas trees sales and fund raising events all subject to obtaining the use permits described in the LDC (This applies to the property described in Exhibit B only). 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard — Twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (b) Side Yard — None or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for motels, hotels and Page 15 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words struek-Utrough are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. " ' Indicate break in pages. transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. (c) Rear Yard — Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront — Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal water line of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on the ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted areas for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotels, motels or transient lodging facilities. (7) Distance between Principal Structures on same Site: one-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Pivisisii 2.5 Section 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards By Land Use Classification of the Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off -Street Parking and Off -Street Loading Requirements: As required by Division 4.05.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR -84 and CR -951: CR -84, 5 feet and CR -951. 10 feet with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 2.4.7.1 afternative ' 4.06.02.0-1.1. - General Landscaping Requirements - Alternative D. b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with alternative A of subsee4ion-2A-.774, the Land Development Code Section 24-774 4.06.02.0-1.4. - General Landscaping Requirements. lntffer�ta�idards. C. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). Page 16 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 VA Words sfwekthrongh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *" Indicate break in pages. d. All landscaping requirements of Section Division 2-4 4.06.00 Landscaping Buffering and Vegetation Retention- Alternative D. of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. (11) Outside Merchandise Storage and displaying: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or by an approved Site Development Plan, outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited. Permitted Institutional Uses set forth in section 3.3.1shall meet the standards of the Activity Center 49 Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Page 17 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words strmek through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. "- Indicate break in pages. SECTION IV COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial/Industrial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as `B" Parcels. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT INTENT FOR PARCEL "B" It is the intent of this document that "B" designated development parcels by -be used for both "A" designated uses and for the sale, service, transportation, storage and distribution of goods and service to the traveling public on I-75 and to the citizens of the area which can be served via the access road systems. A major function of these parcels is to serve as a focal point for the arrival of goods from other points of the region and country and then be processed for distribution to the local trade market. It is intended that inside storage and warehousing along with limited assembly and manufacturing wholly within a building and not obnoxious by reason of emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise or vibration be permitted. Further, it is the intent of this document that "B" designated Parcels be used in accordance with all of the current Federal, State and County regulations in effect at the time final local development orders are issued except as specified otherwise in this document or as may be approved otherwise by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part of other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (a) Any principal use or structure permitted on "A" designated development parcels. (b) Assembly operations in an enclosed building. Page 18 of 28 Toll Cate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02,16 v.l Words ^truck4hroagh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. (c) Building supplies and contractors storage facilities; bulk storage yards not including junk or salvage yards. (d) Car wash, communications service and equipment repair. (e) Freight movers and storage. (f) Laboratories, research, design and testing; laundries; lawn maintenance shops and plant nurseries; light manufacturing or processing (include food processing but not abattoir; packaging or fabricating in a completely enclosed building). (g) Miscellaneous uses such as express office; telephone exchange; motor or bus or truck or other transportation terminal and related uses; motorcycle sales, service and repair; museums and tourist attractions. (h) New and used car sales, service and repair including outside display. (i) Offices, general put -pose. (j) Warehousing, wholesaling, storage and distributing establishments and similar uses. (k) Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Implementation Director determines to be compatible in the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Any accessory use or structure customarily associated with the permitted uses and structures. C. Permitted Provisional Uses and Structures: (1) Attached residence in conjunction with a business — one (1) per business. (2) Permitted use with less than 1,000 square feet gross floor areas in the principal building. Page 19 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center P11DA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.1 Words suruek4hcough are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. -- Indicate break in pages. 4.3.1. Institutional Uses Permitted A. Uses permitted In addition to the uses set forth in section 4.3.A the followin pg rincipal uses are permitted on the property described in Exhibit "B." -Amusements and Recreational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC Code 7999); limited to: Gymnastics, Instruction, Judo Instruction, Karate Instruction, Yoga Instruction, Scuba and Skin Diving Instruction, and Day Camps. -Business Associations (SIC Code 8611) -Child Daycare Services (SIC Code 8351) -Civil and Fraternal Organizations (SIC Code 8641) -Dance Studios and Schools (SIC Code 7911) -Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (SIC Code 833 1) -Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC Code 7991) -Professional Membership Organizations (SIC Code 8621) -Religious Organizations (SIC Code 8661) -Social Services (SIC Code 8322) -Social Services not elsewhere classified (SIC Code 8399) B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. (b) Any Accessory ses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including outdoor eating areas for special events. Bake sales, Christmas trees sales, and fund raising events. (This applies to the property described in Exhibit B only). 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (3) Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard — Twenty-five (25) feet. Page 20 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words struek-tioroogh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. -*- Indicate break in Pages. (b) Side Yard - None, or a minimum of five (5) feet with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard for non-residential uses. Fifteen (15) feet for hotels, motels and transient lodging facilities plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet of building height over fifty (50) feet. Attached residences shall be treated as non-residential. (c) Rear Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet. (d) Waterfront - Twenty-five (25) feet from the normal level of any artificially created body of water, excluding observation decks, bridges and walkways. (4) Maximum Height: One hundred (100) feet. (5) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor, except that gasoline service stations and other permitted uses for which the principal activity does not occur in a structure shall not require a minimum floor area. (6) Maximum Density: Twenty-six (26) units per gross acre of land for hotel, motel and transient lodging facilities. (7) Distance between Structures: One-half the sum of the heights. (8) Signs: As required by Section Division 2.5 5.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (9) Minimum Off -Street Parking and Off -Street Loading Requirements: As required by ; 9.�-Section 4.05.00. Off -Street Parking and Loading of the Collier County Land Development Code. (10) Minimum Landscaping Requirements: As required by the Collier County Land Developme-t Cede. a. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR -84 and CR -951: CR -84, 5 feet and CR -951. 10 feet with the landscape installation requirements set forth in the Land Development Code Section 2.4.'= 4 a4efnati` e D 4.06.02.0-1.1. - General Landscaping Requirements - Alternative D, b. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets: 5 feet with alternative A of ubseetio 2,4 .4.- the Land Development Code Section -2.4-7.4 4.06,02,C-1.4. - General Landscaping Requirements.' `mfer�s c. Landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to side lot lines, 5 feet for lots which are independently developed with discreet off street parking and drive systems: none for lots which are developed with an off street parking and drive systems which are Page 21 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92.10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words strucle-thsuugh are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. -*- Indicate break in pages. planned to extend across one or more side lot lines so as to serve in common the adjoining lot(s). d. All landscaping requirements of Section Division -2-4 4.06,00 Landscaping Buffering, and Vegetation Retention- Alternative D of the Land Development Code not in conflict with a, b, and c shall be applicable. e. Landscape buffer plans shall be incorporated in SDP applications for each individual development site. (ll) Merchandise Storage and Display: Unless specifically authorized by this PUD documents or an approved Site Development Plan, or of a nature which is permitted generally, outside storage or display or merchandise is prohibited. 12 Permitted Institutional Uses set forth in section 4.3.1, shall meet the standards of the "Activity Center #9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan." Page 22 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PLJDA-PL 20I500022800rdlnance 92-10 Date. 11.02,16 v.l Words are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 5.2 PUD MASTER PLAN A, The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated in the Master Development Plan shall be interpreted as preliminary and understood to be flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to Staff approval. C. All necessary easements, dedication, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities and location and treatment of buffer areas. 5.3 ENGINEERING A. The developer and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This includes, but is not limited to, Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final local development order. B, The project shall be platted in accordance with the rCor"ier County Subdivision Ged Section 10 02 04 Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats to define the right-of-way, tracts, and water management areas as shown on the master plan. C. Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management areas unless specifically approved by project Review Services. Page 23 of 28 'Poll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date. 11.02.16 v.l Words strark-through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *-* Indicate break in pages. Nib D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes, F. Land Development Code, Section 3.''�.6 6.06.01 Street System Requirements — Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 3.2.8.4 166.06.01 Street System Requirements— All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right- of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.1.7 6.01.02— Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I. Land Development Code, Section 3."'�7 6.06.02— Sidewalks: Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. Page 24 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUVA -PL 20150002280Ordinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words stwek-through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. --* Indicate break in pages. D. Provide a landscape buffer along the entire southern property line in accordance with Section with Section 3.4 (10) and 4.4 (10) of this PUD. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, during its permit review process, require a natural vegetative buffer be created between the lots and any jurisdictional wetland Preserve and/or Conservation tract, the buffer shall not be located within the boundaries of the lot(s) unless otherwise waived by the South Florida Water Management District. It shall be created as a separate platted tract or as a buffer Easement over an expanded limit of the Preserve tracts, which would be dedicated as Preserve/Drainage tracts, to include the buffer within the Preserve tract. If the buffer is located within a separate tract, that tract shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and if necessary, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. All Preserve buffer easements or buffer tracts shall be created in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 704.06, Florida Statutes, F. Land Development Code, Section 3.''�.6 6.06.01 Street System Requirements — Dead end streets maximum length not to exceed 1,000 feet: Waived to a maximum length of 1,050 feet. G. Land Development Regulations, Section 3.2.8.4 166.06.01 Street System Requirements— All local streets within commercial subdivision shall be designed according to the typical section for collector streets contained in the County Standards. Waived subject to right- of-way and other dimension requirements for the roads to meet local street standards and the pavements structure to meet collector standards. H. Land Development Code, Section 3.2.8.1.7 6.01.02— Easements: Utility easements will be provided as needed with Collier County utility easements (C.U.E.) at a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. I. Land Development Code, Section 3."'�7 6.06.02— Sidewalks: Not waived since existing phase already has sidewalks and it will maintain the continuity for pedestrian's access purposes. Page 24 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUVA -PL 20150002280Ordinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16v.1 Words stwek-through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. --* Indicate break in pages. 5.4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Gehl°r r,.,.. ty Ordina flee No. 89 76 Collier County Code of Ordinances Chanter 134 Utilities, Section 1.3.5.7. Policies and Standards, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on-site water distribution system to serve the project must be connected to the existing water main on Tollhouse Drive and/or CR -84 rights-of-way consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, dead end mains shall be eliminated by looping the internal pipeline network. D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one (1) main on-site pump station. Due to the design and configuration of the master pump station, flow by gravity into the station will not be possible. The Developer's Engineer shall meet with the County Staff prior to commencing preparation of construction drawings, so that all aspects of the sewerage system design can be coordinated with the County's sewer master plan. E. The existing off-site water facilities of the District must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project and reinforced as required, if necessary, consistent with the County's Water Master Plan to insure that the District's water system can hydraulically provide a sufficient quantity of water to meet the anticipated demands of the project and the District's existing committed capacity. P. The existing off-site sewage transmission facilities of the district must be evaluated for hydraulic capacity to serve this project improved as required outside the project boundary to provide adequate capacity to transport the additional wastewater generated without adverse impact to the existing transmission facilities. 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING Page 25 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words struek-fhrough are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *"` Indicate break in pages. A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance No. 82 91 201-19. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes(s) in accordance with Divisionn3.5Collier County Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV Excavation. of the Col�~yCom LM -1 Development Code. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACOE permits. D. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum 1/2 inch of dry pre-treatment on site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL A. All jurisdictional wetlands and mitigation areas on-site shall be designated as conservation/preserve tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants similar to or as per Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. B. In the case of mitigation off-site any purchase must be within the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed Lands (CREW) or other areas approved for mitigation by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The ultimate transfer of deed(s) of land(s) to Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands must occur prior to final construction plan/plat approvals. C. Control structures on-site shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal permits. 5.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Review Services. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Subdivision Regulations, Page 26 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words °`..., oek4Ufin are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The standards related to depths may be modified in accordance with DER and ACOE permits. D. A copy of SFWMD Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. E. Each building site will be required to provide a minimum %2 inch of dry pre-treatment on- site, unless otherwise waived by South Florida Water Management District. 5.8 TRANSPORTATION A. The final location of major access points along Davis Boulevard shall be determined during the SMmess qpproval of the Final Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. Such major access points shall provide primary access and internal road circulation and shall typically include turn land improvements based on projected traffic conditions, Secondary access points between David Boulevard and individual parcels shall be prohibited unless approved consistent with Ordinance 82--94-209-19 as may be amended and with the following access control criteria: 1. safety 2. proper geometric design 3. effects on the capacity of Davis Boulevard 4, traffic volumes using the proposed access point 5. other roadways providing access to the site 6. the combined effect of access to any and all tracts both within this PUD and adjacent PUD's 7. spacing of access points Collier County reserves the right to close any approved secondary access to and from Davis Boulevard should it at any time be found to create a traffic hazard or to adversely affect the capacity or level of service of that roadway. B. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Ordira,,ee85 55 Collier County Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. Page 27 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center PUDA-PL 201500022800rdinance 92-10 Date: 11.02.16 v.1 Words struelffhKengie are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. D. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0747 Florida Statutes. Page 28 of 28 Toll Gate Commercial Center P11DA-PL 20150002280Ordinance 9240 Date: 11.02.16 v.l Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *** Indicate break in pages. RIN „A.. t .,R„ PARCRLS L PARCELS NOTE: -A-AND-1- PARCELS IVILLPROVIDE GOODS AND. SERVICES TO MOTORISTS AND AREA RESIDENTS.ADDMONALLY."R^ PARCELS WILLACCOMODATE SERVICE, ASSDIELI', WHOLESALE, AND RELATED HEAVY ROSINESS USES. 'Rev. Dare: 06.2616 � o 4� 1'Tt c�O O 5� See Exhibit "B" Legal Description and m Co y I Sections 3,3 & 4.3 z M Permitted Uses of the PUD N y -FORESTED WETLANDS RIW LINE 469 4AACL Y PHASE I 7g FORESTEDWETLANDS 51,51 ACRES mAM eetiv r "� PHA I; II2644 rwn ACC ES � G rae rxea ra irAcr ,. +ry n tMCt � bWtg1N GAR N � � \ gi TMCT TGaR 1RKT rxa[r Y 11 33 Sr xxAcf 1p. 3 2 � GAM � ,wzci s nm raAc4 rurr ., riser ra.M auee LAM rwe4 m a u rzur IF ?O 003E DRIYR y PHASE III 29 •`T•T-.+./.�,�x rPAR �� i4KT IWM < `idAM r�ty r IP Y b. ACHES GAKr rGAGT SkAM 1YYx4T G"[T � r4TiT GAC! Si Y. i3 1•I •• ( } „ JE 1 RIN „A.. t .,R„ PARCRLS L PARCELS NOTE: -A-AND-1- PARCELS IVILLPROVIDE GOODS AND. SERVICES TO MOTORISTS AND AREA RESIDENTS.ADDMONALLY."R^ PARCELS WILLACCOMODATE SERVICE, ASSDIELI', WHOLESALE, AND RELATED HEAVY ROSINESS USES. 'Rev. Dare: 06.2616 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 3825 BECK BOULEVARD Tollgate Commercial Center PUD PUDA- PL20150002280 wec�.a�n.�rv���.c�a�.��..��ciwa. ■aryv�y+teaZ. � • _ _''■■--■■'',,''''`■•�']'���yyyy���������������.������ ,III<*�sZlrl�@nr.+rsa ��� �ce�� , , - • . - - •�•• ••1:413K@IRNil�I�{I[@til:�a.nl:�c►�r�iDII�L+9r%ratart>rF_�7J1�{II`Ti7 MUM _ HAVING AN AREA OF 2.02 ACRES 3933. 3935 3939 AND 3945 TOLLHOUSE DRIVE AND :Tollgate Commercial Center PUD PUDA- ,PL20150002280 AND 3860, 3868 3877 AND 2889 TOLLHOUSE DR1 at the northeasterly corner of said Tollgntc Commercial Center, Phase AND MWERMi IMMONIMMEN. . MrawrMVEN AND Tollgate Commercial Center PUD PUDA-PL20150002280 All those portions of Tract A, Tollgate Commercial Center, Phase Three, AGENDA ITEM 9-B Coer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: JANUARY 5,2017 SUBJECT: BD-PL20160000863, 14 HAWK STREET BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/ Craig W. Lyon Revocable Trust Agent: Kris W. Thoemke Applicant: Wendy R. Lyon Revocable Trust Coastal Engineering Consultants 14 Hawk Street 3106 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34113 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 54-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 74 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility with two vessels. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at Lots 58 and 59, Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision,also described as 14 Hawk Street, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to a request a 54-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20 feet for the subject lot. The boat dock facility will contain one boat lift and an additional boat slip to accommodate 2 total vessels. The proposed dock structure is 4-feet wide "L" shape that extends 74 feet, inclusive of boat, as measured from the property line. Due to the presence of seagrass and location within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, the area of the dock has been minimized and allowed to protrude to only the minus 4-foot Mean Low Water (MLW) contour. The total length of shoreline is 159.16 linear feet. Currently there are two existing docks; the applicant will be required to remove the existing docks. Page 1 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised: 12/27/2016 • I 11 111: 2® 0:El.® 414114 ii 4 4 1:', •® 1 @ ® = AAA14 ci,41,, e'.., ' 5 6 '\ 1 Cl. ® 2 ci? CY) @ 4 • -,. ' 8 0 ® i--- g N < @ zr.,, ,0 - m _0 co o , 41 co 7) 0 1 C 0 \ (1) .... J 1z IL' CO 0 0 C) 0 C\1 0 E , \ ._ -J (n 0- "<c) (c) .... .1 CD ,- -0 ECo 1 . z 0 0 (/ 8 :47-1 C\i i. . • , a) ..--- ( I CL (p / 9:0 .t i \ CL5C1- \,:,. . - / • . C.6 i - 0 /r . \ \ ) : (.0 /__.- rl 0 -(7) I 0 4) = , ..1 a a) i \i Ill it. \ 3 , .. • 0 u 1 l' :d a. Page 2 of 8 . a) , . n / 0 a SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single-family house zoned RSF-4 SURROUNDING: North: Single-family houses zoned RSF-4 and then Pompano Bay East: Single-family houses zoned RSF-4 and then Capri Boulevard South: Single-family houses zoned RSF-3 and then Pelican Street West West: Pompano Bay :44 id r . I, j lifT k� '0,'"' j p .. . th ir 46k4, -41., - Aerial of subject property(Collier County Appraiser) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: According to the environmental data provided with the application, a continuous bed of seagrass exist off the shore of the property. The dominant species is Halodule wrightii, the distribution of which is a mosaic of closely spaced patches of various sizes with densities ranging from zero to 90 percent. Density of Halodule wrightii decreases water ward with small patches of Syringodium ftliforme found in deeper water beyond the 4 foot (NAVD) contour (2.4 feet MLW), where seagrass coverage is less than 10 percent. Where a continuous bed of seagrass exists off site, provisions pursuant to GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 10.6.1 and LDC sections 5.03.06 J.3 & 4 apply (the applicable provisions in CCME Policy 10.6.1 mirroring that of the LDC). These provisions are as follows: LDC sections 5.03.06 J.3 &4 3. Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: Page 3 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised: 12/27/2016 a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. b. The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet. d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds possible. 4. The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to any project approval or permit issuance. The proposed project is also located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which requires an additional set of State rules pursuant to Chapter 18-21 FAC, Specifically Aquatic Preserve rules do not allow docking facilities to extend past the minus 4 foot MLW contour. Due to the presence of seagrass and location within the Aquatic Preserve, the area of the dock has been minimized to be in compliance with LDC Section 5.03.06.J.3 and allowed to protrude to only the minus 4-foot MLW contour. Only a portion of the boat is located over seagrass and is in an area with less than 10 percent coverage by seagrass. Use of a boatlift will further ensure sufficient light reaches seagrasses in the area. Therefore it is staff's opinion that this petition complies with LDC Section 5.03.06.J.3. The proposed dock is also located within a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay, which occurs over the waters around Isles of Capri. A Special Treatment permit will be required prior to approval of the building permit for the boat dock. STAFF COMMENTS: This boat dock extension application was initially to be heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) on November 10, 2016, but was moved to the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) after a letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Prunetti was received by staff and the HEX. However, the applicant revised the plans in order to address their concerns. Based upon their review of the revised plans, Mr. and Mrs. Prunetti withdrew their objections as noted in their letter dated December 7, 2016, (See Attachment C). In accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter will be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) instead of the Hearing Examiner. The CCPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must find that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and recommends the following findings to the CCPC: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The Page 4 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised: 12/27/2016 number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility is designed to accommodate two vessels, which is appropriate in relation to the 159.16 linear feet of water frontage of the subject lot. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application, the water depth is approximately 2.4 feet in depth at MLW which is too shallow for a 28-foot boat to ingress and egress at MLW. Furthermore, the applicant states due to seagrass presence, the proposed location minimizes impacts. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the waterway which is 670 feet shoreline to shoreline and 420 feet from the existing westerly boat dock across the waterway to the proposed boat dock;there is no marked/charted channel. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 74 feet into a waterway that is approximately 670 feet wide, from shoreline to shoreline, and approximately 420 feet from proposed boat dock to existing westerly boat dock across the waterway. The 74-foot represents a 14.7 percent protrusion into the 503-foot wide waterway that as measured from the applicant's shoreline to westward extent of the existing dock facility on the opposite side of Pompano Bay. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the applicant the proposed dock facility is designed so as not to interfere with neighboring docks. The northerly side of the proposed dock meets the minimum required 15-foot side setbacks from the riparian line. The southerly side of the proposed dock Page 5 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised: 12/27/2016 meets the minimum required 7.5-foot side setback. The southern side setback is 7.5 feet because,per Section 5.03.06.E.7, it is considered at the end or side end of a canal or waterway and shall have a setback of 7.5 feet. Thus,the proposed boat dock meets the minimum required setback and would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. The subject shoreline contains seagrass beds. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. It is deemed that the proposed dock facility is not excessive decking and would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessels for loading/unloading and routine maintenance. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion met. As indicated on the application, the length of the combined vessels is 76 feet which is 48%of the property's linear waterfront footage of 159.16 linear feet. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The proposed boat dock is within the required setbacks; the view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If a continuous bed of seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(J)(3) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion not met. Seagrass is present in the project area. Environmental staff has noted the area of the dock has been minimized and allowed to protrude to only the minus 4 foot MLW contour. Only a portion of the boat is located over seagrass and that in an area with less than 10 percent coverage by seagrass. Page 6 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised.' 12/27/2016 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable. The petitioner's property is a single-family lot with one slip and is not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 6 is not applicable, and the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION AND/OR BOATHOUSE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes final action, an aggrieved petitioner, applicant, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Department Head within 30 days of the date of final action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW The Office of the County Attorney reviewed this Staff Report on December 27,2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition BD- PL20160000863 subject to the stipulations as follows: 1. The existing boat docks shall be removed prior to construction of proposed boat dock. 2. A Special Treatment permit will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A.Application B. Draft Resolution C. Correspondence (Letter of support) Page 7 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised.' 12/27/2016 PREPARED BY: RAYMO1D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ;222,1_3I , I I MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APP VED BY: s-y , 4====&•. 9-•. 9 - /to A S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DA 1'h GROWTH MANA( EMENT DEPARTMENT C-Z1 �j � r IZ,�L7 ��, DAVID S. WILKISON, DEP 1'MENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Page 8 of 8 BD-PL20160000863 Revised: 12/12/2016 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL20160000863 FOR A 67 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 87 FEET, TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW BOAT DOCK FACILITY WITH TWO VESSELS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 58 AND 59, ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT NO. 1 SUBDIVISION, ALSO DESCRIBED AS 14 HAWK STREET, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code(LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks;and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 67-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for an 87- foot boat dock facility for two vessels in a Residential Single Family (RSF-4) zoning district with Special Treatment overlay over the adjacent waterway for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission at a public hearing,and the Commission has considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: • (16-CPS-01561/1302009/1]35 rev, 11/9/16 ATTACHMENT B I ` Lyon Single Family Boat Dock Petition No. BDE-PL20160000863 1 Petition Number BDE-PL20160000863, filed on behalf of Craig & Wendy Lyon by Kris W. Thoemke of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lots 58 and 59, Isles of Capri No. 1,a subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3,Page 41,Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 67-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20- foot limit to allow a new 87-foot boat dock facility for two vessels, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A", in the RSF-4 zoning district with Special Treatment overlay over the adjacent waterway wherein said property is located, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit"B". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ,201_. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA David Wilkison,Department Head Chairman Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: itlihrHa Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Proposed Site Plan Exhibit B—Conditions of Approval [16-CPS-01561/1302009/1135 rev. 11/9/16 Lyon Single Family Boat Dock Petition No. BDE-PL20160000863 2 { Collier County COLDER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: ?L Zot to 0(.10 b .o 2 Date and Time: "y `7 ' /!to `5 --A. ._ Assigned Planner: 1Z4'-Alt, I 'BAS tf Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: 4 ►ta k 5i- PL#: i- PL#: 4r'2 � Q OOo 2.016 • oo /43 Property ID#: -4 Current Zoning: y( S f' t{ 1'45 I ST ©da✓tct Project Address: y %a(V.. S 4. City: li' 4-0 State: __ Zip: 34113 Applicant: CJfc A a). L Yon Agent Name: C.r;'� 't Otfre11C.',. Phone: 23i —443 —232Y X IG , Agent/Firm Address: 3104 S. hrksh,oc PEity: lVti State:F L Zip: Property Owner: C"440) 14L 404 .e v` Tr ,j ) t�e.+�n ciw - ‘,1o, . J Team. Please provide the following,if applicable: i. Total Acreage: . . Ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: *i! M. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: " rn iv. For Amendments,indicate the original petition number: IJ/ v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: (1 vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: N/ et Attachment A Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: EX Dock Extension 0 Boathouse Chapter 3 B, of the Administrative Corte The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County website) .,6-` Q 0 Signed and Sealed Survey (r C Chart of Site Waterway El E 0 Site Plan illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration, location,and dimensions of existing and proposed b [f 0 facility; 70, • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property; and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 (l Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials 1 L LI to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 6/3/2014 Page 6 of 7 Cotllier County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ""I Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Environmental Review:See Pre-Application NExecutive Director ',Meeting Sign-In Sheet Addressing:Annis Moxam Q` Graphics:iidarianrettleitree Jt5 S� GGk. (444043,C ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director ❑ Historical Review Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application r--1 Meeting Sign In Sheet ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan ❑ Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad Rr County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko ❑ Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revay in Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or in School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock [i Engineering:,piiwn-Bfa' ord triGro5s to" ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky ❑ Other: _ ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris Vanlengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: I Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 %42...S ..- Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner- An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing date. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TYPES ARC-Alternative Architectural Design $ 150.00 ASV-Administrative Sign Variance $ 50.00 AVA-Administrative Variance $ 140.00 BD-Boat Dock $ 100.00 CARN -CarnivaVCircus Permit $ 100,00 CNST-Construction Plans $ 100.00 CSP-Conceptual Site Plan $ 75.00 CU-Conditional Use $ 150.00 CUE-Conditional Use Extension $ 50.00 DOA-Development Order Amendment $ 120.00 DRI-Development of Regional Impact $ 200.00 DRIA-Development Order Abandonment No Charge ICP-Insubstantial Change to Construction Plan $ 100.00 LOCA-Land Development Code Amendment $ 150.00 MUP-Mixed Use Project $ 200.00 MUPD-Mixed Use Project Deviation $ 150.00 NPSP-Neighborhood Park Site plan $ 50.00 NUA-Non-conforming Use Alteration $ 100.00 NUC-Non-Conforming Use Change $ 100.00 PDI -PUD Insubstantial Change $ 100.00 PMC-PUD Minor Change $ 50.00 PNC -Project Name Change $ 65.00 PPL-Pians and Plat Construction $ 100.00 PPLA-Plans and Plat Construction Amendment $ 50.00 PREP-Pre-Application Meeting $ 75.00 PREQ-Pre-Acquisition Meeting $ 75.00 PSP-Preliminary Subdivision Plat $ 150,00 PSPA-Preliminary Subdivision Plat Amendment $ 100.00 PUDA-Planned Unit Development Amendment $ 125.00 PUDR-PUD to PUD Rezone $ 125,00 PUDS-PUD Sunsetting $ 50.00 PUDZ-Planned Unit Development $ 150.00 RZ-Rezone $ 100.00 SBDC -School Board Determination of Completeness No Charge SBR-School Board Review No Charge SBRI -School Board Review Insubstantial Change No Charge SDP-Site Development Plan $ 200.00 SDPA-Site Development Plan Amendment $ 150.00 SDPI -Insubstantial Change to SDP $ 100.00 SIP-Site Improvement Plan $ 150.00 SIPI-Insubstantial Change to SIP $ 100.00 SNNP-Street Name Change Unplatted $ 65.00 SNR-Street Name Change $ 65.00 SRA-Stewardship Receiving Area $ 1,000.00 SRAA-Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment $ 300.00 SRDC-Stewardship Receiving Area Determination of Completeness $ 150.00 SRDD-Stewardship Receiving Area Alternative Deviation Design $ 150.00 SV-Sign Variance $ 50.00 TU-Temporary User Permits $ 100.00 UDP-Unified Development Plan $ 150.00 VA-Variance $ 100.00 VAC-Vacate $ 100.00 4)-1S9- 9os-c-i c s tTVv -- 1°C) With respect to all Site Development review types,the Fire Code Official or his designated representative retains the right to make an initial determination as to whether the proposed scope of work impacts fire codes and therefore,whether a review is necessary or unnecessary. If deemed unnecessary,a minimum fee of$30.00 will be collected for administrative processing of the request. Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coIlierxov.net (239)252-2400 Meeting# otel Cth. - the. plo`t's r es�i+►�cah ? exxrat 'book 4�. .�• oc.�R.. ¶3,t c,0064)a o v k c o I CO.,csie4- / • s r a-e di-•oas- f 04r i9C//� /5 /,(/ 0411 'G f119/kto /79 3 f✓ Ct''�..A5 , ; :;P" Jtc ,t`c>tr' Oi- G',d( 01,(52:6741e1/' 5, Q. 06' ,f) p1.104 0` cv/,' a/ S'hKA15 i .4445 5/14 ' /t'c,11'4*4' 311.--:C1.4( Yf21,400% (57) /0644°/'i Lull( e TOA PK '. CoICiie r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov. et (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL# 'r. .1,0119 000b14.3 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email 7 Richard Anderson Environmental Specialist 252-2483 richardanderson@colliergov.net 1 1 David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony@colliergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@coliiergov.net El Steve Baluch,P.E. Transportation Planning 252-2361 StephenBaluch@colliergov.net 11 Laurie Beard Transportation Pathways 252-5782 Lauriebeard@colliergov,net Rachel Beasley Planner 252-8202 rachelbeasley@colliergov,net ❑ Marcus Berman County Surveyor 252-6885 MarcusBerman@colliergov.net n Madelin Bunster Architectural Review 252-8523 madelinbunster@colIiergov.net 1-1 Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin@colliergov,net I 1 George Cascio Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio@colliergov,net 7 Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergov.net I I Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 suefaulkner@colliergov.net I 1 Eric Fey,P.E. Site Plans Reviewer 252-2434 ericfey@colliergov.net I- Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net 7 Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 _ nancygundlach@colliergov.net n Sher Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org [1 John Houldsworth - Engineering Services - 252-5757 johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@colliergov.net 17 Alicia Humphries Site Plans Reviewer/ROW 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net { ! Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM Zoning Services 252-2931 ericjohnson@colliergov.net (1 Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendall@colliergov.net • Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger@colliergov.net _ 7 Paulo Martins Utilities 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net H Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@colliergov.net Ti Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net Ti Matt McLean,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 matthewmclean@colliergov.net H Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov.net Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@colliergov.net • Stefanie Nawrocki Planning and Zoning 252-2313 StefanieNawrocki@colliergov.net Mariam Ocheltree Graphics 252-2315 mariamocheltree@colliergov.net Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero@colliergov.net Collier County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collierttov.net (239)252-240 0 71 Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov.net Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net Cl Stacy Revay Transportation Pathways 252-5677 stacyrevay@colliergov,net ri Brett Rosenblum,P,E, Utility Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net Cl Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@colliergov.net Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@coliiergov.net n Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net hl Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net El Ellen Summers Planning and Zoning 252-1032 EllenSummers@colliergov.net K Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net 11 Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov,net R ii Kris Vanlengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlengen@colliergov.net r Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@colliergov.net David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov,net r] Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov,net Ci Christine Willoughby _ Planning and Zoning 252-5748 ChristlneWilloughby@colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact information: Name Representing Phone Email ;.5 of l+,(12_ C C �Y�23.2 j� /',F" /4pir ea7CPc, Co C r.' 5 L.7001 C. r•..;, L y rs, 213 /tL C wi.y J 2c sr c A$i.Nar ' 1 3 Fred & Marsha Prunetti 17 West Pelican Street Naples, Florida 34113 December 7, 2016 f Mr, Ray Bellows Collier County Government Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Please be advised that we have been in contact with Craig Lyon regarding the dock extension at 14 Hawk Street on the Isles of Capri. It is our understanding that a revised plan has been submitted to the county for approval. (copy attached) The revised plan has addressed our previously stated concerns and with this revised dock submission, we no longer have any objections to the dock extension. 1 3 Thank you for your assistance and feel free to contact us with any questions. Respectfully, ! -([i'(, + Fred & Marsha Prunetti • I S S 8 ATTACHMENT C 1 P E u p o 4 0 ....._.........) _______.............__ z________ g V 4 M c P i W V j Y r jr L 2 a u w d z 4 a U Er J a m a a m m r ZJ Y Q U 0 Q X w C9 Y w o LU c,, Z 0 g u0 W W N LL a a 0 � a z H �' a a - 0 m -.'\\r111- ! J - wa 3 / 1- its ' >, U O i�I iiiiiii \ / U � ."111111alt ate- -° a 1 ..: e, m a/ co Z O Ce � IL O dw I O � .. Wo 2 •'�a 0 bQze i� a TL XUa' i /' C7 C5c� iui vE� Bo Q ./ rceczo n?$ 1 w / e� aw � nc 4\ aazzuWi m,,ag W a d� s'� / z5z0�^ Vw� (::::) `m— Q / + o a a 3}w „,. . .. a o 4 4 Z �a — 1_ r 4 `h #� 1 * 2 SAco n W F2 7 z w a zz AN o O O E JWJ a; Qd (n 0 pd-w� w� Z M Qg Q <Oin OZUw W IL 2115 / i / ,flt 1':' ''''' '''' ' �,J� � x SHEET FILE M0.'15.224LYON-3 Agenda Item 9-C Colter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division December 28, 2016 Dear Planning Commissioners, There are two LDC amendments for your review and consideration at the January 5, 2017 meeting: 1. LDC section 2.03.09 Golf Course(GC)Zoning District.This amendment follows Board direction and adds to the list of permitted and conditional uses in the GC zoning district. 2. LDC sections 2.03.06&5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses(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. Following the hearing on January 5, 2017,there are two additional CCPC hearings scheduled for review of LDC amendments on: 1. Thursday,January 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., and 2. Monday,January 30, 2017, at 5:05 p.m. 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 ac%a1 ()UNC Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •wNw.col govnet Colter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Follow up to LDC Amendment 5.05. 15 Conversion of Golf Courses At the December 15th Planning Commission,the Commissioners requested additional materials to support and justify the proposed LDC amendment 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses. Staff has compiled the following information. 1. Research on the impact of a "golf course view" on property values Staff conducted a brief review of reports and literature on the economic value of green space on residential properties, in particular golf courses. In addition, staff reached out to the Collier County Property Appraiser to provide county specific data regarding the view amenity premiums within the community. A. Overview of Literature Open space, including golf courses and greenways, provide numerous benefits to the whole community including providing scenic views, reducing air pollution, flood control, wildlife habitat, improving water quality, and supporting healthy living. In addition, there are studies and reports that expound on the economic value associated with open spaces, identified as the "incremental value a property receives from its proximity to open space is variously referred to as the open space property value premium ... or amenity premium" (Kroeger, 2008, p. 1). Staff uses the latter for discussion purposes. A report funded by the National Council for Science and the Environment, states there are numerous factors that influence the extent of impact open space has on property value premiums. First, literature findings support that the value of open space depends on the type, size, and type of vegetation cover, general attractiveness, and distance to property. The general rule of thumb is that the closer the open space is to the property,the higher the amenity premium.Another important factor is the confidence, or lack thereof,that the open space will remain in perpetuity. One frequently cited study identified that parks and open spaces have a positive impact on property values. The study was conducted in Portland, Oregon and the researchers found that residential properties within 1,500 feet of natural forest areas experienced an average of$10,648 increase,compared to $5,657 for specialty parks, $8,849 for golf courses and $1,214 for urban parks in 1990 dollars. The researchers found natural areas and specialty parks had a "positive and statistically significant effect" (Kroeger, 2008, p. A4-16) on a home's sale price. The authors noted that residences adjacent to a golf course (200 ft.) were estimated to enjoy the largest increase in the sale price because of their proximity to the open space. c i • a wa 2 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •wmw.coliergovnct Cotter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Further, the National Park Service published a resource book in 1995, titled Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors and it reports there are many localized studies done on the property value premiums attributed to the proximity to open space,supporting the positive influence of open space on property values. In summary, there is evidence from a wide array of studies examining the amenity premiums associated with open space that show that preserving open space creates economic and community value. Resources: Active Living Research.(2010).The Economic Benefits of Open Space,Recreation Facilities and Walkable. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, San Diego State University,San Diego,CA.Retrieved from:http://activelivingresearch.org/economic-benefits-open-space-recreation-facilities- and-walkable-community-design Kroeger,Timm.(2008).Open Space Property Value Premium Analysis.Defenders of Wildlife and National Council for Science and the Environment-2006 Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program.Retrieved from http://www.defenders.org/publications/open space property value premium analysis.pdf U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service(1995).Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers,Trails and Greenway Corridors.Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance—National Park Service.Fourth Edition,Revised.Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ all.pdf B. Collier County Property Appraiser Data Staff reached out to the Director of Real Estate/Appraisal Assessment Analyst with the Collier County Property Appraiser and obtained sales data of residential properties within golf course communities from January 1, 2012 through December 5, 2016.The following information an overview of the data, analysis of the data, and staff's findings. Overview of Data • The data set included twelve established communities that were built 15 or more years ago. • The data set included four Golf Course zoned properties and eight PUD zoned properties. • The data set comprised a range of residential price points and courses located in different geographical areas of the County. • The data set excluded vacant unimproved land sales. • The Director of Real Estate/Appraisal Assessment Analyst with the Collier County Property Appraiser stated the residential price per adjusted square feet represents a publicly recorded sale price of which a home is generally assessed at 100% value for the first floor air conditioned residential area,at 70%for the second floor air conditioned and the garage area,and 40%to 70% for porch areas. • The data set excluded view amenities that incurred less than 10 sales transactions: Creek (7), Institutional (4), Common Area (3), Conservation (3), Highway(3), River(2), and Club. • Several view amenities were combined to address subjectivity and variation within the staff of the Collier County Property Appraiser determination of view types. This was done with the support of Director of Real Estate/Appraisal Assessment Analyst. C f '��'8` 3 rq ux Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2400 •ww v.colliergovnet Co ter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Data for 10 View Amenity Types for Residential Properties in Golf Course Communities in Collier County View Amenity #of Percent Total Sale Total Price Per Percent Rank Types Sales of Total Amount Adjusted Adjusted Attributed Sales Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. to Amenity Premium Lake 760 30% $544,319,300 2,458,626 $221 53% 1 Preserve and 209 8% $144,126,200 682,850 $211 47% 2 Natural Area Landscape,Buffer, 85 3% $46,797,600 252,345 $189 31% 3 Green Space,and Green Belt(Green Space) Golf 899 35% $495,027,500 2,628,125 $188 31% 4 Privacy Wall 46 2% $28,283,000 159,759 $177 23% 5 Street 49 2% $17,294,400 111,329 $155 8% 6 Drainage 24 1% $9,242,400 62,996 $147 2% 7 Easement Single Family 461 18% $169,673,199 1,181,931 $144 Control 8 Canal 24 1% $9,185,700 68,550 $134 -7% 9 Recreation Area 15 1% $3,708,500 32,127 $115 -20% 10 Totals 2,572 $1,467,657,799 7,638,638 Averages $570,629 2,970 $192 Analysis • For each view amenity,the Total Sales Amount was divided by the Total Adjusted Square Feet to arrive at a Price Per Adjusted Square Feet for each view amenity.This was used to compare other view amenities. For example, a single family view amenity: $169,673,199/1,181,931 = $144 per square foot. • To assess the amenity premium, in particular golf courses and green space views, staff compared all amenity premiums with the single family view. This results in the "Percent Attributed to Amenity Premium." For example, the golf course amenity premium is 31% more than a single family view: ($188-$144)/$144=31% qT; 4 Deve opmerrt Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet COter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Findings • A golf course view is valuable. It provides the fourth highest amenity premium when compared to all views and increases the sale price by 31%when compared to a single family home view. • The three highest amenity premiums are Lake; Preserve and Natural Area; and Green Space. This is important to note as the proposed greenway will provide views of one or more of the top four amenity premiums. • The amenity premium of the four highest are passive recreation uses and not associated with the broader open space uses. Resources: C.Quinby Ill,personal communication.Collier County Property Appraiser.December 2016. 2. Research on the Florida communities approving and denying golf course conversions Golf course conversions are occurring across Florida.The following case studies are those that were previously described by staff in the report on golf course conversions or others that became litigious, controversial and discussed at length in the news. Generally speaking,the research was completed by reviewing online news articles. It is important to note that controversial golf course conversions are easily found in online media searches while many golf course conversions likely occur with much less or little news coverage across the state. 1. Mizner Trail Golf Course, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County Overview: • Over a decade of legal battles ensued between the Boca Del Mar neighborhood association and the golf course property owner following the closing of the Mizner Trail Golf Course in 2005. • The Palm Beach County Commission denied two development proposals on the golf course and was subsequently sued for the denials. However,the County was successful in defending itself against the challenges. • In 2014 the Commission approved (5-2)252 homes on the property against overwhelming opposition from the Boca Del Mar neighborhood association. • The Boca Del Mar neighborhood association sued the County in hopes of overturning their approval and stop 252 homes from being built on the Mizner Trail golf course. • Ultimately,the courts ruled in favor of the developer. ()UNA- 5 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •ywuw.coliagovnet Go ier County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Resources: 1. Reid,A.(2014).Lawsuits aim to stop building on the Mizner golf course.Sun Sentinel.Retrieved from http://articles.sun- sentinel.com/2014-08-11/news/fl-mizner-trail-lawsuit-20140811 1 compson-mizner-trail-inc-boca-del-mar-building-plans 2. Redlich,W.(2014).Boca del Mar to Add 288 Units?West Boca News.Retrieved from http://westbocanews.com/2014/01/08/boca- del-mar-to-add-288-units 3. Redlich,W.(2015).Mizner Trail Going Ahead with 250+Homes.West Boca News.Retrieved from http://westbocanews.com/2015/04/02/mizner-tra il-going-ahead-with-250-homes/8203 4. Reid,A.(2015).Building on hold,land for sale at old Mizner Trail golf course.Sun Sentinel.Retrieved from http://www.sun- senti ne I.com/local/pal m-beach/fl-go if-la nd-prob le m s-20150806-story.htm I 5. Reid,A.(2016).Boca Del Mar drops golf development fight.Sun Sentinel.Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm- beach/fl-golf-land-fight-end s-20150331-story.htm I 6. Reid,A.(2016).Boca Del Mar loses golf course fight.Sun Sentinel.Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm- beach/fl-m izner-golf-ru ling-20150219-story.htm I 2. Calusa Country Club, Miami-Dade County Overview: • Residents rejected the original proposal from the developer to build a 960-unit retirement community which included a payment of$50,000 per home with a golf course view.The development proposal also included a 50-foot linear park along the perimeter of the defunct golf course.This design feature may be in part due to the Miami-Dade's requirement to preserve 50 percent of the golf course as open space. • The course has a restrictive covenant requiring the golf course to be operated as a golf club and country club and that the restrictions are valid for 99 years unless"released or revised by the[Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners] .... and those owners within 150 feet of the exterior boundaries of the... property." • In March 2014,the trial court supported the developer's argument and invalidated the restrictive covenant. • In January 2016,the appeals court reversed the trial court opinion and held the restrictive covenant in this case was a governmental regulation and upheld the restrictions. • As of May 2016,the developer is seeking to change the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan to allow for low-medium density residential on the site. Resources: 1. Chen,E.(2012).Bad Economy For Golf Courses Puts Pressure On Owners Of Fairway-View Homes.WLRN Miami i South Florida. Retrieved from http://wlrn.org/post/bad-economy-golf-courses-puts-pressure-owners-fairway-view-homes 2. Yager,R.(2012).Barcardi goes to court to end Calusa CC land restrictions.Miami's Community Newspapers.Retrieved from http://com munitynewspa pers.com/ke ndal I-gazette/baca rd i-goes-to-court-to-end-ca lura-cc-land-restrictions/ 3. (2014).Ruling oks building on golf course.The Real Deal.Retrieved from http://therealdeal.com/miami/2014/10/28/ruling-oks- bu ildi ng-on-golf-course/ 4. Save Caluso Trust v.St.Andrews Holdings,Ltd.,193 So.3d 910(Ha.3d DCA 2016) 5. Admin.(2014).Legal Update:The Future of a Golf Course.Tallahassee Board of Realtors website.Retrieved from http://www.tbrnet.org/blog/2014/12/05/legal-u pdate-th a-futu re-of-a-golf-course/ 6. (2016)Miami-Dade County website.Comprehensive Development Master Plan page.Retrieved from http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/cdmp.asp 7. (2016)Miami-Dade County website.Comprehensive Development Master Plan Applicant page.May 2016-Application No.7. Retrieved from http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/cdmp-amendment-cycles.asptf201605 ci'a".c> 6 ouNA Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Cotter County Growth pManagement ��Dne�p/alrttment 8. Bandell,B.(2016) 5 big developmPt�Iir15b atuaiT�P1VI00hbrPsi ri0Pc urse.South Florida Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizlournals.com/southflorida/news/2016/06/27/5-big-development-plans-proposed-including-l- 100.html 3. Century Village Golf Course, Palm Beach County Overview: • After four meetings,the Palm Beach Board of County Commissioner's approved the developer's controversial plans to build a commercial and residential development on the defunct Century Village(an over age 55 community)golf course. • Century Village sued the developers,siting that he would violate a deed restriction that requires the property remain as a golf course in "perpetuity." • The Commission required that the developer provide a 9-hole golf course for the Century Village association to approve. • The Court ruled in the developer's favor. Resources: 1. Johnson,K.(2013).Century Village vote:Commissioners approve plan to transform golf course into shops.WPTV.com.Retrieved from http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/century-village-golf-course-decision-vote-will- andrew-waldmans-course-be-a-new-shopping-center 2. Sorenture,J.(2013).County approves project near Century Village;closed golf course to get commercial development.My Palm Beach Post.Retrieved from http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/county-approves-project-near-century-village-closed-golf- course-get-commerical-development/nKORxmvnfKAuZOlrkdbDOL/ 3. Reid,A.(2016).Century Village residents lose golf course court fight.Sun Sentinel.Retrieved from http://www.sun- sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/palm-beach-politics-bldg/sfl-century-village-loses-golf-fight-20150227-story.html 4. Ocean Palm Golf Course, City of Flagler Beach Overview: • Ocean Palm Golf Club, a 9-hole course,opened in 1960. • It was sold in 1999 and the owner requested the course was rezoned to low density residential but the City unanimously denied the request.The City's justification for the denial was the need to maintain the course as a recreation area and concern of potential stormwater impacts to the area. • The course property owner challenged the City in court, however,the court sided with the City. • The City of Flagler Beach purchased the golf course in 2013 during a foreclosure auction with the goal to reopen it as a golf course. • In 2016,the golf course reopened under a lease and management agreement between the City and a private management company. Resources: 1. No author.(2013).From Green to Red:With Golf Course Buy,Flagler Beach Fears Going Palm Coast's way. FlaglerLive.com. Retrieved from https://flaglerlive.com/51471/ocean-palm-golf-club/ 2. Ryan,S.(2016)Ocean Palm Golf Course to reopen Saturday in Flagler Beach.The Daytona Beach News-Journal.Retrieved from http://www.news-journalonline.com/entertainment/20160603/ocean-palm-golf-club-to-reopen-saturday-in-flagler-beach c 7 UN Devebpmert Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet co ter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division 5. Vista Golf Course, Vero Beach, Indian River County Overview: • The developer sold the property in 1989 and placed protective covenants on the property"for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value,desirability and attractiveness of the condominium communities." • Additionally,the covenants included that the land be operated as a 27-hole golf course and that the"land shall,for a period of time... be held,sold,conveyed, leased, mortgaged and otherwise dealt with only as a single parcel..." • In 2008 the property owners sued the resident association to allow the golf course land to be used for condominiums.The property owners claimed that maintaining it as a 27-hole golf course"constituted undue oppression." • The trial courts found that the golf course could not be required to operate as a golf course business but that it could not operate as anything else and that the Unity of Title Covenant was unreasonable. • The appeals court affirmed that the Unity of Title Covenant was unreasonable. Resources: 1. Elliott,J.(2012).Dispute over Vista golf course finally headed to court in Indian River County.TCPaIm.Retrieved from http://arch ive.tcpal m.com/news/dispute-over-vista-Rolf-course-fi nor I ly-headed-to-court-in-Indian-river-county-ep-382159630- 343074352.html 2. Vista Golf,LLC v.Vista Royale Prop.Owners Ass'n.,164 So.3d 140(Fla.4th DCA 2015) 6. Presidential Country Club Resort Community Overview: • In 2015,the City of West Palm Beach approved the conversion of a course within the Presidential Country Club Resort Community,a golf course master planned community. • The approval followed several public meetings.According to City staff,the neighboring residents and the developer were able to reach consensus through the public meeting process(J. Roach, Principal Planner, personal communication,August 18,2016). • The developer agreed to provide views of open space,create a large lake system that would enhance the views,and provide separation from the proposed resort development. Resources: 1. City of West Palm Beach City Commission.(2015).2300 Presidential Way and 3100-3200 North Congress Avenue,Sea Palm Resort (formerly PCC)Resort,Major Planned Development Amendment and Major Sub division(3).Staff report.Retrieved from https://o n ed rive.)ive.com/?a uth key=%21AI i G m wi q6s l koAQ&i d=2A630568D6 D3 E B34%216841&cid=2A630568D6 D3 E B34 3. Changes and additions to the LDC amendment text Changes are highlighted in yellow and deletions were made where appropriate. cr�UN 8 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239252-2400 •www.col govnet Co ger County Growth Management Department Development Review Division 4. Overview of dark sky concepts This research will be provided prior to the Planning Commission on Thursday,January 19th 5. Visual survey To provide an example, staff compiled a basic visual survey using SurveyMonkey®.The survey will be available by close of business on Friday, December 30, 2016: Please access the survey here: www.colliergov.net/currentldcas c°1•LLIke • • �iU„j'4.S4 9 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2016 LDC Amendment Cycle LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts CHANGE: This amendment expands the list ofpermitted and conditional uses within LDC section 2.03.09 A Golf Course (GC) zoning district to.include low intensity recreational uses as permitted or conditional uses. To reflect the addition f recreational uses, the district is renamed the"Golf Course and Recreational Use District," REASON: This amendment follows Board diction on April 1221 >;. .: to pursue an LDC amendment to allow for additional compatible uses iithe GC zoning district. Board discussed several issues and concerns relatedgolf course conversions which are dressed in the companion LDC amendment adding ll, .ection 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses. Currently, the only permitted use in the districi'is a golf coe. The proposed permitted and conditional uses include severala open spay-uses that are,on occasion, already provided on golf y courses in Collier Countand are also permitted in thConsrv .tion'and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use zoning districts. Research was conducted to identify additiona ' on-golf course recreational uses that are allowed by other communities in Florida. The proposed uses are consistent with the low intensity recreational uses mowed in thesecommontties. The proposed uses___are intended to be compatitiloit residential uses as many golf course are surrounded by single fami nd mukfamily homes. Further, the amendment requires all uses to comply with the design standards in LDC section 5.05.15 H for lighting and setbacks, however, they will not be required to leo'o 'ly with the additional procedural requirements established in other provisions inLDC section 05.15. The proposed changed o prov° awareness to property owners that surround a GC zoned golf course that it may be redeveloped to a non-golf course recreational use by right or through a conditional use process. Tdition, the proposed uses provide a golf course property owner additional uses should a conversion prove nonviable. DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: No changes, approved unanimously on December 19, 2016. DSAC RECOMMENDATION: To be reviewed by DSAC on January 4, 2017. FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. 10 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Proposed LDC section 5.05.15 Golf Course Conversions GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management Plan impacts associated with this amendment. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts y- 3 A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District"GC". The purpose and intent of"GC"district 4 is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, rind normal accessory uses is 5 golf coursoc; including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be 6 compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses ;The GC district shall be in 7 accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district 8 of the future land use element of the Collier-County GMP. Alt US" shall be subject to 9 design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and otherMapplicable LDC 10 standards. 11 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the 12 uses that are allowable as accessory"or conditional uses in theGC district. 13 a. Permitted uses. : : ., 14 1. Golf coursed 15 2. Hiking trailskwal � multi use paths and observation decks. 16 3. Passive recreation =s,, 17 4< kifK.golf. ,47 18 b. Access-64 uses 19 '1. Use d structuresthat are accessory and incidental to uses 20 <. per ° d as of rightin the GC district. 21 2v faciliti at serve as an integral part of a golf 22 . v e, including but not limited to clubhouse, 23 coma,unity cen if mg, practice driving range, shuffleboard x .. 24k cou wimming`p .ls and tennis facilities, snack shops and 25stroo 26 3. Poshopsh equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square 27 fee associated with a golf course. 28 sro.4. Restaurants, associated with a golf course, with a seating 29 capacity of 150 seats or less provided that the hours of operation 30 ar+ no later than 10:00 p.m. 31 5. Ai naximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf 32 :°'course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf 33 course. 34 6. Maintenance buildings. 35 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in 36 the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC 37 section 10.08.00. 38 1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course permitted 39 uses of the district including gift shops; pro shops with equipment 40 sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating 41 capacity of greater than 150 seats; cocktail lounges, and similar 42 uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course. 11 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Pubic Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term. 1 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 2 3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to 3 residential uses. 4 4. Museums. 5 5. Water related activities, including non-motorized boating, boat 6 ramps, docks, and fishing piers. 7 6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, 8 tennis, and racquetball. 9 7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers. 10 8. Parks and playgrounds. 11 9. Pools, indoor or outdoor. 12 10. Botanical gardens. r> 13 11. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the 14 foregoing uses as determined b►:the Hearing Examiner or Board 15 of Zoning Appeals, as applicable. 16 # # # # # # # # # # # N. ,..'''4' 'N, i 'Y d. QTS l 4/4,,,v,:;,,,,, ,;04' '''''''' '''''''''.',• 'f4 7:::?:1: 11 ki:\\'''4::::::11 ' I 1 1.2 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hean gs\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.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, 13 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.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 Gol o c en. x her 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 Zoning District Number of Golf 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 14 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.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.neticurrentldcas. The research on golf course conversions in Florida and the nation provided insight into what land use and planning principles supported the approval of a conversion project by a local jurisdiction. Staff found the projects that received approval had 15 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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. 16 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term Approval of compatibility measures 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 Land Use Petition Process • Rezone • PUD Amendment Stakeholder Outreach Process • SRA Amendment 1. Pre-Application Meeting 2. Intent to Convert Application or a. Mailed Notice 3. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting Compatibility Design Review Process a. Mailed Notice 4. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting Report (new process) 1. Compatibility Design Review provided for Approval Process Application 2. Public Hearing to approve design 3. Administrative approval of SDP,PPL, etc. 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 that a title opinion or title commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances against the property prevent the land from being developed as proposed. This will require due diligence on the part of the applicant prior to submitting the 17 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term application. The burden 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 18 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current tcxt to be deleted 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 already a permitted,accessory or conditional use 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 requires the procedural components of LDC section 5.05.15 and only the soil and groundwater testing standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 G.6 (e.g. no greenway or stormwater assessment 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 design review application consists of a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board. 19 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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. 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 20 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term have isolated preserves that are less than'/2 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 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. 21 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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 2 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Standards 3 4 H. Conversion of Golf Courses. Golf courses constructed within a PUD shall adhere to the 5 process established in LDC section 5.05.15 prior to converting to another use. 22 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 3 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses 4 5 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of 6 golf course conversion on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during 7 the design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to 8 ensure compatibility with the existing land uses. For the purposes of this section, 9 property owners within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as 10 stakeholders. 11 1. Stakeholder outreach process. The intent is to provide a process to cultivate 12 consensus between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed 13 conversion. In particular, this section is designed to address the conversion of 14 golf courses surrounded, in whole or in part, by residential uses or lands zoned 15 residential. 16 2. Development standards. It is the intent of the specific development standards 17 contained herein to encourage the applicant to propose a conversion project 18 with land uses and amenities that are compatible and complementary to the 19 existing neighborhoods. Further, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate 20 reasonable input provided by stakeholders into the development proposal. 21 B. Applicability. The following zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments, 22 and compatibility design review petitions, collectively referred to as "conversion 23 applications" hereafter, shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A conversion application 24 shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a developed golf course to a non- 25 golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is sought 26 for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant shall be 27 exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.15 H. 28 1. Zoning actions. This section applies to a golf course developed in any zoning 29 district for a use that is not currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the 30 zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought. 31 2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course 32 developed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area for a use that is not 33 currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the 34 change is sought. 35 3. Compatibility design review. This section applies to a golf course developed in 36 any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a 37 non-golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within 38 the existing zoning district or designation. Permitted conditional uses shall also 39 require conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00. 40 C. Application process for conversion applications. 41 1. Intent to Convert application. The applicant shall submit an "Intent to Convert" 42 application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application. The 43 following is required of the applicant: 44 a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and 45 application submittal requirements, including: a title opinion or title 46 commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all 47 encumbrances against the property; the Developer's Alternatives 48 Statement, as provided for below; and the public outreach methods to be 49 used to engage stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings 50 consistent with the County's Guide to Golf Course Conversion as 51 established below. 23 I:\2016 LDC Amendment CycletAdvisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the 2 requirements of LDC section 10.03.06. 3 2. Developer's Alternatives Statement requirements. The purpose of the 4 Developer's Alternatives Statement (DAS) is to serve as a tool to inform 5 stakeholders and the County about the applicant's development options and 6 intentions. It is intended to encourage communication, cooperation, and 7 consensus building between the applicant, the stakeholders, and the County. 8 b. Alternatives. The DAS shall be prepared by the applicant and shall 9 clearly identify the goals and objectives for the conversion project. The 10 DAS shall address, at a minimum, the three alternatives noted below. The 11 alternatives are not intended to be mutually exclusive; the conceptual 12 development plan described below may incorporate one or more of the 13 alternatives in the conversion project. 14 i. No conversion: The applicant shall examine opportunities to 15 retain all or part of the golf course. The following considerations 16 are to be assessed: 17 a) Whether the existing home owner's association(s) 18 surrounding the golf course are able to purchase all or part 19 of the golf course; and 20 b) Whether the existing home owner's association(s) and any 21 new association can coordinate joint control for all or part 22 of the golf course. 23 ii. County purchase: The applicant shall coordinate with the 24 fCounty] to determine if there is interest to donate, purchase, or 25 maintain a portion or all of the property for a public use, e.g., 26 public park, open space, civic use, or other public facilities. This 27 section shall not require the County to purchase any lands, nor 28 shall this require the property owner to donate or sell any land. 29 iii. Conceptual development plan: The applicant shall prepare one or 30 more proposed conceptual development plans, consistent with the 31 development standards established in section LDC section 32 5.05.15 G, depicting the proposed conversion to share with the 33 stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described 34 below. The conceptual development plan shall include a narrative 35 describing how the plan implements and is consistent with the 36 goals and objectives identified in the DAS. The conceptual plan 37 shall depict the retained and proposed land uses, including 38 residential, non-residential, and preserve areas; existing and 39 proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing and proposed 40 trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the 41 greenway, including any passive recreational uses. The 42 narrative shall identify the intensity of the proposed land uses; 43 how the proposed conversion is compatible with the existing 44 surrounding land uses and any methods to provide benefits or 45 mitigate impacts to the stakeholders. Visual exhibits to describe 46 the conceptual development plan and any amenities, including the 47 greenway, shall also be provided. 48 3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs)for conversion applications. The SOMs 49 are intended to engage the stakeholders early in the conversion project and 50 inform the applicant as to what the stakeholders find important in the 51 neighborhood, what the stakeholders consider compatible with the neighborhood, 24 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 and what types of land uses they would support to be added to the 2 neighborhood. The applicant shall utilize Collier County's Guide to Golf Course 3 Conversion: Public Outreach Methods and Usable Open Space Concepts to 4 conduct the SOMs. An assigned County planner shall attend the SOM and 5 observe the process. The following is required of the applicant: 6 a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application 7 submittal requirements. 8 b. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in-person SOMs and a 9 minimum of one web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual 10 plan(s). The web-based survey web address shall be incorporated in the 11 mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in-person SOMs. 12 c. At the SOM, the applicant shall provide information to the stakeholders 13 about the purpose of the meeting, including a presentation on the goals 14 and objectives of the conversion project, the alternatives established in 15 the Developer's Alternative Statement, the greenway concept, as required 16 in subsection D, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility with 17 the existing surrounding neighborhood. The applicant shall facilitate 18 discussion on these topics with the stakeholders using one or more public 19 outreach method(s) identified in the County's Guide to Golf Course 20 Conversion. 21 d. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the 22 applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of 23 attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos 24 from the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from 25 outreach methods (as described in the County's Guide to Golf Course 26 Conversion), and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The 27 applicant shall also include a point-counterpoint list, identifying 28 reasonable input from the stakeholders and how and why it was or was 29 not incorporated in the conversion application. The report shall be 30 organized such that the issues and ideas provided by the stakeholders 31 are clearly labeled by the applicant in the list and the conversion 32 application. 33 4. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion 34 application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, compatibility design review) until the 35 Intent to Convert application is deemed completed by County staff and the SOMs 36 are completed. Thereafter, the applicant may proceed by submitting a 37 conversion application with the County as follows: 38 a. Zoning actions. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.1, the applicant shall 39 file a PUDA or rezone application, including the SOM report. No 40 deviations to LDC section 5.05.15 shall be approved; further, deviations 41 to other sections of the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a 42 SOM or NIM. 43 b. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For projects subject to 44 5.05.15 B.2, the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area 45 Amendments application, including the SOM report. No deviations to LDC 46 section 5.05.15 shall be approved; further, deviations to other sections of 47 the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM. 48 c. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, the 49 applicant shall file a compatibility design review application, including the 50 SOM report. No deviations to LDC section 5.05.15 shall be approved. 25 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 D. Staff report for conversion applications. In addition to the requirements established in 2 LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B.3, or 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff report shall 3 evaluate the following: 4 1. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this section and 5 development standards in the LDC. In particular, that the proposed design and 6 use(s) of the greenway, as applicable, meet the purpose as described 5.05.15 D. 7 2. Whether the SOM report and point-counterpoint list described above reflect the 8 discussions that took place at the SOMs. 9 3. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by the 10 stakeholders to address impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholder 11 real property. 12 4. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why reasonable input from 13 the stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual development plan. 14 E. Supplemental review and approval considerations for zoning actions and Stewardship 15 Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of the Planning 16 Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the Board shall show 17 the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff report for conversion 18 applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, and the findings established in 19 LDC sections 10.02.08 E, 10.02.13 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In particular, the 20 Planning Commission shall give attention to the design of the qreenway and how it 21 mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention shall be given to who can use the 22 greenway. The staff report for the Board shall include the Planning Commission's 23 findings. 24 F. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, this section is intended 25 to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by requiring the 26 conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the existing 27 surrounding uses. The land use is not subject to review. The following is required: 28 1. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements 29 for the compatibility design review application. 30 2. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements 31 of LDC section 10.03.06. 32 3. Review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in 33 5.05.15 D, the compatibility design review application as follows, and make a 34 recommendation to the Board. 35 a. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established 36 in this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC 37 section 5.05.15 D.2— D.4. 38 b. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing 39 surrounding land uses. 40 c. Whether a view of open space is provided that mitigate impacts to real 41 property for the property owners that surround the golf course. 42 d. Whether open space is retained and available for passive recreation. 43 4. The Board shall consider the staff report and Planning Commissioner's report 44 and approve, approve with conditions, or deny application. Upon approval of the 45 application, the applicant shall obtain approval of any additional required 46 development order, such as SDP, construction plans, or conditional use. 47 G. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for 48 zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The Compatibility design 49 review process shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15 G.6. 50 1. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages utilized to meet the 51 minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be 26 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for 2 any subsequent conversion projects. 3 2. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space view for 4 stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife 5 habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a 6 continuous strip of undeveloped land set aside for passive recreational uses, 7 such as: open space, nature tails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach 8 frontage, disc golf courses, exercise equipment, and multi-use paths. The Board 9 may approve other passive recreational uses that were vetted at the 10 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings and are supported by the stakeholders. The 11 greenway shall not include required yards (setbacks) of any individual lots. 12 a. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties 13 surrounding the golf course and generally located along the perimeter of 14 the proposed development. The Board may approve an alternative 15 design that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as 16 provided for in LDC section 5.05.15 C.3 and is supported by the 17 stakeholders. 18 b. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the conversion project shall 19 be dedicated to the greenway. The greenway shall have a minimum 20 average width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet at any one location. 21 c. Maintenance of the greenway shall be identified through the zoning or 22 and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment process. 23 d. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for 24 the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as 25 noted in G.1 above. 26 e. Existing trees and understory(shrubs and groundcover) shall be 27 preserved and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal 28 improvements are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a 29 minimum, canopy trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet 30 within the greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, 31 trees within preserves shall be excluded from the ratio. 32 f. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed 33 development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence 34 shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and 35 around the greenway. 36 q. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; 37 however, the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional 38 lake area than what exists pre-conversion. Any newly developed lake 39 shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. 40 h. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the County's official 41 records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway. 42 3. Supplemental preserve provisions. 43 a. Conversion projects with sporadic vegetation, e.g. isolated preserves less 44 than 1/2 acre and/or areas of native vegetation retention less than 1/2 45 acre (including planted areas)which meet the criteria established in LDC 46 section 3.05.07 A.4 may recreate up to 100 percent of required preserve 47 area if located within the greenway. 48 b. The existing required preservation areas for a golf course shall be 49 retained and maintained as established in LDC section 3.05.07 B.1; 50 however, 50 percent of the areas may be counted towards the required 51 preserve area for the conversion project if located within the greenway 27 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 and made available for passive recreation uses as allowed for in LDC 2 section 3.05.07 H.1.h. 3 4. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that 4 the stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an 5 equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by a pre 6 versus post development stormwater runoff analysis. 7 5. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain 8 compensation shall be provided. 9 6. Soil and/or groundwater sampling. In addition to the soil and/or ground water 10 sampling requirements established in LDC section 3.08.00 A.4.d, the applicant 11 shall conduct soil and/or groundwater sampling for the pollutants as follows: 12 Managed turf, chemical storage/mixing areas, and maintenance areas (i.e. 13 equipment storage and washing areas, fueling and fuel storage areas) shall be 14 tested for organophosphate, carbamate, triazine pesticides, or chlorinated 15 herbicides. In addition, maintenance areas, as described above, shall be tested 16 for petroleum products. The County shall notify the Department of Environmental 17 Protection where contamination exceeding applicable Department of 18 Environmental Protection standards is identified on site or where an 19 Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 20 7. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be 21 consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where 22 conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the 23 LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply. 24 H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the 25 GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards. 26 1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce light pollution. At a minimum, 27 lighting shall be directed away from neighboring properties and all light fixtures 28 shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. 29 2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a 30 minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with 31 residential uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one 32 location. 33 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 28 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-5-17\Memo to Planning Commission 12-28-16.docx nnNoNv+ � Dn0 co 0 0 v co p 0 • o 0 A 0 c < O fro w r"+, • s uo• -I m co o 0 0aci 0 3 5 C. 1— N N -, O Ol O el rp •• N O • 00v - OvZrc. 3 a, v p vi = Gl co ret Nr S o CD- 0 O I-� rn_+. �, In C -" n o c 3 r3•r fD < 3 C. ' CD n -0 o.. 'h Q 'O 'O D W an C) c) d r 3' —I 3 Ofp ! N• 0 < • N O s v C 0 f2 -1 H 3 D CL cl• 'a C fD S fD n. CI ' 0- 7 C N N fD N a D) H O 3 N Uq rr+ fD '06 3 V) O v, O' N tai, v, V) rr C 3 <D CD p C D! 3 a v ., A N co • O ° 3- 0 0 z 2 0- 0 3 fp O O -c v, 3 3 • C < r312 r O Q 0) d rr S O O * D) tD m CD v mCD -h o a. ro 0 0 0. = m co 3 ADJ s CL �, ° g r+ -II WC V) • • • • • • • o ro o - , z —I S 3• * 0 o v 0 ' n '4 r --1 n "O _O —I v O rD —I r=r —I - r. 13 ID D, 0 a) CD Fa , .3 n -.. ro o 0, O J o -s -s S N "O Cr rr+ rD 3 . S p7 "� GfD r+ 7r "° 13 N 3 0 �. N r�D VI 'O 16 r' '6 (D '� 3 _� a C 1"f ,.+ rD ON N •G N Q S rt O.. fD rD n n ,n-r = D' (D O rt C. 0 Nno -. 0) a 0- g S O C 4 co n N 0 (1 N rr 4 _• ,..' D1 ,n to r+ S fD �, ID n C '� r+ Dpi DSi -, a v '< `n rt r+ 0 O o a S 0. r. r3+ 3 . o N -0 0 r ,+ -oi, Dl CD �< O �'*. O 3 ,n 0 a •rt N• co 07 fD CD C. rF N D, 3 m C O r+ a m 7 < ° • coo r ° m v, Q 0 CD v • 3 S O -• .- co o G) rte+ D *. O 3 o fD (D D1 (D r+ (D rD r. O Z D STD' o A co a^ ° fro r+ • a .' fD •< 0 3 7, LI ffD 3 < C 0.. C1 7 3 r+ co O r+ (D co rD D) r+ r+ 3 .'i , d fp • 13 rD -O c til (D CD CD n n a fD fD "O O cm o m m v m fD a5o 5. r a 0 o v 3 S o rD ' * Z vi 0 A v = °l 35 o r^+ = u°a 3 aro < _s o a) ui 3 rro 0 <. 3 °, ' `c a C 3ID n .< DJ3. * j 7• 3 DJ ri* • N _; x• N 7 ,-r C 7 4' O N D) N• C. fD N 3 07 r. O fD n r v CV art ° ° rt• ~' v rr O -- o' a N 2, 3 r. L, rr 3 n) a 3 012, O O 03 co • r+ s o ❑- s rr m c — o .< * co o -, a ° ° . S 0 a n s 2. N 3 " C n F" 0 rD to fD N rt �' fD 'O H 7 f7 O v, rr; S fD r. O '8 0 O v 3 N Di 0 n fp 13 C 7 a H. 3+ O O •ro Q rt 0 (�. (Ty C ^fTI. n0 W Cral rD Or Da O a N. O rD ° 13 C fD S rD (D a D> 7 O * O 3 �• fD O 0 •' rD 3 0. 3 W V) O O D SH. -, rt 3 O h 2• ^ �. u. c N -O G O .. 3 3 tria, F-� -rt C. O fD v, fD 0'U S N .0 C 0 •,^ �• 0ot, , O O fD 7 I.'O a s F-' tD rt 3 m o o Z oa ° rd4D a3- oa rrDDcro '_'. �+ 3 W sm 7 Ct. 3 C rD ° W. O. D VI D 0) 3 ° ° CD 03 3 o rD rx+ v a -° y, a rt fD 3 _, 3rTD r3+ v, -, n C r. " �, 3 N 7 CD cr 0 3! O N n O s ,-. N °1 N g 3 S n 0 o C_ 1,.� O 0 7 CD 7LO a a 6 ", N 5• .... v N Co O CDD ° N 3 3 c 3 al f3D 3 s rD Q ° o < 0 0 D, LA D LA 0 o ° o a m o 3 0 m o s H CD Dl 3 *ric, 3- S 3 rt C rt n. ,+ O ro O CD OD• 3 .vs . 3 3 n fD (11 3 71 o S co rD rD ro 'o Dl o a 'O r+ 7 a O O ' C CD '* o rt W ° fD a ,.. o_ m rt as ft) C CCD H S 0 A O 0 ,.+ v a 0 '+ DO N rD 0 fD Q rr v O 3 v, cro n < 0 its fD ° ri) o 0 o r3 v, m sao ,• �-r 0 a v, n rt O Q y < S rrt. O • CD 0) S ✓ Op 03A a ,n fCD fDD CDD '< O3 v,' D! _ CDD r3+ O �' ,Oi, V) C. .r. ffDD :'� CD ac C S f.D C C73 CL D na- fD G MrD n O 13 r, O o 3 > 3 A 3 3 fp 3 ; 3nrna c 3vv 3 '. 3 3 3 D C O C fD CDD A V a) OA. T art 3 C O CD 72 3 rD A A 3 vi n m 0. n Re Ul W o W 3 Cr n rt w !n 0 D p O O N rp K 0 0 0 O j 7 )1 N j S 3 00. -, 5• • _M 7 S 3 G0, EL, O O O R. 3 -' v m W O O Vra O .. 3 c.) �• coQ' GlO Gvv a 1' c+ * (D Q . n' 7 rr , fD Q O N v S v+ O , , N pi vi O rt. 0 rD ni n" " 0 (D• 0 C O (D 7 =I, 7 ro co ,-+ . ft, ,in' nn n O O-, O ' 3 0O _Q v , S nw "7@ < on6O Oa) c -, Q +O O O EA- --' ` rtB .-rO, — — i O. RN (D[HO (0O ," . Q DJ 3 s— , ra co • sou cu 1 < t3 .-r (o - !D 0 a Q r� -% S:L iD a v' DA �^ p ups .1 = p et ° "r tr bpi "S O O CD n CD to S rl• C G30 G (D 0 rF N * D o0. 01 G C n 3 C. H• cu A C O 3 rD v .2 3 o p CO 0 rt, N n 0 o v O.. 3 w ✓ 3 3 ro O. fl. rj W cr C aa) (r)-I 3 N Q. N N A O CD 1-1 ei • G 3 3 CD 3 O 3 O O 7 O 1-% icr m V 3 -' LU < N < CD ? CD A r CD a C- C 0 N V1 a, 3 L O ca > E EE • u ._ C a) l0 RS O 0. C a1 O 'a Z c0 3 0 N C a) E E o tti U .-c a) O CL N 0Ts N CL 41 CU f� E m o C C Z CU co C E O n1 QO H (3 3 en U 0 O a, C5 co E tiu c a ra Q) s. c U 3 > .N tea, U > o co 73 8. a 0. o s to N .+_ _ r; C CU E ` c 41 it u CLZ t aJ in 0 co 15-a) v p coCc . 00 .c 0 w m C a, O E — +' v x a, c v a, ca c +' +D 3 L CL E v 3 g E c a' E °' v, E ns a, to c ° L 00 a O g E v E 03 3 (0 E -3 3 c c o 6 a, .c > .a I c ._ c 2 of g Q 5 E - 15 � cu — -a a a, o to .5 E`o = t x a, ° o a v ,c c 3 x E a, a, +, 3 I- 0) L of 4-1 -0 c° L VI "a 4- c° a, c° E -a L to OM to C LI O i c 0 GJ Lri 4O — 'a v a'c.• v C 3 .� cca cn > _C � nL m o E ,,i -0 +' +-, 3 +' a +-' 0- aCCI +' a, .a 3 C ++ O C +' C C L — LL C Z O 0) C L v ( a, v v O *; 6 E v 0 E ;,; E E c+° ns as a, E v Cua, v c an a, `o o o .3 E v c cU iv •C° rp cu cl 3 4-• o `c° aaj o C c 3 = CC 02o442 nui2cc � inDoo