Loading...
CCPC Agenda 01/19/2017 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 19, 2017 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JANUARY 19, 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 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. VA-PL20160001181: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.a, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the residential single-family (RSF-3) zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, hereinafter described in Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two—Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts, 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 AGENDA ITEM 9-A CoQ er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19,2017 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181,342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Matthew L. Jones Nancy D.Koeper Law Offices of Marc L. Shapiro,PA 342 Trade Winds Avenue 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304 Naples,FL 34103 Naples,FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code(LDC) to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-family(RSF-3)zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M, of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the next page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A.,Table 4,stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall,which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20- foot setback and the stairs encroach 3.45 feet. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 v 0 CI c 3 a) d 0 x K m O 0 � zi I7 VIIIIIIII QP \!\ ! r- c.y o I IK % I 0.) . j w 73 CO - 1 I I N IVanderblt DR o CD , 8 , i F) CD - 1 • r.4. X 1 — — I— — 1 - 3 I , I 0 cl y enCT -aQ ` T xi: r T iFT IV a) L .+'''''..".. .--° 0:1 11:1 II tlik lil 73 to 0,, 0, Ira 0 via rig 1 T api 011 N ° m y+ -- _ © ®ti 0 w ®o� 86'. D c ® ® " Y ® _ ®" !ti mll m ' o ® Y � II ® ® ' Z (Q ' 0 s ® V ®'r-" ' NO g 0" 14. 4 . ' Q z n vo CD 0 ou 0 0 Ow 0° ® r 0 ® " _ _ ., �/ •' ® ' C O O II® o 0 © l. , i____ © " n w0 ® .O ®G 0' . •o ®- � __ woo, ® " o ® „ w0 0' 0. '0 w o " 0 ©_ w0 ® : ® , ,,7 ,:) . ®z,„ pow . .0 - 0® Or ® tl .0 h 0`. " 0 F 07' -0 0 . 0 ® ' . 0 ® = 0 - ` 0 ' 0 w0 ®w - 0 ® ' “ 0 ® - 0 0 " - 0 0 ' 0 " ' 0 - 0 ®' • 0 0 = ® 0 " -0 ®" .0 0- 0' w ® - 0 .0 •® 0 �- WI MMLT ORME R.. 6 loii 0 ® 8 ® 0 ® € ® ® 8 ® ® ® 8 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® o TRADE WINDS AVE. ,- 760'(11) 76047'(c) _ _. ._ ; 75.01' �� 'J fl. FO.PK NMIN PYMT. CUT. OLE,0.06'W. FD NAr! a a 0 N G. 1N PNMT apse OC PVMT, NOL! O M C•7 Irl JimI O 122• ICC. �}pa Wv 598'O4'14"U/ 75.00'(R) 75.01'CGl s.P ' �--b I 1 OWM t `� FIRa59.52'5.,0.29'E to ; FiRA 7"P4M.... I O P9M 5g7f 2' i n.03•N;0.07'w. 4"Pu 9TI18- our N (n 6 rfi 1 24.0' m 14.0' 7,65' o {f; .....65 o 8cD. .05 N ci v r4 in `� 9.a' v) L 342 TRADE WIMPS AVE. v i LO CK M G.B.S. LIOUSE (under cnnSL.) u, FIN. FLOOR ELE/ -1-10.4 P.. o m tC m it W 20.6' Ln O N :n 2.05' m U. UN �� :5' 11 15.0' 4.35'6' - '�a.e' fi ;2 _ !0 ll 3 ft1.3 9.8 ft 4.111611 ;WALL —. ETdiNl116 WALL 59.7 ALUM.FENCE \sic, 2 1,35'WIDE CONC. 9EAWALL GAP T 1,14' dS@8°44'10"W 75.00'ft?) 75.01 1M) m \9ET DKcLLN01,E O — • }MCP CE 6ONC.SEAWALL to HAV[ ELEV. f 03.32 4 W ATER W AY Accessory setback required by LDC 20ft Accessory setback shown on Building Permit 10 ft Additional encroachment by stairway 3.46 ft VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 3 of 7 1. ` 0 59.7` 4•ucbu ALUM. FENCE 0.0. . write, /nder oor�f WALL GAP 1.14' 75.00'(R) mor (M) 'ET RFC L-1. 0LE 0 ...7 INTO? Cc GGNG. SEAWALL NAND ELEV. + 03.32 According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.45-foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits,for both the home(PRBD20150617253)and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall, the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSF-3 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW, across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 ifist ' i viPt e , &lb. 44•06, .11 ir } r Co O.44. ka. •' a 1 � X11. ir 41 VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated.The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool, spa,and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear 1 accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa, and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet,resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit.Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Si Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly, the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance (attached)which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However, because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received,and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30,2016. i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181,342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: • Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. 1 VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page6of7 PREPARED BY: 4% ' a4ea is -a9-I6 FRE 0 eVSCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 7--; /1/ RAYMOV. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING iVISION / 7 i - 3 -I1 MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 4: ::2-4."."-144.----(1 JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT / z' DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance RESOLUTION 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [VA- PL20160001181[ 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 No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided,and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: 116-CPS-01573/1310611/1J40 Rev. I/10/17 Petition no. VA-PL20160001/81 /342 Tiadelvinds Ave. 1 61") Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Folio No. 27585200007 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit"A", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of ,2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Site Plan [16-CPS-01573/1310611/1]40 Rev. 1/10/17 Petition no. VA-PL10160001181 1 341 Tradewinds Ave. 2 Ova t Exhibit A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 1 LOT 11,BLOCK'Pt,UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17.OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERyATIONS OF RECORD. 1 E tkl 1 TBM1215' (K 7 1215.12 I'M) 0 1 FM PK N 5 PISL"MA 3667'• o.N'W.,MavD eLEV. 02,ee m fi FD.N11L IN '�' PWAT.CU /� (TRADE WINDS AVE r r/ 760'(8;) 76047'(C} 1 W -—P--—v-- • - 79.01. t---- ;- _______#--—rola, > L, ' PD.P NAIL IN PVMT. i i POT-NR.E,0.06'W. '1 PA NAM IA47 i •- eD6E OF - Note IN MT.Ca. .• 0 c 1 v n nre 1 ci 12"R.L� . I ^•I �Wy 1 i 588'04'10"W 75.00'(87 75.01'(C) .,i, .) H Fla•9'PiM.... 0- } OWM • rotas 8.5i'S.,0.24'E. 1 ,.1 r0/4.717"31/. I 4•Pv slug GET - • Ci is, (Y. Ci t 6 1717 W t CO � f 2 1u 65 i 1 4 i b 7. 24.0' w, T.65 14.0' $ ) 1r,, V :n o &Win 65d C4 3 042 TRACT WINDS 4VE. T _ BLOCK M C.B.S. NOUSE. (under Const..) W s . FIN. FLOOR P_LEV. 4.10.4 R b 'I N e(. N KCNOTE: ep PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO 2.05 • 4' IPA 19.0' uSTEMWALL. IS AT 4 .6� ELEV +09.94 �*ar — 3 1? � Fi v `_" e>e� 10 SET DRILLNME c m r • IN 10,OF CONG.41AWALL- us, 95.7' 4.81611 ii RAVE ELElm+05.31 y, c.E{.a6TA1141N6 WALL Y �L � N r ALUM.FENCE J ii . ( ,114$nf I,J 4 ~ r Nail CONI.St4wALL LAP . --Ia4.4 ;„.iT W 5661 ti 04'IO 75.00'(8) 75.0110A) - 58T 7RMt.E • 0,_ I N INTTd OP L6NL.4EAWAlI d RODELi1L +05.32 W ITER WAY 1 SCALE:1"-20' • mNneol wMr BEARINGS 8ASE0 ON:E taADt WiNY3 AVF.AS 868'04'10'W,PER RE[oRD PL{j 9.5 •15 0815025,C01°42 Y4eAN7/NAVD eLes"` ii: Neer(eaoen+ce ELEVA710NS BASED ONI NAVY 1388((Nt eez ,:oNR est 23 t0M.4 DATE ORDER FIELD BOOK REVISIONS 711-y I.I p[TY LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE;AS(W'1 6-19.16 0616015 COM.52 POUNDATIOF4/EL6(G&r pyo_¢r p0,1>,co PER F.I.R,I4, DATED:5.16.1012 1202IG 018914 1216000 COO-52 ITSAAAVAL1.. e.aV NaTEv•-:,�.1l N rr I u,d MrW wOq ru. MTEd, . en ra+av� 1 2 e.m.4 O. 0 ) rqr. 42.a IeM '+^'�' meds W mer 1a= VSD i2t eDoat0 14 Pude=no= �17idiMa N tl1Ow].tlf ro,J.1702 17702F1.al Y �.r1▪Ml a Y aleA�M1L.�Iw� 2ND 9 OMNI SURVEYS, INC. = �1( i)/ V �"�'V 1:44• .:1,....----,aW re ^• 5� LB 6884pyP htt,;;�, P 6e . d TBYr� TEL (238} 938-3668 Y[ �' 44 e FAX(233) 639-7161 'a' '''' 8 MeeDenb,P kk 4568 TLLTON COURT FORT MYERS,FL 33607 y,): ---'~PST F&4de Mye4dbn Nv,4870 I (6j7 ._..-.-.—.....-. .. -...—..---.-- _._.. 1 C N rt) p• fD f'+D ' N N O O Z N -_ Ay 'a Cr . O--`-":0).1\ fD `4 fD O 7: 6.... Cr . fD NO i Ari• S cO CD� OI ci, 8 , 1' fD fD -1 l ~ -N 3 --- a C• fD -1r 7-1v ^ N� � 1 is, -I. r..... .., ‹<fD _ h, rN IIw C O a # O I r I �IL t._ rn z O1 I0iz 1 .. _ SO., 1---,-,--1 r --- IN O G IroI S r 1 fD+ i -I f° C5y, 1- O v A01 21bIIL //A ImCJ fD 11 11/1-I LO 1 Ti 1 H !- -21 - ._. L 1 r r, in v I �rrH.1 1II -w- ( — - I 1 �IU .4 . a � � I L - 1-- --1 .. 1 Da IT H aI * A - fD CD CL O L 1 UN a Ir + Vr1 I_ 1 r r- O Collier County Growth Management I am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-PL20160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10' for a pool and deck.This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also.According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2'over the code , and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. { There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county. The architect and General contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool. The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to the county with elevations and setback dimensions. The pool contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. I feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 ReischlFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI Original Message From:George Marks [mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.com] Sent:Wednesday,October 19,2016 7:11 PM To: BeasleyRachel Cc:Steve Emens Subject: Re:342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the "Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared, Florida law has allowed "precedence"as a basis of future variances. I will review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check, but based on what I heard from the attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship(by installing the pool improperly)as a basis of a variance.Additionally,since such a variance would be a basis for future variances, it regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, George E. Marks,AIA Kra mer+Marks Architects is 27 5. Main Street Ambler, PA 19002 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19,2016,at 2:00 PM, BeasleyRachel <RachelBeasley@colliergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, > Per our conversation, I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. > Best, > Rachel Beasley > >Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Pian 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE_SITE_8-22-16.pdf> • fi gJ 1 2 Arthur "Buzz" Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue Naples,FL 34108 buzz.victor®gmail.com 111 October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Dear Ms. Beasley I am in receipt of the information sent to me as a nearby property owner regarding the above referenced zoning matter. Unfortunately,I am unable to personally attend the hearing,and therefore must register my opposition to the variance via this letter. It has been eleven years since I built my home on Lagoon Avenue,but I remember the process very well. There were any number of design features that I would have liked to construct,but I found myself constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were imposed for the good of the community as a whole. While,in the present circumstance,it is a shame that construction has proceeded to a point where it is costly to remove it,and that the infractions were missed by the controlling authority. This,however,is no reason to simply waive requirements with which the balance of the neighborhood has had to comply. I hope that the Board hearing the case will require compliance with the code. That is the proper decision. Sincerely, B v Arthur"Buzz"Victor Letter of Petition in FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We, the undersigned neighbors of 342 Tradewinds within the "impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO issue with the pool variance being requested by 44" red ,�n ATN'it r N nl Fl rjr1 . The new home under construction will raise the home values in our area, which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we do not contest the pool variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr. Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home and therefore submit that you approve the requested variance from 342 Tradewinds by Ms Jeske and Ms Koeper Respectfully, Signature, Ak Address it g e • ems— i /ra.h ce)1,d s vim, 4-r61:1.( 1' i4 &&d) ) 3 '�3 raj ti- t, /Gut, g_0( s-/ /36 /-;61/k(ivri,163( E Z 9e1-1, u 36,7 kliC.o 6 ci fv �___ - -- Scanned by CamScanner Cristina R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 October 20,2016 Ms. Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County, Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE:Zoning Petition No VA-P120160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. ?' Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20th to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor"which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. { The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use(swimming pool in this case)when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-0" above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck >' within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20'-0"is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for ti this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however, every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects,engineers,contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. 1 b. Are there special conditions and circumstances,which do not result from the action of the '! applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the F Variance request? The applicant, in this case the builder and/or their architect/engineer, built the structure in question in gross violation of the existing zoning code which they are required to follow regardless of the Collier County approval process. This is a self-created violation of the zoning code and the county should NOT be supporting this violation and request for variance. c. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? This application does NOT meet the definition standard of"Hardship"as defined by Zoning law and Collier County is remiss in their duties and responsibilities in supporting such an 1. application. As a matter of law,the cost of$50,000 is not an acceptable basis for a hardship and should not be considered as a basis for the granting of a zoning variance. The fact that the applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit is not a material basis for a hardship or the granting of this variance. '? d. Will the variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? No comment e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to.other lands,buildings or structures in the same zoning district? I Yes-The granting of this variance will absolutely grant a special privilege on this applicant not currently available to other properties within this district. This GROSS violation of the zoning code will create a hardship for adjacent property owners whose visual corridor is diminished by b both the horizontal impingement of 13.45 feet and vertical violation of 2.36 feet and may become a basis for future zoning variance applications. This pool could have been created in the same location of the same size,with a correction of the stair location and width within the zoning standards thereby eliminating the need for this variance. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land F Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? This condition is NOT IN HARMONY with the intent of the zoning code and is a gross impingement on the vision corridor that the zoning code is intended to protect. Additionally, the granting of a zoning variance should NEVER be for the purpose of"legitimizing" a gross violation of the zoning code as stated in the Staff report. This is true of any avoidable error whether created by the owner,general contractor,architect,engineer or in this case Collier County. This pool is currently under construction and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for this property and now is the time to correct this violation. No certificate of occupancy F should be issued by the county until this is corrected. I g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The staff's contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staff's assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they created a hardship for the applicant,which would be legally flawed,the county would be self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. Finally, should the county decide to act irresponsibly and approve this variance,we will file an appeal within the allowable appeal period and reserve our right to seek all legal options against Collier County for damages. Additionally,we will request that no further construction occur on the violating area of the property and we will seek an injunction to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy by the county until such appeal is heard and resolved. Please feel free to reach out to me or our attorney should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter prior to the zoning hearing. Respectfully submitted, George E. Marks,AIA 215-870-5543 cell 215-654-7722 office Agenda Item 9-B Cotter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division January 11, 2017 Dear Planning Commissioners, There are two LDC amendments for your review and consideration at the January 19, 2017, meeting: 1. LDC section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards.This amendment modifies the requirements for off-site vegetation retention.The amendment modifies the monetary payment and land donation processes and clarifies several provisions related to off-site native vegetation retention. Note:There are two recommendations provided,one from DSAC and one from CCLAAC for a portion of the amendment. Staff will walk through the recommendations at the meeting. 2. LDC sections 2.03.06,3.05.07,5.05.15& 10.03.06 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. This amendment has been reviewed by the CCPC on December 19, 2016, and January 5, 2017.Amendments are proposed to two additional sections and other updates have been made to this amendment to address issues raised during previous meetings. Most changes are highlighted in yellow—deletions were simply removed from the text. Additionally, this packet begins with a description of dark sky standards as requested during the previous review of this amendment. Following the hearing on January 19, 2017,there is one additional CCPC hearing scheduled for review of LDC amendments on 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 f• • 4C o 'er' 1 Development Review Divison•2800 Nath Horseshoe Detre•Naples,Aaida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Cotter county Growth Management Department Development Review Division Dark Skies : Reducing light pollution through lighting standards Overview The campaign to reduce light pollution through lighting standards is known as the dark-sky movement. The movement is spearheaded by the International Dark Sky Association (IDA)which advocates for lighting standards that makes more stars visible at night, reduces sky glow, and improves that quality of life for humans and wildlife. Collier County has recently begun to introduce lighting standards that incorporate dark sky concepts and the Board of County Commissioners has provided direction to continue this effort. 1. International Dark Sky Association The IDA is the leading authority for dark sky lighting standards.The organization promotes,supports, and provides technical assistance to policy makers.The IDA's goals are: • Advocate for the protection of the night sky, • Educate the public and policymakers about night sky conservation, • Promote environmentally Figure 1—Light Pollution.Source:IDA Intro to Lighting PowerPoint.Slide 8.(2016) responsible outdoor lighting, and Retrieved from:http://darkskv.orq/resources/public-outreach-materials/#pp • Empower the public with tools and resources to help bring back the night'. The IDA recognizes outdoor lighting is an essential function but advocates that it should be used wisely'. The term "dark sky lighting" or"dark sky compliant" refers to IDA guidelines that reduce ambient lighting waste. 'International Dark Sky Association.(2017). Retrieved from: http://darksky.org/about/ 2lnternational Dark Sky Association.(2017). Retrieved from: http://darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ ?t "q`p74".%44 2 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Raida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Cotter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division 2. How do IDA darks sky lighting standards work? Dark sky lighting standards support practices within a community that remove excessive glare, light trespass, or sky glow. The IDA worked with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)to prepare a Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO)3_The MLO identifies three main concepts, lighting zones, amount of light for a land use and the current rating classification system for luminaires. Generally,to be dark sky compliant means the light source is shielded, below the maximum wattage limit,within the specified color temperature range, and the lighting is guided by the illumination levels and uniformity ratios of the.The following are some of the ways to implement dark sky concepts found in the IDA's MLO: A. Lighting Zone Classifications Table 1, below, is a composite of information from the IDA's MLO,which includes a User's Guide4. It designates a lighting zone for different categories of land uses.The lighting zones reflect the base light level for each land use type. IDA recommends that the lower lighting level be assigned to a zoning district,with exceptions noted for specific land use types (i.e.gas stations and car dealerships).The IDA recommends that lighting zones are considered as an overlay to a zoning district. Lighting zones can also be modified and adapted to particular uses to ensure compatibility through established public procedures. For example,a church going through a conditional use near residential properties could be assessed for lighting compatibility through the public hearing process. Similar to the Growth Management Plans Future Land Use Map,the lighting zones are to be assigned to the desired future land use. In addition, lighting zones may be assigned vertically. For example,the lighting zones within a mixed use building may be different at the street level than at the residential levels above. IDA recognizes that outlining exemptions is important.The User's Guide suggests making special provisions for streetlights,signs,special uses,thresholds for repairs,temporary uses,emergency conditions, etc. 3 IDA and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. (2017). "Joint IDA—IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO)with User's Guide,June 15,2011." Retrieved from: http://darksky.org/our-work/public-policy/mlo/ 4 Ibid. ('07/7t' 3 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovne Co er County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Table 1. Lighting Zones Applicable Areas Site and Structure Classifications LZO Where the natural environment will be seriously Recommended default zone for wilderness No Ambient Lighting and adversely affected by lighting or where areas,parks and preserves,and occupants have expressed a strong desire that undeveloped rural areas. light trespass be strictly limited.Impacts include disturbing the biological cycles of flora and fauna Includes protected wildlife areas and and/or detracting from human enjoyment and corridors. appreciation of the natural environment.The vision of human residents and users is adapted to total darkness,and they expect to see little or no lighting. LZ1 Where lighting might adversely affect flora and Recommended default zone for rural and Low Ambient Lighting fauna or disturb the character of the area.The low density residential areas. vision of human residents and users is adapted to Includes residential single or two family; low light levels.Lighting may be used for safety, agricultural zone districts;rural residential security and/or convenience but it is not zone districts;business parks;open space necessarily uniform or continuous. include preserves in developed areas. LZ2 Of human activity where the vision of human Recommended default zone for light Moderate Ambient residents and users is adapted to moderate light commercial business districts and high Lighting levels.Lighting may typically be used for safety, density or mixed use residential districts. security and/or convenience but it is not Includes neighborhood business districts; necessarily uniform or continuous. churches,schools and neighborhood recreation facilities;and light industrial zoning with modest nighttime uses or lighting requirements. LZ3 Of human activity where the vision of human Recommended default zone for large cities' Moderately High residents and users is adapted to moderately high business district. Ambient Lighting light levels.Lighting is generally desired for safety, Includes business zone districts;commercial security and/or convenience and it is often mixed use;and heavy industrial and/or uniform and/or continuous. manufacturing zone districts LZ4 Areas of human activity where the vision of Not a default zone. High Ambient Lighting human residents and users is adapted to high Includes high intensity business or industrial light levels.Lighting is generally considered zone districts. necessary for safety,security and/or convenience and it is mostly uniform and/or continuous.After curfew,lighting may be extinguished or reduced in some areas as activity levels decline. B. Methods for limiting the amount of light IDA describes the two methods to limit the amount of light: The first method is the prescriptive method and it outlines detailed and certifiable standards for luminaire light output, as well as fixture designs that limit glare, uplight, and light trespass. It also establishes the total site lumen limit and can specifically address light trespass.The IDA states that the prescriptive method does not require engineering expertise.The prescriptive method identifies the "initial luminaire lumen"that consistent with a lighting zone.The IDA make note that the values provided are not for foot-candles, but for"initial luminaire lumens"which includes variables such as • 4C^s • 4 Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Cotter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division efficiency of the light source, spreading of the light, etc. so the number is not equal to foot-candles.The IDA reports that"initial luminaire lumens" are identified on the photometric data and can be shared by an applicant through the application process. The second method is referred to as the performance method and it allows for more flexibility in meeting the intent of the ordinance, but it is more complicated and it does not have the same easily verifiable requirements as the prescriptive method. Depending on the complexity of a land use category, both the prescriptive and performance methods can be uses to create lighting regulations.' C. Light Rating Systems The IDA reports that the Illuminating Engineering Society's(IES)original rating system for roadways used terms such as:full cutoff, cutoff,semi-cutoff and non-cutoff.These terms and the corresponding designs were intended to address brightness and glare for street lighting. However, with interest in uplight and light trespass,the IES conducted research and upgraded to a new system called BUG. BUG stands for Backlight, Uplight, and Glare.The BUG rating system is more comprehensive in controlling light pollution.Today, luminaires have a BUG rating that is comprised of the luminaire design,what direction(s)the light is aimed, and the initial luminaire lumen.The BUG system is designed so it is fast and easy to compare lights.The BUG system also includes the distance the light is installed from a property line based on multiple of the mounting height. More information about the BUG rating system is shared on the IDA's Specifier Bulletin.' D. Shielded Luminaries Where the BUG rating system cannot be Unshielded Light Source ShielcdedfLight Source' - applied,the second best option is to address shielding.The following graphics depict what the light fixtures look like with — — shielding and how shielded sources can reduce glare and uplighting. Shielded light points downward and full cut-off shielding blocks upward light above 90 degrees. Figures 2.Shielded light fixtures.Source:Intro to Lighting PowerPoint. 2017.IDA.Retrieved from:http://darksky.org/resources/public- outreach-materials/#pp 5 Ibid. 6 Architectural Area Lighting.(2017) Retrieved from: http://www.aal.net/content/resources/files/BUGrating.pdf 5 ri Development Review Division•2800 Nath Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Raida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnd Cotter County Growth Management Department Development Review Division Ma° _ .a„ Figure 3.Shielded light fixtures at a commercial docking facility.Source:Intro to Lighting PowerPoint.(2017). IDA.Retrieved from:http://darksky.orq/resources/public-outreach-materials/#pp E. Other Lighting Standards The IDA recommends using other types of lighting standards to achieve the goals of dark skies, including: • Automatic switching requirements—technology to turn lights off when there is enough sun to provide sufficient lighting. • Automatic lighting reduction requirements—curfews as to when all outdoor lighting shall be reduced. For example, using less lighting during off-peak hours between 10 pm—6 am. 3. Status of dark sky lighting standards in Collier County On November 15, 2016,the BCC directed staff to establish best practices for interior and exterior lighting for County owned °'°`°"°"`''• atnsr°201/-01-: and/or maintained sites and structures. A preliminary draft of the proposed standards has been prepared and is under review by the County Manager's Office. It will be available online for review by the public prior to publication at the end of February 2017. Cott'County The Growth Management Department is tasked with establishing lighting standards for private property. It is anticipated the LDC LIGHTING STANDARDS Amendment process will begin in 2017 and conclude in late 2018. Starting in FY 2018 county departments are tasked to start developing plans to accelerate the adoption of LED lighting technology that meet the newly adopted County lighting 1.1E1.0 entwa,mot 6,1•C,ti•IA standards. cSker . ter ii; 6 Devebpmeri Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Rorida 34104.239-252-2400 •www.coliergovnet Co county Growth Management Department Development Review Division 4. Recommendations for golf course conversions projects 1. Support the BCC in adopting lighting standards, dark sky concepts and the BUG rating system. 2. Require the following within LDC section 5.05.15: a. Provide general guidance that lighting should be designed to reduce light pollution by limiting excessive glare, light trespass and sky glow. b. Require lighting is directed away from neighboring residential properties and light fixtures should be full cutoff with flat lenses. c. Light poles within the greenway shall be no taller than 12.5 feet. d. Require that lighting to be reviewed and analyzed through the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings and public hearing process,where applicable. e. Comply with future outdoor lighting standards as established by the County. • c • 7 UN Development Review Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2400 •wvvw.coliergovnet 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 Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle 2 LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: This amendment modifies the requirement t,y site native vegetation retention. The amendment modifies the monetary payment and- an`. dona ) 'rocesses and clarifies several provisions related to off-site native vegetation re . REASON: Amendment History Currently LDC section 3.05.07 H..1 f establishes severs Otto for compliance with the County's native vegetation retention requirements 1) On-site preservation; or 2) Off-site preservation through one o the following method: a. Moneta payment with an exotics maintenance endowment, or b. Land ` o+ tion' wit 'an exotics ma>nten nce endo ment. On July 7, 2015, Conse ton Co lier staff made,:several preliminary recommendations to the Board of Cunt cppmissfOrters, for guidance prior to establishing more detailed changes to the progr '1^ Board dime 'I"d a review o1 these recommendations with the Conservation Collier'Land AcquisitionAdvisoryr ommittee(CLAAC) and Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) to prove recoil o.endations to increase the land management endowment, beyond seven ears,for off-sttnative ye.station retention preservation and to review the optional monetary doriion amount as w . On March 22, 2016. the Board air, cted staff to prepare and publicly vet an LDC amendment to m modify formulas for determiningthe amount of the endowments associated with each of these options to ensure the forme , ""reflect the true costs to manage lands donated to Conservation Collier. On May 25, 2016, separate recommendations from CCLAAC and DSAC were presented to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to increase the endowment for both the monetary payment and land donation options. The CCPC directed staff to revise the recommendations once again with the advisory committees to modify the proposed changes to incentivize and support on- site native preservation, and noted the following: • Monetary donations should be larger to promote on-site retention, and when the off-site option is sought, support the completion of the Conservation Collier"targeted areas." 8 I:\2016 LDC Amendment CycleAdvisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term • The ratio of donated lands should be equal to the value of the to-be-developed parcel. • The program should place more emphasis on encouraging the natural environment to be incorporated within urban developments,rather than utilizing the off-site options. The following amendments to 3.05.07 H.l.f provide a purpose statement for the off-site alternative section,update and revise the applicability section to support the purpose section, and provide PUD deviation thresholds. Growth Management Plan History Off-site preserves • , Off-site alternatives to the native vegetation retention requirement were added to the LDC in 2010 to allow for the purchase or donation of land off site in lieu of teservation of native vegetation on site. The criteria for determining when this alternative a. ved, is based on the provisions identified in CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10),which states the fotlowine "The County shall adopt land development regulations that allay for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all' , a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention,.,requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains nape vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priors Zp=-scribed in Polic 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropria � of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as require bkiattp,,tandby development regulations. The monetary payment,, all be use; .,o purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land dent .men; regulations shill provide criteria to determine whets this alternative will b e• °red. The criteria will be based upon the following*visions: ' a. The amount,tyi rarity and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The pence of ccois ` i lands adjoining the site; sof listedspecies acid consid€tration of Federal and State agency ;,; ` echnical assistance: 0 d Fhe type of land propel, such as,but not limited to, affordable housing; e. T ,size of the presa,rve req4d4 to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functic al; and f. Right of ?Vay acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition are , The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, landrdonation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site." Generally speaking,preserves which are smaller in size, or those located adjacent to more intense land uses, have a greater potential to become less viable over time due to fragmentation of the habitat and sensitivity of different types of native vegetation to changes in the environment. Depending on the type of development and uses on adjoining properties,plants,such as slash pine, 9 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term often die after a few years. It is in these instances where the off-site purchase or donation of land is recommended in lieu of preservation of native vegetation on site. On-site preserves The allowance for off-site preserves was added to the LDC in 2010 after the EAR-based GMP amendments were adopted to include the option for off-site preserves. However, due to the recession,the off-site preserve portion of the LDC is in its infancy and it has become apparent that certain portions of this LDC section need to be amended for clarity. The purpose of the on-site preserve requirement is to retain, maintain, and protect existing native vegetation on site as provided for in the GMP's Conservation Coastal Management Element. Accordingly, the purpose of LDC section 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal, Protection, and Preservation states: "The purpose of this section is the protection of vegetation Rhin the County by regulating its removal; to assist in the control of flooding, soil erion, dust, heat, air pollution, and noise; and to maintain property, aesthetic, and health values within the County; to limit the use of irrigation watei waterin open spate areas by promoting the preservation of existing plant cmun :lies; to limit the ret oval of existing viable vegetation iom n advance of the approval of land development plans; and to limit the removal of existing .le vegetation-when no landscape plan has been prepared for the site." 'a� � � Additionally,at the May 5 x016 meeting,the CCP ,'+ ed that the tention of native vegetation, even small areas, is.valued by Collier County'""'rest t,$ Ys Arsult, the CCPC directed staff to 3� incentivize the retention•of"native`v'e; etation and open spaces in urban areas of the County. Following the CCPC's direction,fr ", visions to LDC section 3.05.07 are proposed. First, preserves less than one acre whi; meet•the'applicability criteria and do not trigger any of the prohibi t 6s will be able ptsed presses off site administratively. Second, requiredpreserves gingfrom one;"Acre to. ,.cres may request a PUD deviation as long as they do not trigger any ti, e prohibitions.Third,Pg.,i, or other zoning project types with a native vegetation requirement greater than two a for a p s'.osed preserve do not qualify for the off-site preserve section of the L Fourth, e .tions are provided for affordable housing, essential service facilities, and right-* ay acqu ions. The flowchart on the fol . pig'page demonstrates how LDC sections 3.05.07 H.1.f.i-iii apply to projects based on the preserve requirement. 10 l:\2016LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term On-site preserve requirement scenarios: On-site preserve requirement 1 1 2 acres or less Greater than 2 acres I I 1 t 1 Industrial zoning districts All other zoning districts Must be preserved on site (Including PC?Ds) (Including PUDs) r� r 1 No preserve 0-1 acre preserve 1-2 acre preserve Exemptions from size requirement reauirement requirement limitations • Off-site preserve • Off-site preserve • Affordable housing may be approved may be approved (some restrictions administratively. through PUT) apply). • Prohibitions section deviation process. • ROW acquisitions. applies. • Prohibitions section • Essential services applies. facilities. • Portions of • Prohibitions section preserves remaining applies. on site must be a • Portions of minimum of 1 acre. preserves remaining on site must be a minimum of 1 acre. rAltIt is importat ' to note that whip this section alto fo off-site preservation,preserves in the urban area still provide benefits the community. BeyOd native habitat, preserves also provide green space conslstipg of naturallyg sting v tation in urban areas. A Tree Study done by the Nature Conservanc , firms that tree nd oth egetation provide many benefits to people including: "aesthetic beau �, ephancement of property values, erosion prevention, stormwater management, and noise reduction The Study Aso reiterates that trees sequester carbon which helps to alleviate the effects of climate a •ge Trees help to make the air healthier as"Dozens of studies now show that tree leaves filter o Sart (date matter from the atmosphere, along with many other air pollutants."8 Preserves retained on site can be an amenity for residents. The LDC allows for boardwalks, pathways, benches, educational signs, and viewing platforms; staff encourages these uses so that residents can enjoy preserve areas. In addition,the Tree Study indicates that urban trees have been shown to have economic value,stating,"In general,the total economic value of a tree is frequently more than 20 times the value specifically for air quality, with stormwater mitigation and aesthetic value for property owners being especially important."9 McDonald,R.,Kroeger, K.,Boucher,T.,Wang,L.,Salem, R.(2016).Planting Healthy Air.Retrieved from https://global.nature.orgJcontentjhealthyair?src=r.global.healthyair.Pg.2 8 Ibid,Pg.2. 9 lbid, Pg.22. 11 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term Changes to LDC sections 3.05.07 Purpose section The amendment proposes a purpose section to guide the off-site preserve program. This section clarifies the original intent of the program, identifying it is intended to apply to projects with a preserve requirement of one acres or less. There are exceptions for essential services, affordable housing, right-of-way acquisitions, and PUD deviation requests. Applicability section The amendment supports retaining existing County approved preserves unless they have dimensional constraints that do not support their viability. The applicability section reiterates the on-site preserve requirement may be satisfied off site where the preserve requirement is one acre or less and one of three scenarios applies. The three scenarios include: • Non-residential and residential development where no preserve has been approved by the '`l°pr County. This provision is designed for new not redevelopment projects or portions of a redevelopment project. It is li portant to note there is an exception for industrial in LDC section 3.05.07.B.4 ' hich establishes that industrial zoned parcels which have a native vegetation retention."equirement of 2 acres o less are exempt from the preserve requirement. • Existing portions of preserves at are located within a"single family platted lot. • Existing preserves which do et the dimens7� nal preserve standards established as of this ordinance. - a Exceptions to the 1 acre or less threshold include "` max • The essential services iltties provision has a or oo oved tc"o the list of exceptions to the 1 acre or less threshold • The affordable housing project provtsio as been modified to be an exception to the one acre threshold and is proposed to be more°"conservative in how much acreage is allowed offoff.siltThis"chango'.44,102'iititoge in County policy. Previously, the County policy was'for develt pments tip provide aowpercentage of affordable housing and the remainder a�market rate. There is no longer a porcli 'for affordable housing and recent affordable h. ung projects hiia,prosprovitlik100 percent affordable housing, leaving no preserve on site:" erefore, this change pro ids a balance of allowing off-preserves but limits the amount that can go off si . • County right-of--way(RGW)projects are to be exempted as is allowed for in the GMP. Several provisions were r sov1o:including: • The criterion allow '°properties zoned commercial with an on-site preserve requirement of less than 2 acres was removed. This was transitioned to the PUD deviation request section which allows an applicant to request satisfying the preserve requirement off site when the preserve requirement is 2 acres or less. • The criterion allowing park sites with an on-site preserve requirement of less than one acre in size was removed because the purpose of the section is to support preserves in parks and park-like uses are already allowed in preserves. • The criterion allowing for preserves less than one acre was removed as it has been qualified under the provision allowing a non-residential and residential projects that do not have an approved preserve to take an acre off site. 12 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term • The criterion allowing existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more exotic vegetation coverage was removed because it does not provide a cap on acreage and is in conflict with the definition of native vegetation. For example, a site with 75 percent coverage of the Downy Rosemyrtle shrub with a canopy of native trees could all be taken off site due to the exotic shrubs, but could also count as part of the native vegetation for the preserve calculation. Further, this section does not promote property owners being good land stewards as they can take the preserve off site if it becomes filled with exotic vegetation due to poor maintenance. • The criterion allowing for created preserves which do not meet the success criteria in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been planted in a manner which mimics a natural plant community was removed because it does not support applicants maintaining or cultivating a viable created preserve,, Changes to the Restrictions section include: Identifying the section as prohibitions to make it clear that no deviations can be requested or allowed that are inconsistent with the criteria. Further, the section clarifies that preserves within flowways should be retained as these are important native vegetation areas that provide several important functions to the ecosystem. PUD deviations section This provision is introduced to prohibit projects with a preserve requirement of 2 acres or more from requesting a deviation to take more than 2 acres off-site.No deviation requests shall be allowed for required preserves that are greater than 2 acres, or where a preserve was identified on an approved Site Development Plan(SDP) or Final_Subdivision Plat(PPL). Changes to LDC sections 3.05.07 H.lfiv DSAC and CCLAAC provided separate recommendations related to monetary payments and endowments for land donations in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.iv. These recommendations are described in the following sections. Monetary Payment Currently, the monetary payment is based on the location of the land to be impacted and must be equal to 125 percent of the average cost of land purchased by Conservation Collier in the urban designation or of the average cost of all other designations, as applicable. The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee and CCLAAC have provided the following recommendations regarding changes to the monetary payment: 13 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term DSAC Recommendation DSAC recommends minor changes to LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.iii.a to identify that the monetary payment amount shall be established in the Collier County Growth Management Department Development Services Fee Schedule. The fee recommended by DSAC is $50,000 per acre and based on the following assumptions: Per Acre Costs Average cost to purchase land for Conservation Collier: $32,800 Land management endowment(see discussion below): $13,200 Initial exotic vegetation removal costs: $4,000 Total $50,000 The land management endowment assumes annual maintenance costs will be reduced after five years due to the consolidation of parcels maintaine -vby Conservation Collier. Therefore, DSAC assumed the annual maintenance costs to be $558' r acre for the first five years, and $141 per acre for each year thereafter. Additionally, assuming 2.25% annual interest and 3.0% inflation, a land management endowment of$13,200 provides sufficient funds for land management for over 50 years. CCLAAC Recommendation CCLAAC recommends codifying a formula to determine the monetary payment amount in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.iv.a. The recommended formula requires an appraisal of the post- development value of the acreage required to meet on- itepreservation requirement. A one-time fee of$16,000 is also required for initial exotic vegetation renal. This fee was determined to be sufficient to pay for the removal of exotics on up to four acres as the number of acres to be purchased by Conservation Collier with this monetary payment may vary. Initial Exotic Vegetation Removal Fee $16,000 + Land Management Endowment Total Monetary Payment Amount Post-development land value x 125% The following examples are of lots with varying native vegetation retention requirements and post- development land values and demonstrate potential outcomes of CCLAAC's recommendation. Examples: Required Land Total preserve Appraised Post- Management Initial Exotic Monetary area Development Cash Vegetation Payment (acres) Land Value Endowment Removal Fee Amount .455 x $17,000 x 125% = $9,669 + $16,000 = $25,669 .50 x $300,000 x 125% = $187,500 + $16,000 = $203,500 .91 x $17,000 x 125% = $19,338 + $16,000 = $35,338 1.0 x $300,000 x 125% = $375,000 + $16,000 = $391,000 14 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term This formula would be included in LDC section 3.05.07 H.l.f.iv.a and will require an LDC amendment if the calculation was modified in the future. Cash Endowment for Land Donation When an applicant chooses to0 donate land for off-site preservation,rather than to make a monetary payment, LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.£iii.b-c requires that a land management endowment must be included with the monetary payment in order to maintain the property in perpetuity. Currently, a $4,000 cash endowment is provided along with land donations, regardless of the number of acres donated. This endowment has been insufficient for long-term management of these properties due to a relatively higher maintenance cost. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee and CCLAAC have provided the following recommendations regarding changes to the endowment for land donations: DSAC Recommendation DSAC did not make any changes to its previous recommendattorr'egarding endowments for land donations. DSAC determined that the current proces 'and recommended fees already incentivize on-site preservation for the following reasons:-: • If the cost of the monetary payment is signtficantly higher than the cost of off-site mitigation, developers will be more likely to use the off-site mitigation process. • Limiting the areas that can b donated to the Conservation Collier acquisition area has increased the value of the lots in togas,making it less likely that the off-site mitigation option will be used. • There is already a cap on the acreage that can die mitigat:.. off site. • Developers fr p eqtezitlydonate more-,land th*Wrequired to be preserved. On-site preservation requirements.°fie small (sometimes as small as one-tenth of an acre), but the mitigation parcel are generally 1.5 to 2,5 acres because lots in the estates cannot be split and the entire lot is donated, As a result, DSACrecommendation mch . �� o anges to LDC sections 3.05.07 H.l.f.iii.b- c to identity that the endowment ' ount sha :: established in the Collier County Growth m Management Department Developervices Fee Schedule. The fee recommended by DSAC is $17,200 peer acre and based o the fofwing assumptions: Per Acre Costs Land management cash endowment (see discussion $13,200 below): Initial exotic vegetation removal costs: $4,000 Total $17,200 As with DSAC's monetary payment donation, the land management endowment assumes annual maintenance costs will be reduced after five years due to the consolidation of parcels maintained by Conservation Collier. Therefore, DSAC assumed the annual maintenance costs to be $558 per acre for the first five years, and $141 per acre for each year thereafter. Additionally, assuming 2.25% annual interest and 3.0% inflation, a land management endowment of$13,200 provides sufficient funds for land management for over 50 years. 15 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term CCLAAC Recommendation CCLAAC recommends modifying LDC sections 3.05.07 H.1.f.iii.b-c to establish a management endowment fee of$50,000 per acre and applied at a ratio of 4:1, consistent with the CCPC's May 25, 2016, direction. This means that for every 1 acre of required native vegetation retention proposed to be provided off site, the per acre cost for land management shall be multiplied by 4. In addition, a one-time $16,000 initial exotic vegetation fee shall also be paid by the applicant. Per Acre Costs Applied at Land management endowment(See discussion below): $50,000 4:1 ratio Initial exotic vegetation removal (see discussion below): $:16,000 Total $66,000 The following examples of lots with varying native vegetation retention requirements demonstrate potential outcomes of CCLAAC's recommendation. Examples: Required 4:1 Total Land Initial Total Land preserve Ratio Acres to be Management Vegetatio Donation area in Donated Endowment Removal Fee "a; Endowment acres Amounts (0.455 x 4) = 1.82 x $50,000 + $16,000 = $107,000 (0.50 x 4) = 2.0 X $50,000 + $16,000 = $116,000 (0.91 x 4) = 3.64 x $50,000 + $16,000 = $198,000 (1.0 x 4) = 4.0 x $50,000 + $16,000 = $216,000 Although the specific formulas used to determine the required monetary payment and land donation endowments recommended by DSAC and CCLAAC differ significantly, both advisory committees recommended that the formulas should be re-evaluated every three years. 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: Amend the LDC as follows: 16 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 3.05.07 Preservation Standards 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 H. Preserve standards. 4 1. Design standards. 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 f. Off site vegetation retention. Purpose and intent. The purpose of 7 this section is to identify the criteria to satisfy on-site preserve 8 requirements off site. The intent of the on-site preserve 9 requirement is to retain, maintain, and preserve existing native 10 vegetation on site as provided for in the GMP's Conservation and 11 Coastal Management Element. However, a certain on-site 12 preserve may be less viable as a functional preserve because it is 13 one acre or less and isolated..Therefore, in limited situations, 14 providing for a preserve , -,jr;';.-e-,„ achieve the goals of the GMP. 15 A ee --e . . A e t..,-;: - ••- ---- - - - - 16 -- - - --- - _ - -17 preservation retention requirement be satisfied for only the 18 following situations and subject to the restrictions listed 19 below. 20 i. Applicability. The on-site preserve requirement may be met 21 off site where the preserve requirement is one acre or less 22 for ;;only the following situations and subject to the 23prohtbitis and PUD deviation requirements listed in LDC 24 section 3.05.77 H.1.f.ii, below. The preserve requirement 25 shalt be based On the total acreage for the PUD; if the 26project is not within a PUD, then the preserve requirement 27 " shall b `:based`ori the total acreage for the applicable 28 development order, and not based on an individual phase 29 or phases of a development, consistent with LDC section 30 30 07H.1a 31 a) =Non residential and residential projects where 32 '., 'preserves have not been identified on an approved 33 development order by the County. 34A3 Properties zoned commercial where the on cito 35 �:. preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size. 36 b) Existing portions of preserves located within single- 37 .. . , , ,_,..., - family ingle- 37family platted lots. Park sites where the on cite 38 `' preserve requirement is less than one acre in size. 39 c) Existing preserves which do not meet the minimum 40 ''''.:,F.,,, '" dimensional requirements for on-site preserves 41 established in LDC section 3.05.07 as of the 42 effective date of Ord. No. [2017-XX1. Essential 43 service facilities other than parks, for any size 44 preserves. 45 d) Exceptions. Where the on-site preserve 46 requirement is greater than one acre, the preserve 47 requirement may be satisfied off site in only the 48 following situations: 49 1) Essential service facilities other than parks, 50 where the on-site preserve requirement is 51 any size. 17 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-171Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 2) Affordable housing projects. Affordable 2 housing projects may request approval from 3 the Board of County Commissioners prior to 4 SDP or final plat and construction plans 5 approval to satisfy the on-site preserve 6 requirement off site at a rate of 50 percent 7 of affordable housing units provided, not to 8 exceed 3 acres. For example, if 50 percent 9 of the units provided are affordable housing, 10 the applicant may request to preserve up.to 11 25 percent of the required preserve off site 12 so long as the total off-site preserve 13 acreage does not exceed three acres. 14 d) Preserves to than on acro in sizo 16 _ - 17 _ ---- - - 18 -• _ - _ .. 19 preserve. 20 - - - - . 21 22 • - - - e. - - - -..e, 35 24 - - - - - -. --- - •• -- - -- 26 41 -- - ••-- -- 27 ' eria in 3.05,071411.e•viii or where preserves 28 "'v _ -- - - - - • . . _ .. .. 29 natural plant community. 30 -- - -- .- .. . - _ . 31 �` „`,"ate ' r -e_' -._. • , • ___ 32 f) Portionsf preserves located within platted singlet 33 t. -: f 34 - ' - --- - - -- -- - -- - 35 '' process of being conveyed to the County by non 38 - - -- - . • - - 39 40 k) All criteria listed for created presorves. 41 if. PUD deviations. Requests for deviations from the on-site 42 native vegetation retention requirement shall b prohibited 43 where the preserve requirement for the PUD is greater 44 than two acres. Additionally, no deviations shall be 45 approved to preserves identified on an approved SDP or 46 final plat and construction plans, except as provided for in 47 LDC sections 3.05.07 H.1.f.i. b) and c) above. The 48 applicant shall provide justification for the requested 49 deviations and explain the unique situation for exceeding 50 the thresholds in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.i above. 18 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 Deviations shall be processed pursuant to LDC section 2 10.02.13. 3 iii. Exemptions. Right-of-way acquisitions to be conveyed, or 4 in the process of being conveyed, to the County by non- 5 governmental entities for all purposes necessary for 6 roadway construction, includinq ancillary drainage 7 facilities, and including utilities within the right-of-way 8 acquisition area shall be exempted from meeting any 9 preserves requirements. 10 4 iv. Prohibitions. Restrictions, when Where one or more of the 11 following situations occur it shall be prohibited to satisfy the 12 on-site preserve requirement off site. 13 a) Xeric scrub and hardwood hammocks which are 14 one acre or more in size, mangrove (excluding 15 mangrove fringes less than 40 feet in width on 16 artificially created shorelines), coastal dune and 17 strand environments, and listed species habitat or 18 corridors per the requirements or recommendations 19 of the FFWCC or USFWS, shall not be allowed to 20 have the on-site native vegetation preservation 21 retention requirement provided offsite. 22 b) Preserves shall remain on site if located within or 23 contiguous to natural flowways required to be 24 retained per the requirements of the SFWMD, 25 natural water bodies, estuaries, government 26 required preserves (not meeting the offsite 27 preservation criteria herein), NRPAs, or contiguous 28 to property designated for purchase by 29 Conservation Collier or purchased by Conservation 30 Collier, or contiguous to properties containing listed 31 species nests, buffers, corridors and foraging 32 habitat per the requirements or recommendations 33 of the FFWCC or USFWS. For the purpose of this 34 section, natural flowways shall also include those 35 identified during wetland permitting with applicable 36 State and Federal agencies, regional drainage 37 studies, or surface water management permits. 38 c) Remaining portions of on-site preserves must be a 39 minimum of one acre in size and shall not meet the 40 offsite criteria of sub-section 3.05.07 H.1.f.i.(f) and 41 (g) above, unless preserved with higher quality 42 habitat not qualifying for the off-site native 43 vegetation retention alternative. 44 DSAC Recommendation: 45 iiiv. Off-site Alternatives. Off-site native vegetation retention 46 requirements may be satisfied met by monetary payment 47 or by land donation. 48 a) Monetary payment alternative. Applicants shall 49 make monetary payment to Collier County. Such 50 funds w+11 shall be used by the County for the 51 purchase and management of off-site conservation 19 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 lands within the county. The monetary payment 2 amount shall be per acre as established by 3 resolution in the Collier County Growth 4 Management Department Development Services 5 Fee Schedule. based on the location of the land to 6 be impacted and be equal to 125 percent of the 78 125 percent of the average cost for all other 9 `' - - -• , - -ee -- - - e e e •- 10 FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through the 11 _e•-e• . "e• -e e e e .... This monetary 12 payment shall be „.de prior to the preconstruction 13 meeting for the S lP or final plat and construction 14 plans. 15b) Land donation alternative. In lieu of monetary 16payment, applicants may choose to donate land for 17 conservation purposes to Collier County or to 18 another government agen :F the event of 19 donation to Collier County, t ::""applicant may 20 acquire a„d subsequently donate land within the 21 project bo •aes of Winchester Head, North 22 , Golden Ga,'-':,,,,t,:',,wtates Unit 53, by another multi- 23 parcel proje ; .ny other land designated 24 Conservation > er.donation acceptance 25 �n procedures. 26 ,� r �) Applicants who choose to donate land 27 shall be required to demonstrate that the 28 and to be donated contains native 29 vegetation communities equal to or of 30 higher priority(as described in LDC 31 :-.. 41''''' subsection 3.05.07 A.)than the land 32 ,s ,�, required to be preserved on site. In no case 33 shall the acreage of land donated be less 34 than the acreage of land required to be 35 ' preserved on_site. Land donated to satisfy 36 :t '':.:1,,. the off-site vegetation retention requirement 37 ..-t., must be located entirely within Collier 38 �, County. Donations of land for preservation 39 shall be made to a federal, state or local 40 � �ft government agency established or 41 authorized to accept lands for the 42 conservation and management of land in 43 perpetuity, subject to the policies and 44 procedures of the receiving entity. Lands 45 donated to Collier County must include a 46 cash endowment payment for management 47 of the land. The endowment amount shall 48 be per acre as established by resolution in 49 the Collier County Growth Management 50 Department Development Services Fee 51 Schedule. The amount of this payment shall 20 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 be equal to 25 percent of the average cost 2 of land in the Urban Designation or 25 3 percent of the average cost in all other 4 Designations, as applicable, as defined by 5 the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, 6 through the Conservation Collier program. 7 Applicants shall provide evidence that 8 donations of land for preservation and 9 endowments for management have been 10 accepted by and donated to the entity 11 stated above, at the time of the 12 preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final 13 plat and construction plans. Exotics shall be 14 removed in accordance with the time frames 15 provided in LDC section 3.05.07 H.2. State 16 and Federal agency requirements for 17 mitigation, remediation and monitoring for 18 the donated land shall be the responsibility 19 of the applicant. 20 PUD zoning.Where the off-site native vegetation 21 retention alternative is used for portions of preserves not 22 identified on a PUD master plan, a PUD amendment is not 23 required. Preserves or portions of preserves identified on a 24 PUD master plan shall require an amendment to the PUD 25 master plan to use the native vegetation retention 26 alternative, subject to 10.02.13 E, unless the option to use 27 the off-site native vegetation retention alternative is 28 included in the PUD. 29 CCLAAC Recommendation: 30 iiiiv. Off-site Alternatives. Off-site native vegetation retention 31 requirements may be satisfied met by monetary payment 32 or by land donation. 33 a) Monetary payment alternative. Applicants shall 34 make monetary payment to Collier County. Such 35 funds w14 shall be used by the County for the 36 purchase and management of off-site conservation 37 lands within the county. The monetary payment 38 amount shall be based on the post development 39 appraisal value per acre multiplied by the preserve 40 requirement, then multiplied by 1.25 to establish the 41 endowment amount. The appraisal shall be 42 performed by an appraiser from the County's 43 Certified Appraiser List, as amended. For example, 44 if the land appraisal was value was $300,000 and 45 the preserve requirement was 1 acre, the 46 calculation would be: $300,000 x 1 x 1.25 = 47 $375,000. In addition, the fee for initial exotic 48 vegetation removal shall be paid by the applicant 49 as established in the Collier County Growth 50 Management Department Development Services 51 Fee Schedule. based on the location of the land to 21 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 be impacted and be equal to 125 percent of the 2 average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 3 125 percent of the average cost for all other 4 '- •e - - , - -ee --e :, - -- -- - •- 5 FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through tho 6 __ . _ -e _ e __ -••. This monetary 7 payment shall be made prior to the preconstruction 8 meeting for the SDP or final plat and construction 9 plans. 10 b) Land donation alternative. In lieu of monetary 11 payment, applicants may choose to donate land for 12 conservation purposes at a ratio of 4:1 to Collier 13 County or to another government agency._In the 14 event of donation to.Collier County, the applicant 15 may acquire and subsequently donate land within 16 the project boundaries of Winchester Head, North 17 Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, by another multi- 18 parcel project or any other land designated 19 Conservation Collier donation acceptance 20 procedures. 21 s3 Applicants who choose to donate land 22 shall be required to demonstrate that the 23 land to be donated contains native 24 vegetation communities equal to or of 25 higher priority(as described in LDC 26 = subsection 3.0807 A.)than the land 27 required to be preserved on-site. In no case 28 shall the acreage of land donated be less 29 than the acreage of land required to be 30 q preserved on-site. Land donated to satisfy 31 the off-site vegetation retention requirement 32 must be located entirely within Collier 33 County. Donations of land for preservation 34 shall be made to a federal, state or local 35 government agency established or 36 authorized to accept lands for the 37 conservation and management of land in 38 perpetuity, subject to the policies and 39 procedures of the receiving entity. Lands 40 donated to Collier County must include a 41 '° cash endowment payment for management 42 of the land. The cash endowment amount 43 shall be established in the Collier County 44 Growth Management Department 45 Development Services Fee Schedule and 46 shall be at a ratio of 4:1. For example, if the 47 applicant developed one acre they would 48 donate four acres and provide a cash 49 endowment as follows: $50,000 x 4 acres = 50 $200,000. •_ _ _.• _ - _ e- _• -• 51 be equal to 25 percent of the average cost 22 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 - .•e .- - -- '" -•- -• e 2 percent of the average cost in all other 3 :-..e•- - --- --- - - - - 4 the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, 5 --- - -- -- - - -- - - -- - 6 Applicants shall provide evidence that 7 donations of land for preservation and 8 endowments for management have been 9 accepted by and donated to the entity 10 stated above, at the time of the 11 preconstruction meeting for the-SDP or final 12 plat and construction plans. Exotics shall be 13 removed in accordance with the time frames 14 provided in LDC section 3.05.07 H.2. State 15 and Federal agency requirements for 16 mitigation, remediation and monitoring for 17 the donated land shall be the responsibility 18 of the applicant. 19 +uv. PUD zoning. Where the off-site native vegetation 20 retention alternative is used for portions o*,preserves not 21 identified on a PUD master plan, a PUD amendment is not 22 required. Preserves or portions of preserves identified on a 23 PUD master plan shall',require an amendment to the PUD 24 master plan to use the native vegetation retention 25 alternative, subject subjecktso 10.02.13 E, unless the option to use 26 the off-site native vegetation retention alternative is 27 included in the PUD. }, 28 # # # # # # # # # # # # SAN 23 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.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 3.05.07 Preservation Standards 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses (new section) 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 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 24 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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, 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 byGolf Holes in Collier County Number of Courses Number of Holes on the Golf Course 3 9 58 18 5 27 11 36 Total 69 Note:The number of golf holes were identified by accessing golf club websites,GIS aerials,and by telephone conversation with the golf club administrative offices. Table 2 Golf Courses by Zoning District in Collier County Number of Golf Zoning District Courses Golf Course(GC) 9 Golf Course(GC)/RMF-6/RMF-16 1 Golf Course (GC)/RSF-3 1 PUD 47 RFMUD-PUD 3 RFMUD-A 1 RFMUD-A-CU 4 A-MHOI-RLSAO 1 RMF-16 1 PUD-RFMUD 1 Note:Golf courses zoning was confirmed using GIS aerials provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser and reviewing the County zoning maps.Golf courses zoned PUD were further verified by reviewing individual PUD ordinances. Table 3 Type of Courses by Acreage and Number in Collier County Acreage Range Type Number of Golf Courses 10-50 Par 3 -Driving Range 6 50-99 Executive 4 100-220 Championship or 40 240 or greater Regulation 19 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. 25 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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 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, 26 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle'Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term please visit www.colliergov.net/currentldcas. The research on golf course conversions in Florida and the nation provided insight into what land use and planning principles supported the approval of a conversion project by a local jurisdiction. Staff found the projects that received approval had two overarching themes: some level of stakeholder participation and the developer maintaining an open space view for the existing residential property owners. The proposed amendment focuses on these two concepts. Purpose and intent of the golf course conversion section The purpose and intent of this amendment is to "assess and mitigate the impact of golf course conversions on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during the design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to ensure compatibility with existing land uses."As discussed by the Board, the intention of the new requirement is to address concerns stemming from residential property owners purchasing a home along a golf course with the anticipation that the golf course would remain in perpetuity. Further,homes along golf courses are often purchased at a premium price due to the views from the house of the golf course. Moreover, many property owners may have purchased homes with the anticipation their real estate value would rise over time with open space view. Applicability of the golf course conversion standards The LDC amendment will apply to three scenarios, explained below. The golf course conversion section will not apply to courses repurposed for a different use listed in the permitted, accessory, or conditional uses in the Golf Course zoning district. This LDC section is also proposed to be amended to allow for other similar open space uses, such as hiking trails, walkways, and disc golf facilities. More intense uses, such as cemeteries and memorial gardens, museums, and ball courts (bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis and racquetball) are proposed as conditional uses. Approval of Land Uses 1. A golf course located in any zoning district and where the property owner wants to convert to a non-golf course use that is not currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the zoning district or tract. a. Example: A golf course is located in a PUD tract established for only a golf course, however, the property owner wants to build a residential development. In this case, the property owner would proceed with the conversion process and a PUDA. 2. A golf course within a Stewardship Receiving Area and where the property owner wants to convert to a use that is not currently permitted, accessory or conditional in a context zone (generally speaking a context zone is a zoning district in a Stewardship Receiving Area. See LDC section 4.08.07 J.2 d for a description). a. Example:A golf course is located in a Stewardship Receiving Area and the property owner seeks to build a commercial development, however, the Stewardship Receiving Area doesn't allow this use. In this case,the property owner would need to proceed with a Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment. 27 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikcthrough 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 is a title opinion or title commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances against the property that can prevent the land from being developed as proposed. This will require due diligence on the part of the applicant prior to submitting the 28 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.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 Stakeholder Outreach 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 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings 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. 29 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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 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 30 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 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. 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. 31 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term Additional preserve standards Standard preservation requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 will be required for any conversion project. Two additional provisions are introduced in the section to address existing native vegetation.The first takes into account conversion projects that have isolated areas of native vegetation that are less than '/2 acre (including planted areas) which meet LDC section 3.05.07 A.1-2. Staff supports the ability for the applicant to combine these isolated areas into one larger preserve area. This provision allows the applicant to exceed the '/z acre limitation and recreate up to their preserve acreage requirement. The second provision addresses existing preserves and aims to retain all County approved preserves. Conventionally zoned golf courses may utilize the retained preserve to meet their preserve requirement because it is only connected to the golf course and not to any other use. However, golf courses within PUDs shall only be able to use preserves acreage in excess of the minimum and will likely be required to provide additional preserve acreage to support a new development. 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. Because new lighting can be a sensitive issue, it is proposed that lighting 32 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term standards be vetted with stakeholders through the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings and public hearings. 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. 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. 33 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikcthrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 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. Revised January 11, 2017. 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. 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 7 8 3.05.07 Preservation Standards 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 H. Preserve standards. 11 1. Design standards. 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 e. Created preserves. Although the primary intent of GMP CCME Policy 14 6.1.1 is to retain and protect existing native vegetation, there are 15 situations where the application of the retention requirements of this 16 Policy is not possible. In these cases, creation or restoration of vegetation 17 to satisfy all or a portion of the native vegetation retention requirements 18 may be allowed. In keeping with the intent of this policy, the preservation 19 of native vegetation off site is preferable over creation of preserves. 20 Created Preserves shall be allowed for parcels that cannot reasonably 21 accommodate both the required on-site preserve area and the proposed 22 activity. 23 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 24 i. Applicability. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot 25 reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area 26 and the proposed activity include: 27 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 28 (e) When small isolated areas (of less than % acre in size) 29 of native vegetation exist on site. In cases where 30 retention of native vegetation results in small isolated 31 areas of 1/2 acre or less, preserves may be planted with all 32 three strata; using the criteria set forth in Created 33 Preserves and shall be created adjacent existing native 34 vegetation areas on site or contiguous to preserves 35 on adjacent properties. This exception may be granted, 36 regardless of the size of the project. Created preserves 37 may exceed the 1/2 acre size limitation for golf course 34 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 conversion applications in accordance with LDC section 2 5.05.15. 3 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 5 6 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses 7 8 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of 9 golf course conversion on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during 10 the design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to 11 ensure compatibility with the existing land uses. For the purposes of this section, 12 property owners within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as 13 stakeholders. 14 1. Stakeholder outreach process. The intent is to provide a process to cultivate 15 consensus between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed 16 conversion. In particular, this section is designed to address the conversion of 17 golf courses surrounded, in whole or in part, by residential uses or lands zoned 18 residential. 19 2. Development standards. It is the intent of the specific development standards 20 contained herein to encourage the applicant to propose a conversion project 21 with land uses and amenities that are compatible and complementary to the 22 existing neighborhoods. Further, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate 23 reasonable input provided by stakeholders into the development proposal. 24 B. Applicability. The following zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments, 25 and compatibility design review petitions, collectively referred to as "conversion 26 applications" hereafter, shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A conversion application 27 shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a developed golf course to a non- 28 golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is sought 29 for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant shall be 30 exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.15 H. 31 1. Zoning actions. This section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning 32 district for a use that is not currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the 33 zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought. 34 2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course 35 constructed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area for a use that is not 36 currently permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the 37 change is sought. 38 3. Compatibility design review. This section applies to a golf course constructed in 39 any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a 40 non-golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within 41 the existing zoning district or designation. Permitted conditional uses shall also 42 require conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00. 43 C. Application process for conversion applications. 44 1. Intent to Convert application. The applicant shall submit an "Intent to Convert" 45 application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application. The 46 following is required of the applicant: 47 a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and 48 application submittal requirements, including: a title opinion or title 49 commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all 50 encumbrances against the property; the Developer's Alternatives 51 Statement, as provided for below; and the public outreach methods to be 35 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 used to engage stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings 2 consistent with the County's Guide to Golf Course Conversion as 3 established below. 4 b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the 5 requirements of LDC section 10.03.06. 6 2. Developer's Alternatives Statement requirements. The purpose of the 7 Developer's Alternatives Statement (DAS) is to serve as a tool to inform 8 stakeholders and the County about the applicant's development options and 9 intentions. It is intended to encourage communication, cooperation, and 10 consensus building between the applicant, the stakeholders, and the County. 11 b. Alternatives. The DAS shall be prepared by the applicant and shall 12 clearly identify the goals and objectives for the conversion project. The 13 DAS shall address, at a minimum, the three alternatives noted below. The 14 alternatives are not intended to be mutually exclusive; the conceptual 15 development plan described below may incorporate one or more of the 16 alternatives in the conversion project. 17 i. No conversion: The applicant shall examine opportunities to 18 retain all or part of the golf course. The following considerations 19 are to be assessed: 20 a) Whether any of the existing property owner's 21 association(s) reasonably related to the golf course are 22 able to purchase all or part of the golf course; and 23 b) Whether any of the existing property owner's 24 association(s) and/or any new association reasonably 25 related to the golf course can coordinate joint control for all 26 or part of the golf course. 27 ii. County purchase: The applicant shall coordinate with the County 28 to determine if there is interest to donate, purchase, or maintain a 29 portion or all of the property for a public use, e.g., public park, 30 open space, civic use, or other public facilities. This section shall 31 not require the County to purchase any lands, nor shall this 32 require the property owner to donate or sell any land. 33 iii. Conceptual development plan: The applicant shall prepare one or 34 more proposed conceptual development plans, consistent with the 35 development standards established in section LDC section 36 5.05.15 G, depicting the proposed conversion to share with the 37 stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described 38 below. The conceptual development plan shall include a narrative 39 describing how the plan implements and is consistent with the 40 goals and objectives identified in the DAS. The conceptual plan 41 shall depict the retained and proposed land uses, including 42 residential, non-residential, and preserve areas; existing and 43 proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing and proposed 44 trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the 45 greenway, including any passive recreational uses. The 46 narrative shall identify the intensity of the proposed land uses; 47 how the proposed conversion is compatible with the existing 48 surrounding land uses and any methods to provide benefits or 49 mitigate impacts to the stakeholders. Visual exhibits to describe 50 the conceptual development plan and any amenities, including the 51 greenway, shall also be provided. 36 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) for conversion applications. The SOMs 2 are intended to engage the stakeholders early in the conversion project and 3 inform the applicant as to what the stakeholders find important in the 4 neighborhood, what the stakeholders consider compatible with the neighborhood, 5 and what types of land uses they would support to be added to the 6 neighborhood. The applicant shall utilize Collier County's Guide to Golf Course 7 Conversion: Public Outreach Methods and Usable Open Space Concepts to 8 conduct the SOMs. An assigned County planner shall attend the SOM and 9 observe the process. The following is required of the applicant: 10 a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application 11 submittal requirements. 12 b. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in-person SOMs and a 13 minimum of one web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual 14 plan(s). The web-based survey web address shall be incorporated in the 15 mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in-person SOMs. 16 c. At the SOM, the applicant shall provide information to the stakeholders 17 about the purpose of the meeting, including a presentation on the goals 18 and objectives of the conversion project, the alternatives established in 19 the Developer's Alternative Statement, the greenway concept, as required 20 in subsection D, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility with 21 the existing surrounding neighborhood. The applicant shall facilitate 22 discussion on these topics with the stakeholders using one or more public 23 outreach method(s) identified in the County's Guide to Golf Course 24 Conversion. 25 d. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the 26 applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of 27 attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos 28 from the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from 29 outreach methods (as described in the County's Guide to Golf Course 30 Conversion), and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The 31 applicant shall also include a point-counterpoint list, identifying 32 reasonable input from the stakeholders and how and why it was or was 33 not incorporated in the conversion application. The report shall be 34 organized such that the issues and ideas provided by the stakeholders 35 are clearly labeled by the applicant in the list and the conversion 36 application. 37 4. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion 38 application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, compatibility design review) until the 39 Intent to Convert application is deemed completed by County staff and the SOMs 40 are completed. Thereafter, the applicant may proceed by submitting a 41 conversion application with the County as follows: 42 a. Zoning actions. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.1, the applicant shall 43 file a PUDA or rezone application, including the SOM report. Deviations to 44 LDC section 5.05.15 shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other 45 sections of the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or 46 NIM. 47 b. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For projects subject to 48 5.05.15 B.2, the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area 49 Amendments application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC 50 section 5.05.15 shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other sections of 51 the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM. 37 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 c. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, the 2 applicant shall file a compatibility design review application, including the 3 SOM report. 4 D. Staff report for conversion applications. In addition to the requirements established in 5 LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B.3, or 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff report shall 6 evaluate the following: 7 1. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this section and 8 development standards in the LDC. In particular, that the proposed design and 9 use(s) of the greenway, as applicable, meet the purpose as described 5.05.15 D. 10 2. Whether the SOM report and point-counterpoint list described above reflect the 11 discussions that took place at the SOMs. 12 3. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by the 13 stakeholders to address impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholder 14 real property. 15 4. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why input from the 16 stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual development plan. 17 E. Supplemental review and approval considerations for zoning actions and Stewardship 18 Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of the Planning 19 Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the Board shall show 20 the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff report for conversion 21 applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, and the findings established in 22 LDC sections 10.02.08 E, 10.02.13 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In particular, the 23 Planning Commission shall give attention to the design of the greenway and how it 24 mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention shall be given to who can use the 25 greenway. The staff report for the Board shall include the Planning Commission's 26 findings. 27 F. Compatibility design review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3, this section is intended 28 to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by requiring the 29 conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the existing 30 surrounding uses. The land use is not subject to review. The following is required: 31 1. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements 32 for the compatibility design review application. 33 2. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements 34 of LDC section 10.03.06. 35 3. Review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in 36 5.05.15 D, the compatibility design review application as follows, and make a 37 recommendation to the Board. 38 a. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established 39 in this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC 40 section 5.05.15 D.2— D.4. 41 b. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing 42 surrounding land uses. 43 c. Whether a view of open space is provided that mitigate impacts to real 44 property for the property owners that surround the golf course. 45 d. Whether open space is retained and available for passive recreation. 46 4. The Board shall consider the staff report and Planning Commissioner's report 47 and approve, approve with conditions, or deny application. Upon approval of the 48 application, the applicant shall obtain approval of any additional required 49 development order, such as SDP, construction plans, or conditional use. 38 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 G. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for 2 zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The compatibility design 3 review process shall only be subject to LDC section 5.05.15 G.6. 4 1. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages utilized to meet the 5 minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be 6 retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for 7 any subsequent conversion projects. 8 2. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space view for 9 stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife 10 habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a 11 continuous strip of land set aside for passive recreational uses, such as: open 12 space, nature tails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach frontage, disc golf 13 courses, exercise equipment, and multi-use paths. The Board may approve other 14 passive recreational uses that were vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach 15 Meetings and are supported by the stakeholders. The greenway shall not include 16 required yards (setbacks) of any individual lots. 17 a. The qreenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties 18 surrounding the golf course and generally located along the perimeter of 19 the proposed development. The Board may approve an alternative 20 design that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as 21 provided for in LDC section 5.05.15 C.3. 22 b. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the conversion project shall 23 be dedicated to the greenway. The greenway shall have a minimum 24 average width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet at any one location. 25 c. Maintenance of the greenway shall be identified through the zoning or 26 and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment process. 27 d. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for 28 the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as 29 noted in G.1 above. 30 e. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover) shall be 31 preserved and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal 32 improvements are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a 33 minimum, canopy trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet 34 within the greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, 35 trees within preserves shall be excluded from the ratio. 36 f. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed 37 development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence 38 shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and 39 around the greenway. 40 g. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; 41 however, the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional 42 lake area than what exists pre-conversion. Any newly developed lake 43 shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. 44 h. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the County's official 45 records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway as 46 described in the zoning action or SRA Amendment. 47 3. Preserve requirements. The following preserve requirements are in addition to 48 those established in LDC section 3.05.07. 49 a. Where small isolated areas (of less than 1/2 acre in size) of native 50 vegetation (including planted areas) exist on site they may be 51 consolidated into a created preserve to meet the preserve requirement. 39 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Strikethrough text is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 1 The recreated preserve acreage may exceed the 1/2 acre limitation as 2 described in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.e.i.(e). 3 b. Existing County approved preserve areas shall be considered as follows: 4 i. Golf courses within a conventional zoning district. All County 5 approved preserve areas shall be retained and may be utilized to 6 meet the preserve requirements for the conversion project. 7 ii. Golf courses within a PUD. All County approved preserve areas 8 shall be retained. Preserve areas in excess of the PUD required 9 preserve acreage may be used to meet the preserve requirement 10 for the conversion project. 11 4. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that 12 the stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an 13 equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by a pre 14 versus post development stormwater runoff analysis. 15 5. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain 16 compensation shall be provided. 17 6. Soil and/or groundwater sampling. In addition to the soil and/or ground water 18 sampling requirements established in LDC section 3.08.00 A.4.d, the applicant 19 shall conduct soil and/or groundwater sampling for the pollutants as follows: 20 Managed turf, chemical storage/mixing areas, and maintenance areas (i.e. 21 equipment storage and washing areas, fueling and fuel storage areas) shall be 22 tested for orqanophosphate, carbamate, triazine pesticides, or chlorinated 23 herbicides. In addition, maintenance areas, as described above, shall be tested 24 for petroleum products. The County shall notify the Department of Environmental 25 Protection where contamination exceeding applicable Department of 26 Environmental Protection standards is identified on site or where an 27 Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 28 7. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be 29 consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where 30 conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the 31 LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply. 32 H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the 33 GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards. 34 1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce excessive glare, light trespass 35 and sky glow. At a minimum, lighting shall be directed away from neighboring 36 properties and all light fixtures shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. Lighting for the 37 conversion project shall be vetted with stakeholders during the SOMs and the 38 public hearings, as applicable. 39 2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a 40 minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with 41 residential uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one 42 location. 43 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 44 45 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 W. Intent to Convert, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.1. 48 1. The following notice procedures are required: 49 a. Mailed notice sent by the applicant after the intent to convert application 50 is approved and at least 20 days prior to the first Stakeholder Outreach 51 Meeting. For the purposes of this application, all mailed notices shall be 40 l:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the 2 subject property. 3 b. Posting of a sign after intent to convert application is approved and at 4 least 20 days prior to the first Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. 5 X. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.3. 6 1. The following notice procedures are required: 7 a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the Stakeholder 8 Outreach Meeting. 9 b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required 10 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. For the purposes of this application, all 11 mailed notices shall be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the 12 property lines of the subject property. This mailed notice may include both 13 required Stakeholder Outreach Meeting dates. All mailed notices shall 14 include the web address to participate in the required online visual 15 survey. 16 Y. Compatibility Design Review Meeting, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 F. 17 1. The following advertised public hearings are required. 18 a. One Planning Commission hearing. 19 b. One BCC hearing. 20 2. The following notice procedures are required: 21 a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the advertised 22 public hearing. 23 b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required 24 public hearings. For the purposes of this application, all mailed notices 25 shall be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of 26 the subject property. 27 28 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 41 I:\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\1-19-17\Planning Commission Packet\Memo to Planning Commission 1-12-17.docx nnNoNvJ7Dn0 CO 0 0 v m o m C 0 -' 0 _ < 3 m w a = s 3 ao•• co m m CL 0 0 0ma 0 3 3 a r s I rn 3 m •• N. G _ A N �_ Z 03 fD Dl fD ' O N • (ND ID 22, .0V1 r3•. 3 r3•r * m _ e, rt G) O1 eV Q .- S nN O� Q. 3 O ;_, a r+ �, Ut cin O3 c3 = r•r r3+ CD 0. N y- 0 O (<D O-, (ND O s N m 0 C c Q 0 -1 v, 3 D .•r fp m v a o m azo -' Q N m m a m O 3 N - UO r+ m p O .N. N O s vmi h N rN, rt, n m m 3 O ( rD 3D O 3 -''"s N 3 - O 3 S O N 3 O. C tCL =it '< r3+ O 13 0_ Q N d rt S 3 O m r. N 3 m fp m 3 m .r N n 3 m 3 ~' 0 3 m 3 C' DJ N O Q Q S m01: c rt S -e, 1/1 • • • • • • • -,+ m O „* h Z - O 'O O Dl O n t^ r -, n D -0 D) O CD -+ -I - --I O- .ter -0 ffDD 0) O (SD CD Oq' p�j ,, .O n -+, N p O S O S vOi 'O rN-. N 3 . S 0) 0) O n m t<D CD -, .- -00 O m CO o y D•-• m fp Leltan -°O a -, , °. m v ' m N U a '^ = a c Pt ,Y m ON '4 .< N Q_ rt N fl- fD 0 m n• n rn7 E (' N CO r+ a t^• N - 01 a S o C r+ m n m o n m r•. .-. _• ,y m N N r-, m fD I'D n C 3 '< r+ ni or O O- v S fy '< '< N rt r+ m O C 3 Q S a r* .3•. _ -' 0 Lel o s r~ n v m m -< O r*, p O fz r* "' CD °' m m a '� 3 r+ N fD m N c o e o • Cr r. 3 m a n = m ID Q1 3 Z p n D! 3 =. fp C p m* Q C '•i m 7 CD to m p rN+ D p o v m , n m v. m 3 .P 0 O m Z D N fD o in ,.. O 3 OO CO O' c „Dm C N r0-. N S el 3 3 O Qcn O 3 r+ m O ••+ fD N `< m r+ _ Q N N rr ` O 3 m ,f fp .G s v 3 r-+ N Q v 0' ,rt '* O m _. Q O O N M y 'a d 3 TO C n m s -0 �• 3 DJ m o m �. c. N O m r•. "6 C < S 3 m f'D C m '3 n n C CDD C -0 0 y Da m o rD a v fl m n' 7 s O o s m g Z rt 0 A m , O m fp' 3 - rD -< -„ O m: n °° ,- m Q _. m p a H n N co O m D • O 3 N n m 3 3 Q m < _S• n p DJ -, Ln N < 3 o '_. `c a < 3 A •< Dpi 7' r' rO* �. v x O O rt c v N' a m to O .. 0 m n - r a ,� m 3 tOit - D7 rr rte+ O <• fU Q N m 3 .* .3r 7 fSp m O O f,7 Q rD < r+ S O Q * N c _ p •< `< m OO ' Q C O- • S = o a n fS rn+ N 3 0 n F. 0 m n m r=. •G fD 'O -, 3 n O N ,..F, S m �'. Y 6 m m O Na N DJ 0 n m 7 3 O fop r+ 3+ O O ro a r* c c -• m 0 CM F. s rmi -a 3 W a m O or a4 O c, O_ v O N o * 0 -o c m - m !D Q v ID 0 * 0 3 m• m O m -I m 3 a Q 3 .r f� . n m d .3 , , Oq O fD c v 0 33 v0+ lO m Re 3 O 3 • o o z N m co _n. m m n as �; p X. 3 N M. 3 O m rx•. '6 c a. N 3 3 fp 3 N n n '+ N 3 -' m co 3 r•r O C` SC'. n. 0 � -r• f4.es.., vmi 3 S O! n O C a N m 0 rci 3 ,C a s �,_0 f<p fn-D. 00 -S v O M O (<D 3 m 3 C 3 011 3 DJ CL �, N o c Q ao n O 3 -, m d a t'it V LD ,� 3 O' ,-. S 3 m O 3 rt S m = m 3 m ,< N 0 0) r~ O a m o „ 3 o m o S Q N m 7' * ct 3 r. c n " ° rD O f�D w' 3 3 3 n m 3 Xi o s a(.o m m m rn --O s E. 0 3 a O ° N 0 3 ' c �D -, N m O N o < `< Z o s '+ 0) a_ o o ao rip rOp O m " 7• v O L u 0 p = s cm -„ n < 3 � c 7- 7 =n ri. =. S o f O N m fD 3• �- O m 0 O �, 6 0 -s5. v O - O r+ 3 3 s m x. 0 O O -, •< 3 m �, c 3 0 ' ,n 3 s a n Da 3 N O O f<D •(D 5, OC a, 0- ni 3- o 3 < OO m 7 DJ OCT O_ N m C `<" " V+' D) _ m r+ O to to to a rM m co CD 3 0 c s m c s Q n fs m C m n DJ M o 0 3 c ^ t_ m o Del r, 3 0 rho 3 n m o 3 c m c 3 n , 3 a 3 3 D IV M mx, " m m A , a. 0 O DJ V rt Cr) 3 C o y, 3 1- DJ 70 D=J my 0 - 0- CCD - fp 3 lD -I f1 1-1 Ol W o O 3 nrt W (I > C 0O � nNJNJv+ K > a 0 v o ° � u, ;, � CO� ao; � � � �. mow "+, � s 3 ao' o v o o o 3 �• PD o -3g = 0 7 3' (D cn• N in' c v •• 0. co 'F-';j 0 D C G' 0 p O 'up, j O 7 - N j 0 -' (D ,, cD Q • r, 7 r+ fD Q g) (D ,,, v' O N vhi N a., O O pGi d iiin� c o 7-7 (D O O rD r+ r+ < o a a 0 —� n C °x -z r CD —•1 p .-r '^ p in v, O Gl fD lD rD rD 3 •• ' rD ,,. ° 3 ,-r rr crn- D D C a. rr rD rD 3 0 < 3 U' N NJ C — co 7 _ su G CO i1� SU r+ 0 (D _�+ fD in ED O. 4 0 -1O r rt c S 0 CD - III fD 01 O C G m W G FD 7-1: N w O D o -aa. N ,'_co < c , c. fD 3 o"CD (71* ..(5, C C a 3 r craN o C o . < Q D w 3 M CL 0- 7 0) CD ✓ 3 3 W CD 0) (to -i 3 rF N N A O CD rn C 3 3 CD 3 O 3 .,..-1 O 3 NJ 0 O a N ` V a) rD rF cOi ° m fD 3 I i -s < N < C. ro A m A a a. I 00cu? o rt zKOICAK > 070 70 C C CD m v - QJ c , fD � rr Do DLJI rr rt 7 ID 7 o .0 X = :,' F. 3 S. b O O h 3 c x 5 —I T M ~' 3 fro lD , fp vi ao < v 3 3 * •• 3 Gl rD 3 rD er Z T r�D m °�' m o a co 0 0. fD T. N v v o g r+ CT 3 0 v VI s < C2- = a u, ~' fD 0 3 , o 01 °q (") -1 �0 , ft,-• Q 0) !D 0) E+ Q H 0) 0- rr N (D •--1 m 3 X s o o. c ° rr CD X S S O C y' Q (D (nD , Q 3 0 W N Q Ol 0 -o cn• 3 �. UQ 2i 3 "O = fl- .— = F. < ,-r Q = 3 0) o) VI Q)) fD `eD 3 o ° ° aro v o 3 Oa r(D CU m CU Z V 3 3 C cu 0 v, aN 3 ° �. of o eD fD a) ,� ° o - 3 -1 0) 1.1. .< 0 (A 2 .00 0 (D el_ et o 3 C 3 fp C 00 3 0) Z O -20o C <. �G O. "I c O n 0) < (D 0) co 13-q - r 0) 3 CO OIn _La o fa) v W Q 3 0 IV fp Z 3 = oo 0- O. co 0 fp mCU 3 -I -.g et N a rF _LO H 70 NJ (D P., n rn 0 3 3 (D 7 0 r 3 a o 0) N n v ' n et O1 CD 3 m0 Q Dg 3 fD N V .. - O c