CCPC Minutes 01/30/2017 S "Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples,Florida,January 30,2017
LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Joe Schmitt
Patrick Dearborn
ALSO PRESENT:
Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 29
AGENDA
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., JANUARY 30, 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. 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:
1. Chapter Two—Zoning Districts and Uses,including:
a. section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts,
b. section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts;
2. Chapter Three—Resource Protection,including:
a. section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards;
3. Chapter Five—Supplemental Standards,
a. adding section 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses;
4. Chapter Six—Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements,
including:
a. section 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements,
b. adding section 6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units,
Two-Family Dwelling Units,and Duplexes;
5. Chapter Ten—Application,Review,and Decision-Making Procedures,including:
a. 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, Manager, LDC, Development Review] (The CCPC members
have been provided copies, however, the public can access LDC amendments here:
www.colliergov.net/publicmtgs)
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
1
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
PROCEEDINGS
MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening,everyone.Welcome to the 5:05—and it is 5:05—p.m.
meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary,please.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good evening.
Mr.Eastman is absent. Mr.Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Diane is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Davenport(sic).
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Dearborn. Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Dearborn. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Addenda to the agenda: Tonight is a special meeting of the Planning Commission for the review of
the Land Development Codes. The statutes require an evening meeting when we do the codes like this,and
evening is after five. So that's why it's that strange time of 5:05.
We have one item on,but there are one,two--there are five separate chapters of the code being
reviewed tonight.
Planning Commission absences: Our next regular meeting is Thursday,and I believe everybody had
previously said they'll be here. We have one item on the agenda for Thursday.
There's no minutes.
BCC report: That will be on Thursday.
Chairman's report: There is one thing I wanted to make sure everybody in the crowd is aware of.
The golf course conversion language that we're reviewing tonight is supposed to be finished tonight.
Hopefully we'll be able to fmish it.
We provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County
Commissioners make the final decision. They are scheduled to hear this,the same Land Development Code
language that we're going to forward,on Tuesday,March 14th at 5:05 and on Tuesday,March 28th at 9:00
a.m.
So after it leaves here tonight,those are the two important dates for those of you who are here for the
golf course conversion.
And that takes us down to our first and only advertised public hearing. It's for amendments to the
Land Development Code Ordinance No.04-41. We have,like I said,five chapters to discuss. Based on the
people here,I know you're--everybody that is here for the golf course conversion,please raise your hand.
Then we will do that one first. Otherwise I have a feeling you all will be waiting here for a while.
So we'll get to that one first. So with that,Caroline's going to do the presentation.
And,Caroline,we'll just move to that first section. Tell us what page to start on,and we'll go right to
there.
MS.CILEK: Great. Thank you very much.Caroline Cilek with the Growth Management
Department.
All right. So the first amendment we're going to take a look at is 2.03.09,and that begins on Page 2.
And there were no changes to this amendment since the last meeting where you reviewed it. So let me know
if you have any questions or comments at this stage.
Page 2 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,just so the audience understands,currently most of the golf courses
are in what's called an open space zoning district and it allows,basically,golf courses. This would then
increase the allowed uses in that district,not housing or residential,but other recreation-related uses with the
idea that if they had another opportunity to leave the area for recreation,meaning golf courses and in this case
hiking trails,walkways,multi-use paths,passive recreation,or disk golf,maybe the golf course or some of
those uses would stay in lieu of converting to residential.
And so that's the intention of this section of the code. It's not the main section of the conversion
process. It's a section to consider alleviating the need for a conversion.
But along with that are a series of conditional uses that would go through a conditional use process if
they were to be approved,but they would be acknowledged as being applicable for a conditional use.
A public meeting would be required,and then in those conditional uses are a series of 11 different
things: The commercial establishments that normally go with golf courses;cemeteries and memorial
gardens;equestrian facilities;museums;water-related activities;courts,including bocce ball,basketball,
handball,pickleball,tennis,and racquetball;neighborhood fitness and community centers;parks and
playgrounds;pools,indoor and outdoor,botanical gardens;then other recreational uses that are compatible
with those listed above.
And what would happen is if someone wanted to add those to a golf course,they would come in and
apply for a conditional use to get that done. That process is a public meeting. It requires a neighborhood
information meeting,so you would be notified,or some of you within a certain distance of those locations,
and then we would look and see if they are compatible with your neighborhood.They would have to have
setbacks and buffers and things like that.
j That's what this is for. So it's not the conversion part of it. It's just allowing more principal uses.
And,Caroline,there are a few things that grammatically might need to be corrected. And on Page 4,
the top,No. 1,commercial establishments orientated to the golf course including,and you might want to put
a colon there,and then go,gift shops,comma,instead of a semicolon,pro shops with equipment sales in
excess of 1,000 square feet,comma,restaurants with seating greater than 150 seats,comma,and that would
be more of a listing nature than it's set off here,to avoid any confusion. Is that—
MS.CILEK: Yeah. We can look at how they listed it out,sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the issue of equestrian facilities,the various courts and the
neighborhood fitness and community centers,what is the minimum setback those would have to have now
from the—since this is a principal use or a conditional use allowed,what would we be looking at as setbacks,
a minimum;do you have any idea?
MS.CILEK: So when looking at the setbacks for these,I think it's important to keep in mind what
we're doing in LDC Section 5.05.15,which is introducing a setback there,and that would be 50 feet. Now,
that would basically override any minimum setback elsewhere in the LDC for these uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this conditional use section of the golf course zoning would have to
abide by a minimum of a 50-foot setback?
MS.CILEK: Uh-huh. It has a little bit of flexibility. It's,like,50 feet and then 35 at any one point,
just in case there was a need for it to be a little bit smaller in one certain area.
But 50 feet is what we're looking for there,because this is an open space that is being converted to
something else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to refer this to someone to find this,we could look up a
standard in the open space district that would indicate it would be 50-foot setback in,like,a table or
something;is that correct?
MS.CILEK: Right. If you look under A on Page 3,the last sentence of the purpose and intent
section directs you to take a look at design standards and 5.05.15.H,which will then identify the minimum
setback of 50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to verify.
MS.CILEK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well--
Page 3 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did have to call—I did have to call her today and ask what disk golf
was. I had never heard of it.
MS.CILEK: I'm happy to—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a Frisbee.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Frisbee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a Frisbee,yeah.
MS.CILEK: They're disks that you throw into,like,a metal ring,and you kind of go around a
course trying to get them in.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS.CILEK: Think of it as a form of Frisbee.They are different. Disk type,though.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'll do—for the members of the public,this is just a piece. A
bigger picture is coming up next. Does anybody want to address any of the issues that we've just discussed
on this one piece?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Normally,when we get to the next one--and Pll ask for registered
speakers,but after I get—the registered speakers get done,Pll still ask for anybody that wants to address.
That's what we're here for,to listen to you. So we'll go right to you afterwards.
Okay. Other than the changes in the grammatical issues,I think,Caroline,that one seems to be as
complete as it can be at this point.
MS.CILEK: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's move to the next one then.
MS.CILEK: Perfect. So the next one is 5.05.15,introducing a conversion of golf course LDC
section. And I can walk through the changes that we have. If you would like,you can give an overview of
this one for the audience. That might be helpful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. I think that's--there's more people here than there has been
here before,and I'm not sure all of them have gotten this documentation,so let's try to be as careful as we can
to state what's going on,so that would be fine.
MS.CILEK: Great. Would you like me to provide that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS.CILEK: All right. So what this amendment is doing is introducing a brand new section in the
code to guide conversions of golf course. And we have two main concepts that are being introduced.The
first one is called a stakeholder outreach meeting where people who live within a thousand feet of a golf
course would receive notification that meetings are going to take place. And the applicant is encouraged to
create a meeting that is collaborative in nature and to gather input from the stakeholders and then apply it to
their proposed development. And in doing so,we are hoping that there can be consensus among what is
developed on the parcel.
In addition,the applicant is required to evaluate a no-conversion option and reach out to the HOAs,
existing or new,to see if they're interested in purchasing the golf course,a portion or all of it.
Also,they are required to reach out to the county to offer or to see if there's interest in the county
buying some or all of the golf course,and then the third is the develop amendment(sic)proposal.
Following the stakeholder outreach meetings which occurs through the intent-to-convert process,
they can proceed through a rezone or a PUD amendment or several other forms of approval which would be
done through the Board.
One of the main development standards is a greenway concept. The greenway is designed to provide
a nice green buffer between the existing residential area and the proposed development.Alternatives would
be allowed to this. It's designed to be a standard 100-feet buffer filled with tares and passive recreational
areas.
Page 4 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
There are some other development standards as well,but they are aligned with many of the other
LDC sections,such as stormwater. And I can list off a couple others. Soil and groundwater testing is another
very important one.
That's it for a big-picture overview.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if a golf course comes in for conversion,they've got to have at least two
or more outreach meetings with the stakeholders. The stakeholders are the people that live within about a
thousand feet of the golf course. They're the most affected people. And then,of course,anybody else that's
in the community that would attend it.
Everybody will express their views,they talk about it. A developer tries to conform with as many
possible issues that are brought up,and they go back and forth a couple of times,then they come here for
what's called a rezoning process. That rezoning process gets developed by staff in a staff report,then the
neighborhood information meetings start,and then it comes before the Planning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners.
So there are a lot of meetings required to convert a golf course,and your input,just like tonight,is
tailored all along the way. You'll constantly have input into the process. That input then is all brought
forward and the boards try to help and find a consensus,as Caroline had indicated.
And with that,let's just move into the staff part of it first. For those of you who haven't been here
before,this board did receive information on case law that took a look at how these cases are looked at if
they're appealed all the way through the courts,and the consensus seems to be--and,Caroline,correct me if I
am wrong--the courts seem to feel that you can't force somebody to lose money on a golf course and,some
way or another,most of the courses that have requested it--in fact,I don't think you brought anyone in here
that didn't succeed,and to have some form of conversion. So we're trying to head that off by finding one
that's got a compromise.
And then we also ask for appraised values based on the tax assessor's reports. They produced a table
indicating that a hundred-foot greenway would be similar in value to a view on a golf course. That's basically
what would protect your home values. That's another issue that was key to this board and I know will be a
key to Board of County Commissioners.
So with that,Caroline,did you want questions from the staff narrative first before we get into the
actual language;does that work?
MS.CILEK: Yes,that would be great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody for--the first pages of the report all the way up until the 15th
page is the staff narrative. Does anybody have questions on this panel right now? And it's the narrative;a lot
of it we've seen before. There's some new language in there. Did anybody have any questions on that?
Patrick?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,sir. Everything that's in here we've seen--pretty much have
seen before,so I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick,did you have anything?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just making sure that--obviously,this is my--I'm new at this,
so everything we discussed at the last meeting,I'm seeing that highlighted here? Would that be highlighted
or something different?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of it was from us. I think some of it was from possibly meetings with
the County Attorney's Office or others.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline,I have a couple questions,because it's going to come up in the
text,about the processes for golf courses that currently are zoned to have other uses including residential.
And on Page 6 you have a table,Table 2,and it starts out with golf course GC,and there's nine of those in
Collier County;golf course GC/RMF-6/RMF-16,there's one of those;and golf course GC/RSF-3,there's one
of those. Way down on the bottom,we have an RMF-16,and it says one. So it look like there's one golf
course that's in an RMF-16 zoning;is that the way--
MS.CILEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does someone on your team who's here tonight,can they give us the
Page 5 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
names of those three courses that have the zoning in the addition to the GC?
MS.CILEK: Yes. I can ask my staff to pull that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fd like the audience to know just in case they happen to be around
one of these,because those are looked at differently than the rest of everything we're going to be looking at,
and I haven't had time today to look follow up and see which of those three course there are.
Basically,those courses would need what's called a rezone. They would still have to come through
what's called a public process but not necessarily a rezone.
MS.CILEK: It's in orange,unfortunately,but it is Highpoint.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Highpoint is one of them.Now,that one is--
MS.CILEK: It's the RMF-16 one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one at the bottom,okay.
MS.CILEK: What other ones would you like to see?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two up on top that's zoned GC/RMF-6/RMF-16.
MS.CILEK: Okay. So we—when they are multiple like that,it's that they have a little bit of
RMF-6 or a little bit of RMF-16,but the majority of it is GC. For example,I know LaPlaya is that third one
down. Golf course,and then it has RSF-3,and it's just a tiny,weeny bit of that golf course that is zoned
RSF-3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LaPlaya being the Palm River golf course?
MS.CILEK: Yes,correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. So a piece or some pieces may be zoned RSF-3,but the bulk of
it's golf course.
MS.CILEK: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. RMF-16 at the bottom is the Highpoint. That's on U.S.41 down by
that Citgo gas station,or it used to be. Fm not sure what kind of gas station—
MS.CILEK: I can pull up the map if that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just want to make sure,if people are here from those,they'll
recognize the name. And what's the one up on top,the RMF-6/RMF-16?
MS.CILEK: That one is another one of those pieces one. We can get it for you. I think--okay. So
one of them is RMF-6,and 16 is Glades golf course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a portion of the Glades golf course has—
MS.CILEK: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --house zoning already on it.
MS.CILEK: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A portion of the RSF-3,which that's not—that's the one you just talked
about—already has residential zoning on it.
MS.CILEK: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The RMF-16,which is Hamilton Greens,has residential zoning on it.
MS.CILEK: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you bring that a little closer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: RSF-3 was the Palm River.
MS.CILEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the RMF-16 was Highpoint.
Okay. And what that means is those three would be able to go through a compatibility design review
which would take a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners?
MS.CILEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then NIM or not a NIM?
MS.CILEK: So—and when you go through the compatibility design review,you're still required to
do the intent-to-convert application,which means you're still doing all that stakeholder outreach.
I will say,though,some of these residential zonings on these straight zone golf courses are very
Page 6 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
small,and so the likelihood that they would be able to convert that in and of itself is very unlikely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS.CILEK: I think the LaPlaya/Palm River one is only the maintenance sheds,so it's just a very
tiny amount of land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that provision that we have may not even be that effective.
Okay.
MS.CILEK: Yes. Staff is aware it might not be used for the GC golf courses,but it would apply to
a PUD—PUDs that have allowed for residential on the golf course lands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing I'd like to ask you,on No.9,Page 9,the bottom.
I spoke to you about this earlier. You may want to clarify those two sentences after your Figure 1 table.
MS.CILEK: Yep. I'll take care of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a little confusing the way it's written.
In the following page,Page 10,fourth paragraph down,I'd like to have this following sentence struck
from the paragraph: It says,county staff recognizes that it is within the bundle of rights as a property owner
to sell and develop land within the parameters of county codes.
You know,the Board of County Commissioners interprets the code. I would rather leave that with
them and not get into whether or not golf courses have to—this has to be acknowledged by staff. Do you
have any objection to that?
MS.CILEK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just checking to make sure there's nothing else--oh,on Page 13
under stormwater and floodplain compensation,it says,the objective is to ensure the property owners that
surround the golf course would not be adversely affected by additional stormwater runoff after the conversion
of a golf course. I would like to add in there,or the loss of existing stormwater management area,something
to that effect--
MS.CILEK: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —because in some cases,the development surrounding the golf course are
simply using those lakes,and they want to make sure they can continue that process.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark,wouldn't any conversion still—if it was going to impact
stormwater,wouldn't it have to go through a South Florida Water Management permit? It still would have to
go through the re-permitting process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right;absolutely.
Okay. I'm ready to move into the text language,if you'd like.
MS.CILEK: All righty. So if we look on Page 16,we have highlighted new language from our last
meeting. A couple of—I'm not going to go through the small,small changes. Sometimes we just relocated a
word or added words that were missing.
But there were some larger changes and,in general,we were looking to tighten it up and make sure
that there's connectivity between the staff report and the Planning Commission and the board review and
approval process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any--we're on Page 16. Anybody have any questions on
Page 16?
MS.CILEK: And under B.1,that's where we're following the Planning Commission's direction to
allow for golf courses that are separated to go through the PUD process even though they are not connected
or contiguous.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a couple of things that I would like for you to consider. Under B.1
and 2,the word"currently"is used in front of the word"permitted." That word probably should be dropped.
It's not necessary.
MS.CILEK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under A,the first paragraph,it talks about the property owners within a
thousand feet of the golf courses shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. And this is probably from
Heidi's or Scott's viewpoint.Could we add stakeholders and considered affected parties for the purposes of
this section?
Page 7 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: What line are you on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Line 16 on the top of Page 16.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: For purposes of this section,property owners within one thousand feet of a
golf course shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. And your question is? I was still trying to find--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can they be considered,for the purposes of this section,affected
parties?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think you need that language,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,is there a problem with standing if they're just stakeholders,not
affected parties?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the standing is governed by the case law,and so regardless of how
you define it in here,I think the case law's still going to—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dominate?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --dominate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we had as much leverage for the property
owners as we can.
That's all Pve got on that page. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline?
MS.CILEK: All righty. We can move to Page 18. Here is what I was referring to,just tightening
up the process of what is shared with the stakeholders during the outreach meetings and then also making
sure that the Board is reviewing the staff report and the findings that are in D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on.
MS.CILEK: Same thing on Page 20. On F,Line 6,again,just making sure that those fmdings are
reviewed. We really want to make sure that the Planning Commission and the Board are evaluating this
through their rezone or PUDA process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a page that could use some fixing. Line 36,the word
"commissioner,"as you need,to be"commission."
MS.CILEK: Yes. I will fix that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On F.3,before it said review and then it went on,and then the new
language,findings for compatibility design. We'd be better off not adding that,and that occurs both in 3 in
the beginning sentence and in the second line and,of course,those--yeah,those are the two. I don't think
that's needed.
And,Heidi,did you take a look at this?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I know Caroline and I had discussed it,but I didn't see what actually made
it in. I agree that the heading can be"review"instead of"fmdings"for compatibility design review.
MS.CILEK: I do want to make sure that it's connected,though. So although we do make a
cross-reference to it,ifs easy for people to find if ifs labeled,you know,findings,findings,as we do in other
sections of the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to be limited in the type and amount of information we can
utilize to establish our findings,and that's why a review is a little broader. And,you know,there's a lot of
times that there is some information available that comes out at the public meeting,and I don't want to see us
hampered by that. That's why"fmdings"has different standard than just"simple review."
MS.CILEK: Well,that's a good question. I mean,would that limit--if it does say"findings,"
would that limit other concepts—or just related concepts being brought up by the planning commissioners
during their review?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think you'd be better off revising Line 46. And you can change it to
review like you had it before,because that wasn't really an issue. But I would make a few revisions so it says,
the Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in 5.05.15.D,the compatibility design
review application,and make a recommendation to the Board on the following criteria. But if you want to
Page 8 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
go--
MS.CILEK: Right. We're just—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That cleans it up from my perspective.
MS.CILEK: Yeah. We don't identify them as criteria. I can spend a couple minutes taking a look
at it anywhere else. So we just need to make sure that it's clear to the reader where the findings are and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I want this one cleared up tonight if we're going to pass this tonight.
So I want to make sure that all of us are in the same concern.
I don't like the reference to findings. Pm worried that ifs limiting,and I don't want the review to be
limiting,and that's my concern.
MS.CILEK: So we could do three,F.3,compatibility design review. The Planning Commission
shall review the staff report as described in 5.05.15.D. Can we do the criteria?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can put the criteria at the end of the sentence. So you
would—if you delete"findings for the"and just put"the compatibility design review application,"delete"as
follows"and make a recommendation to the Board on the following criteria.
MS.CILEK: Okay. That will work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us past Page 19,unless anybody else has any questions.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 20. Page 20 on Line 7,"commissioners"is"commission."
MS.CILEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then at the bottom of Page 20 in a section we previously read and
didn't have a change to,I just want to verify something.Item--Line 50,G. Portion of the greenway may
provide stormwater management;however,the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional
lake area than exists pre-conversion.Any newly developed lake shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. I just
want to make sure that someone can come into a golf course that has existing lakes and say,well,Pm going to
fill all these lakes in,Pm going to move them all to the greenway and wipe out the greenway because we're
not going to create any additional acreage of lakes;we're just going to move them all. That may defeat the
purpose.
And I know some of these things may sound farfetched,but we've seen everything lately in
squeezing things into Collier County. And I just want to make sure we maintain what we intend to.
MS.CILEK: What we can do there is just add that this is supposed to be only in the greenway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's fine. That would work.
MS.CILEK: So it would read at the end,the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent
additional lake area than exists pre-conversion in the greenway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good.
MS.CILEK: Thanks.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,on Page 20,Line 6,since you changed the other page,I would
change"findings"to"criteria"on Line 6. So the Board shall consider the criteria in LDC section instead of
fmdings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS.CILEK: Taking a double look at 3.A.,or 3,is it common for the Planning Commission to
review the actual application itself?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in all of our packets.
MS.CILEK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get all the applications,some preapp notes;everything.
MS.CILEK: Okay. Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly,on issues like this,the more we get the better,so I'd just as soon
we kept it that way.
Anything else,Heidi,on that page?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move to Page 21.Anybody on 21?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Line 10,could you take out the"and"in front of the half
Page 9 of29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
acre? ItJ doesn't doesnt sound right.
MS.CILEK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us to the end of the golf course conversion LDC language.
Caroline,do you have anything you want to add,or are we going to public comment now?
MS.CILEK: Under D and E,those now say"findings." Do we want to change those now to
"criteria"so that they're the same?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which page are you on?
MS.CILEK: Nineteen. I could just change all of the"findings"to"criteria,"and that way it's
consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be safer.
MS.CILEK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you,Heidi?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good,thank you.
Okay. Before we call public speakers,there has been a member of the—a representative of a couple
of the golf courses at our previous meetings,and he hasn't commented,and I understood he would be here to
comment. I don't see him.Richard,if you're hiding someone in a little chair,speak up.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So he didn't show up after all.
My only concern there is whatever his thoughts are,it would have been nice to have them before we
send this to the Board of County Commissioners.And I wanted that known to the public before they start so
we could comment on it. But so we'll just leave it as it is,and we'll move—
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Richard,you mean Yovanovich?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard Yovanovich,yeah.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This PUD language was added for him,just for Lakewood or what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What are you talking about? Nothing was added for him that I know
of.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's what he was asking about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 16,zoning actions for PUD rezone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I actually added that.I suggested it be added because I knew it was a
problem we already ran into. And it would be highly beneficial to look at these as a PUD,as a collective
PUD for the ability to find compromise and have compatibility standards;whereas,individually zoned for
straight zoning,it makes it real difficult to have—to get something accomplished. So that was my idea,not
Richard's.But he was--I mean,I was hoping we'd get some input from the other side of things,but...
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He had issues,but I don't know what--he never made them public.
I know he spoke to staff extensively,but...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I haven't heard him either. So I imagine that will happen at the
board meeting,so we'll just—it will have to be dealt with there then.
Okay. Let's move forward with public speakers. We'll start with those people that are registered to
speak,and then Pll ask for anybody who's not registered and who has not spoken if they'd like to address the
Board. And when you come up,use either microphone. If you have--I know someone has a PowerPoint.
That needs to be utilized where Caroline's standing. And we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five
minutes,and as long as—we ask you not to be redundant. But if someone's coming with a PowerPoint and
they're representing a larger crowd,we certainly will accommodate more time.
So with that,Michael,if you'll call the first speaker.
MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. We have five registered speakers. The first is Dwight Keogh,
followed by Charles Holloway.
MR.KEHOE: Good evening. My name is Dwight Kehoe,spelled K-e-h-o-e,and I live in Riviera
Page 10 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
Golf Estates.
In 1960 my grandparents moved from New York to Daytona,and for the next 22 years my family
and I would visit them. The environment and the climate and the personality of the East Coast led me to
believe that I would never live in Florida.
In 2000 I met the woman that was to become my wife,and she said we had to visit her aunt and
uncle in Naples because they were not well enough to go north for our wedding,and we went in July.
Those nice folks lived in Riviera Golf Estates. Their home was situated on the 13th green of the
Riviera Golf Club.
One morning,while sitting on the lanai with a mug of coffee looking out at the golf course,my wife
and I were both surprised when I said to her,I could get to like this.
After Wilma,my wife's aunt moved to senior living here in Naples. We bought that home on the
13th green. From our home,we have an unobstructed view of the 13th tee some 400 feet away. We have
another unobstructed view of more than 600 feet of the 14th fairway.
We hear the chirping of birds,the coo of doves,the ratatat of woodpeckers,and watch squirrels
scamper around the beautiful trees that line the fairways.
In the summer we have an unobstructed view of fireworks at Sugden Park,and we also see the
fireworks show from downtown Naples.
In Riviera Golf Estates,there are--more than 50 percent of the homes—and there are 692 individual
single-family homes in Riviera. More than 50 percent of them can boast of a similar bucolic experience.
Residents in other areas of East Naples,especially those that live in close proximity to the golf course,are at
risk of losing a healthy benefit of golf course conversion if golf course conversions go unchecked.
I want to thank the Planning Commission on putting a high priority on protecting us from
unincumbered residential development and thank you for permitting me to address you this evening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So you came in July,and you decided to stay. That's rare.
Glad you did.
MR.BOSI: The next speaker is Charles Holloway,followed by George Danz.
MR.HOLLOWAY: Good evening. My name's Charles Holloway. I live at 830 Charlemagne
Boulevard. Last name is H-o-1-1-o-w-a-y.
I was asked by some of the people in the community to make a couple comments tonight because for
the last three-and-a-half years not only am I a resident of Riviera Golf Estates,but I'm also a licensed realtor
with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate on Fifth Avenue.
I can tell you that I,over the last year-plus,have been the top seller in the community,very active;
sold over 20 properties in there. And I can tell you--I just want you to be aware that already I have had
buyers and—in the sense of fairness,we've disclosed to those buyers that there is the possibility of the golf
course being sold and potentially being something other than a golf course. I have had specific buyers
indicate that they were taking that into consideration in making their offer on the property,lowering that
offer.
And I've had in a recent appraisal where a—not myself,but a professional appraiser evaluate a
property on the golf course,and in comparing it with the comps of houses in the same community,similar
houses not on the golf course,made$20,000 adjustments to those comps just because the house in question
was on the golf course. So it is a significant impact on the property owners.
And the other thing that concerns me in addition to that immediate$20,000 potential impact that
we're seeing right now,that's with nothing really in the works. I mean,that's just homes existing there now.
Inventory's low in there right now. I can defmitely foresee—because my parents resided in Riviera Golf
Course before myself,and I know when the discussion came up about the conversion of the golf course
before,there was a mass exodus of people;people who just didn't even want to take a chance that they
wouldn't be able to live on the golf course anymore.
And my concern is not only under the current circumstances are the properties being evaluated
$20,000 more for being on the golf course but when--it's supply and demand. If people start exiting the
community because they're no longer on that golf course,which is why they bought the property in the first
place,then inventory goes up,prices go down that much more.
Page 11 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
So I think you're going to see an immediate impact,just what we're seeing now,$20,000,potentially
significantly more as inventory goes up,because there are a lot of people in there that are there because of the
view.
You're not only—and it's--you know,you're paying for that view. Ifs not just being on the golf
course. It's the privacy. There's a lot of things. And we are a 55-and-over community.You know,we're not
people who come down here in their 30s and 40s,buy a condo,and can move next week. We're a blue-collar
neighborhood for the most part. These are people who took their life savings,bought a house here. This is
where they want to retire and,potentially,ifs here to assisted living or whatever.
And I just want you to take into consideration the impact and the people who are being affected.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A question for you,sir.
MR.HOLLOWAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That—the provisions we're talking about tonight and that will go to the
Board,if they stay as they're currently written,which provides 100-foot greenway and a lot of other things
that have to happen that will be trying to reach a compatible nature with the surrounding houses,let's assume
all these things work out and there's a compromise and we end up that way. Did you take a look at the
appraised values that the tax assessor's office provided to our staff in relationship to houses on a 100-foot
buffer,let's say,greenway,versus a golf course?
They're about comparable. Is that something you have any experience with or you could weigh in on
that?
MR.HOLLOWAY: I do not. I did not see that document,and I do not have any experience with
that. I'll only say,a hundred feet is 33 yards.It's three first downs a football field. When you're looking
down a fairway like Mr.Kehoe is,and 33 yards away is whatever they decide to put in there. You know,I
don't care what it is;ifs not the golf course. If s not the lake. It's not the privacy,and that's what people paid
for. That's why they moved to Riviera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Patrick,did you have something?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just wanted to thank him for his comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Mike?
MR.BOSI: Walter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope,George.
MR.BOSI: George Danz,sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.DANZ: Thank you. Mr.Chairman,Commissioners,my name is George Danz,813
Charlemagne Boulevard,Riviera Golf Estates. I'm also president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners
Association.
First of all,I wanted to thank staff,Caroline and her staff,and you folks for the time that you have
spent on this issue. We have attended most of your meetings. The time you've spent,I think,has been
tremendous,and I think the safeguards that you've put in there have been beneficial both to the owners of golf
courses and the residents that live around them.
We are a residential community of 692 homes.As previous speakers have indicated,we are an
over-55 community. We have a lifestyle that is,I think,very compatible to what we're looking for in Florida.
One of the things that I think is important,too,is there's been a lot of discussion about affordable
housing,particularly for senior citizens in Florida. We are not$500,000 or a million dollar or$3 million
homes. We are moderately-priced homes ranging from moderate type homes,70-,80,000,up to the 250-,
$280,000 range.And in Naples I guess that's moderately-priced homes and particularly for senior citizens
living in Florida.
But we want to thank you for the time. I think Roland is going to show you some pictures of some of
the things that we're concerned about,particularly the quality of life and compatibility in our neighborhood.
So thank you all very much for the time that you have spent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike?
MR.BOSI: Walter Roland,followed by Shirley Sackett.
Page 12 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
SII
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Walt,I believes got a PowerPoint,or I think that's what he was
planning to do. And those are the hard copies that we'll retain for the court reporter afterwards.
MR.ROLAND: Yes,that's correct.
I,too,would like to thank,on behalf of the association,your efforts and your diligence in doing what
you can to protect our community and our quality of life.
So in this presentation,we appreciate very much the compatibility,and I'd like to talk a little bit
about the traffic concerns. Riviera Golfs a little bit unique. Maybe you'd like to go to the next slide.
I have a map. You can see the yellow portion of it is the golf course area. You see lakes.Yellow
arrows are the entrances to the association.To your right you'll see County Barn Road. Some of the photos I
show later,a large portion of the areas where we have the major traffic have no sidewalks on. And I have
some photos that shows,you know,our community's a very active community.Even though we're over 55,
we're probably average over 70 years old.
To the east you'll see County Barn. To the south,it's Charlemagne Boulevard. That goes south.
Any increased traffic from additional housing would have to go down Charlemagne. There's also a number
of subdivisions or condominiums in that area.
And then to your left you'll see Riviera Colony. That would be—there's no sidewalks.There are
some pathways,but that would have—increased traffic would have significant impact on that community
also. If you'd like to go to the next slide.
This is a view of County Barn coming in from County Barn going into Riviera Golf. As you can see,
this is the reworked County Barn Road. To the left and right,no sidewalks.
Once we're in,this is making a turn into--on Charlemagne from County Barn Road. And what I
have next--this is the area where the golf course is located. There's actually a single entrance.It's on
Marseille. Charlemagne's to the south.You turn right onto Marseille,and there's a single drive that goes into
the golf course facility.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the only access to the actual golf course?
MR.ROLAND: That's correct. Now—
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that an in access to the parking?
MR.ROLAND: That's into the parking. The only other access there is are some cart paths.Maybe
you'd like to put that map back up.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I understand.
MR.ROLAND: It's probably important to talk about that and address that. Just one—the large map
that I had where the complete--there you go.Great point. Thank you for asking that.
The red area on the bottom is the main entrance to the golf course facility. You may be able to see
some red dots or some lime-colored dots on there. Those are the cart paths between each of those areas. The
cart path's actually eight-foot wide. In most cases 20-foot widths between the homes that connects these
playing areas. But that is the single access point to the golf course for use of the facility.
Okay. What we have next,this is traffic.The golf course parking and the main office is on the right.
This was Saturday morning. If you go into our community,you see a lot of traffic like this: People walking,
people on bicycles. So the big concern is,you know,what's the impact of increased traffic into the
community.
This little more shot to the right of the golf course shows the relationship to the highway,the
roadway there. And there is another shot that shows the single drive that goes into the golf course.
This is continuing on down. Our clubhouse is in the front,as you can see. There's a very congested
area right at the corner. We have some walkways,but traffic's there;very dangerous. You have to be careful
now. And so our concern is additional provisions maybe that could be incorporated into the language that
would minimize that exposure to people in the community with the lifestyle that we have.
This is looking to the south. Going south would be Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And,again,you
can see people down the highway—or down the roadway walking. This is that same intersection again with
the vehicle going to the right;could be very well going into the golf course,and you can see a number of
pedestrians in the area.
This is looking back to the east again,same--you can see the entrance on the left to the golf course.
Page 13 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
This is looking to the north,as you can see ladies exercising. Again,very active community;a lot of
traffic and people walking.
This is the golf cart location crossing one of the mini crossings. Again,about eight foot in width.
Thank you. This is a little different view of the golf cart crossing,excuse me.
This is looking on Le Mans towards--the golf course is onto the left side of the highway,or the
roadway,again. No walking,pedestrian traffic—increased concerns about increased traffic.
This is another view of the same area just a little further down the road. Swales. And then this is
looking towards Riviera Colony. This is one of the exits that goes south that I was talking about. And so,
again,lack of walkway and facility pedestrian traffic is the concern.
Are there any questions? That concludes the presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think it was helpful to see the way your road system is,because
we've brought the roads up. And the roads are a consideration in the language,so they will have to be
addressed. And if they aren't safe,that certainly provides a good argument for your community.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Are there no sidewalks in your community?
MR.ROLAND: No. Portions of the community do have sidewalks. The main area where we
would see—expect to see increased traffic and congestion,at those locations,have no sidewalks in them.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Glad we have them on both sides now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your accessways for the cart paths are wide enough for one cart path,
which means the road system. I think we've gone down to between 40 and 50 feet for roads at times,but with
the requirement of sidewalks and things,it will be interesting to see how it could even fit in your community.
So ifs something that you certainly have to take a look at it if the conversion ever goes forward.
MR ROLAND: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
Next speaker,Mike?
MR.BOSI: The final registered speaker,Shirley Sackett.
MS.SACKETT: Good afternoon. I want to thank you also for putting in so much work for us and
the other people involved.
My name is Shirley Sackett. I live at 141 Fleur de Lis Lane at the present time. I've owned eight
homes in Riviera Golf. When I came,the first day of March in 1956,Pm now one of those people that Kehoe
talked about: I'm over 70;I'm 80.
And my husband and I came,and we rented in there. And we drove everywhere in Collier County
that had open houses and,you know,and every time we came back to compare apples to apples,being
50—you know,he was 55 by that time--everything came back to Riviera. It was the best place to be,and it
offered so much for our age.And the fact that—I don't hate children,but I don't have any,but...
So the facilities are for over 55,and the golf,everything,is geared towards us,you know.So that part
has been fantastic. And the fact that I've had different homes is because I've now ended up in one of the best
views and see five golf holes and in the center of a lake,and I don't want that disturbed. I mean,that's really
my choice for staying there and becoming 90 there.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you.
MR.BOSI: No more public speakers are registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public who have not spoken but would
like to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. Come on up.
Since you're not registered,I do have to ask you a question. Were you sworn in when we--oh,this
isn't swearing in tonight. Never mind. Ifs legislative.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Legislative.
Page 14 of 29
January"Special LDC"CCPC meeting30,2017
P
MR.FURGASSO: My name is Joe Furgasso;F-u-r-g-a-s-s-o is the last name. I bought in 2011 in
Riviera.
I have questions down the road about utilities. If they ever put housing in there,the sewer system,
what are they going to do about the sewer system,the water system? What we have now presently ain't going
to handle any more houses. Is the town going to come in,county going to come in and give us all new
systems?
I mean,there are going to be a lot of hopes.And then Army Corps of Engineers put us in a floodplain
about two years back,three years back.That changes all the difference in construction.As a former building
inspector,grades have to be raised. Do they create water problems for us?
That's all I have to ask. And I thank you for your time and putting in,you know,your time into this
stuff,but I hope you consider the rest of the bundle(sic). Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions you asked are exactly the ones that this process is supposed
to ferret out and see how the developer or the potential conversion is going to apply and address those issues.
And if they can't when it comes forward,there's going to be more reason to say it's not practical to do this.
Which brings me,I guess,then,since we've had all the public speakers that want to speak right now,
Caroline,when the Board asked you—this panel asked you to look for court cases involving the conversions,
I think we came back with most of the--in fact,every one that you brought forward resulted in some kind of
development being added to the golf course;is that a fair statement?
MS.CILEK: So when staff does research,we try not to look at court cases specifically,but we look
at news articles. I'm not an attorney. rm a land use planner. So what we did--when we did our research,
what we found were the majority of newspaper articles about golf course conversions resulted after a long
period of time,sometimes lots of litigation,in a development.
Now,not in every case. There was one instance where that didn't happen. I don't know if that's
changed over time. But our research shows that most of the time development occurs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I've asked is the preferable way is to require the
course to be continued and be maintained as a course. I think all this is being done in case that isn't a
practical outcome,and it looks like it could go a bad direction,rather than let the courts deal with it,we're
trying to find a way to find a solution so that everybody walks away with something better than if it went
possibly into the court system. That's why we're here tonight,and that's how we got this far in this whole
process.
If these standards that we're talking about get adopted and if someone comes in and basically tries to
ignore them,it provides a more stronger position for this board and others to say,no,it's not a possibility. It's
not something that should go here. And I guess that's where it all comes from.
So I just wanted to tell you we're not necessarily in favor of any conversion. Ifs trying to figure out
how to do it in the best way possible if the courts would find--if the courts already feel that it's something
that should be allowed. So we're kind of backing up our position in the future.
MS.CILEK: And it's important to recognize that the stakeholder outreach meeting process is
designed to give the stakeholders a voice,what they're looking for,their questions. All of that will be
documented,and it will be a very transparent process. And based on that,the Board can then take a look at
all this information and make a decision with the knowledge of what the stakeholders are looking for and
with the knowledge of what the developer is looking for,and hopefully there will be some type of consensus
at the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments or questions about the golf
course conversion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I just have one question on this,because it--I hear the people
from Riviera. Is this all Riviera people here in the--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Those people that are here from Riviera,please raise your hand.
Page 15 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The whole back row.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those people that are here from another community that involves a golf
course,please raise your hand.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. They just didn't want to speak. Because I've heard of the other
golf course,and I thought,hmm,okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There's been four golf courses that have been approached for a
conversion:Riviera,Evergreen,Lakewood,and Golden Gate Golf Course,so...
Joe?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think—I commend staff for developing this,because it is a
delicate balance between property rights versus the property rights of the homeowners who reside adjacent to
existing golf courses.
Hopefully we—and I want to make sure we—the folks who spoke,this is not going to prevent the
conversion. Ifs just a mechanism to give you a voice and to deal with any request to convert,and I think
we've done that. And it certainly provides--it is a very onerous process to go through this.
So in that regard,ifs not something that you're going to have a golf—it doesn't appear that you're
going to have a golf course conversion overnight. It would be a very difficult process.And,of course,when I
looked even--when you look at the Riviera,I just don't know how they would fit homes in there,but I
assume that somebody's already made that determination and would attempt to do that.
But what we've done here is nothing more than just to provide the instrument to at least give you a
voice and through that process. So I think,staff,you've done a great job on this. Thank you.
MS.CILEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the attempt on Riviera was a letter sent to,I think,the county offering
for the county to buy it,and they said they basically want to sell it to somebody. And they stated a price,and
they offered it to the county,which they did that before all this process was in place. So now that this process
is in place,it's going to provide a different way of looking at it probably by every golf course owner in this
county. So maybe things will get back on--like it should.We'll try.
Okay. Anybody have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,I believe,Caroline,we've reached the end of the
discussion on the golf course,and our consensus will be to recommend,and we'll do that—we'll list all these
at the end of the meeting,but that will be the end of the discussion tonight on the golf course conversion part
of our presentation,our discussion.
And we'll take a break for 10 minutes and then go on with the rest of the agenda. So we're going to
take a break for 10 minutes so the room can clear for the people that don't want to stay for the rest of the
meeting.
Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.BOSI: Sorry,Chair. You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,and—ifs still ladies and gentlemen,but it's
only staff. So everybody else has left,and we will move into the next part of our public process and review
of the LDC.
And we left off,I believe,on Page 23,which is the preservation standards that had been discussed a
while back,and we're--they've been refined a bit,and we're going to go through them.
So,Caroline.
MS.CILEK: Super. All right. So we can go through the narrative,if you'd like,but it would
probably be easier to walk through the actual language and use the table. We tried to craft a table that would
show you the LDC text based on the advisory board recommendations,so either CCLAC or DSAC or the
Planning Commission,and then that specific justification. So,for me,that is probably the easiest to use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on the page then that--
MS.CILEK: Okay,41. And the first page is actually not the two alternatives;monetary land. It's
Page 16 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
changes to 3.05.07H.1.F,and we just have a couple of changes in yellow based on Planning Commission
discussion at the last meeting and just also the environmental staff wanted to make a clarification that this
process does not apply to the RLSA or RFMU districts. They each have their own specific offsite programs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want to move on to the--if we get into numbers,I think that's probably
where the questions are going to be.
MS.CILEK: Right. Do we want to go over the Planning Commission's monetary payment
alternative?Do you want to go through the previous ones or just focus on yours?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No,I think the synopsis of the Planning Commission's one--and I
don't think anybody predetermined this. If you look at DSAC's recommendation on a per-acre basis,it's
$50,000. If you look at CCLAC,C-C-L-A-C,it's$357 million(sic). If you add those two together,you get
425-. If you divide it by two as an average,then you're at 212-. Planning Commission's recommendation
actually came back at 213,000.
So,honestly,it's a right-in-the-middle compromise,and I don't think we could have predicted that as
good as that. So from that perspective,it seems to be balancing between the two.
Go ahead. I just wanted to point that out because it wasn't clear. It wasn't summarized that way,but
I think it's interesting it came out that way.
MS.CILEK: Yeah. I mean,the DSAC recommendation was 50-,and then the CCLAC
recommendation in green has a calculation at the end. Did you say 375-for the CCLAC one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't it? Let me see what it was.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
MS.CILEK: I think--it's 375-. I think you said 400-. I just want to make surewe're--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You add the two together,you get the 425-.
MS.CILEK: Oh,okay. Got it.
Okay. So let's focus on the CCPC recommendation. Based on our conversation at the last meeting,
staffwent back to take a look at this,and we propose that the AU1R is used based on the Planning
Commission's direction,and then there was a discussion amongst staff and the chairman about how to
address specifically when a rural land area,so basically nonurban area,is being developed,how do you assess
that?
Because the AUIR is probably swayed more toward an urban calculation,urban value,and so we
used CCLAC's ratio of what they found to be urban values for when they buy and compared that against what
they buy in the targeted areas,and that produced a ratio of 8.37 percent.
And when you take a look at that,it works in our favor to split the two. So urban would have one
value,and rural would have another value as identified here. And then we have the hypothetical calculation
at the bottom.
And we're maintaining the same cash endowment as CCLAC has--yeah,as CCLAC has
recommended,and the 4,000 for initial exotic. So that's,A,monetary payment alternative,CCPC
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as—you have two systems,a monetary payment and a land
purchase ratio format.
MS.CILEK: Correct,yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The monetary payment,theoretically,if you were to use the Planning
Commission's recommendation,it would be valued every time we did an AUIR. It would be tied to the land
purchase values in the AUIR with a discount for rural areas different than the urban areas.
MS.CILEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,that probably gets us to a very—much more fluid way of
doing it rather than I think before we were looking at values on a to-be-developed basis or--
MS.CILEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It got to be complicated,so...
MS.CILEK: Right. This one kind of follows the AUIR,which is good. That's done every year.
Page 17 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see why that doesn't work. It works for all our capital improvements
projects. Why wouldn't it work for this?
Pat?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: AUIR stands for?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual Update and Inventory Report,and it's something that we do every
year at this Planning Commission. You'll—ifs a lot of fun numbers.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Looking forward to it.Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You just missed it I want to let you know,but you can watch the
tape.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right,you were on but out of the country at the time. That's right.
MS.CILEK: And this AUIR is tied to the AUIR community and regional parkland summary per
acre unit cost,just to be specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm satisfied with the Planning Commission's representation from before.It
seems to calculate out right,so—
MS.CILEK: Okay. Perfect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I don't know if anybody else has any negative. I think we're okay.
I think there's two issues we need to talk about,and that is probably the land donation alternative just
doesn't seem to be making sense,and Pm wondering why we would need it. If we've got a monetary value,
let's just keep it at that.
Is there--it gets kind of awkward to deal with a ratio that's been--we just came up with a 4-1,but
we know that it's different than that because the value of the rural to urban land,by your 8.37 percent,is not
4-1. Ifs less than 10 percent. So it would be like 10-1 in some cases. Is there any thoughts on that from—
MS.CILEK: Yes. Looking back at the staffs recommendations to the Board,one of them--and I'll
mention it,but Alex can come up here and speak further if she'd like—was that only the monetary payment
option be available and just to remove the land donation option. So that could be one recommendation that
the Planning Commission makes,which would just be,you know,easy for them to move forward with
money provided to buy lands.Conservation Collier to buy lands,rather.
Maybe I'll get a thumbs-up from Alex? More complicated than that,okay.
MS.SULECKI: Good evening. Alex Sulecki,for the record,coordinator of Conservation Collier.
That was my initial idea when I went to the Board,and that was not accepted well by the
Conservation Collier Committee. They really wanted to have a land donation option in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but how do you justify--okay. Let's say we go that route. How do
you justify the 4-1 ratio?
MS.SULECKI: Well,I think that was added in so that the value could equal the value of the
monetary donation so that they would—both options would be about the same value,monetary value.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does a 4-1 —so let's say you have a monetary donation
rounded off for 200,000. That means you'd be looking at 50,000 an acre.
MS.SULECKI: I think it was like—something like 34,000 an acre based on a sale. So,yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the value—
MS.SULECKI: Or,I'm sorry, 11,000 an acre based on a sale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the value of the rural lands is that high,then why are we looking at an
8.37 percent of urban when we calculate out the monetary value?
MS.SULECKI: I can't answer that. I can tell you that the monetary value was developed to try to be
somewhat equal with the value of the property that was going offsite.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,which is what we're talking about for 4-1,aren't we? It's offsite
property,right?
MS. SULECKI: Right. That was—the monetary was about the same value as their value of their
property that they were now going to be able to use,and then the land donation was crafted to be roughly the
same value. If I'm not answering that—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pm not sure--okay.If the rural values are looked at at less than 10
percent of the urban values,and that's acknowledged by the monetary change from urban to rural land,then
Page 18 of 29
"Special
Special LDCis CCPC meeting January 30,2017
since. They've been out there and sprayed probably five years after the fust clearing,and I've not seen--that
was probably three or four years ago.But I've not seen much. I mean--
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Joe,Fiddler's Creek?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. What—I'm just confused,though;if I can ask a basic
question.Why are we putting fees in the LDC rather than the fee schedule?
MS.CILEK: I can speak to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MS.CILEK: So we're not proposing to put actual flat fees in the LDC. They will go in a fee
schedule.
I actually had a meeting today about this. So if the monetary one goes forward with the endowment
amount,we're looking to put that in actually the parks and rec fee schedule,so I'm going to work with their
staff and propose it goes there,because Conservation Collier is under the parks and rec's department.
I'm comfortable putting,like,a--like,the percentages in there in the LDC but not a flat fee for an
endowment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT': I mean,I could see an example being described in the LDC,but...
MS.CILEK: And that's what it is. We're not proposing to put the actual fee in there. Just the
description of how to calculate so there's no confusion.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because when I go through this—and I've seen the example.
Excuse me. Fm not sure,are you looking tonight for us to decide which of the three alternatives?
MS.CILEK: More guidance tonight would be great,but Pm happy to come back. We're going to go
to the Board for the golf course amendment on the 14th. This one may need more time. I totally recognize
that. It has been slowly coming along behind the golf course amendment. So it would be awesome if we
could take it to the Board by the 28th. But we'll just play it by ear. We need to get it right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean,I think the proposal for offsite mitigation is great because
instead of creating these quarter-acreage preserves like we had in the past to be in compliance with the
LDC--and I think that's--but I just don't understand why we're trying to dig into the fees when it's really a
fee schedule issue and not an LDC issue.
MS.CILEK: Well,determining the fee is where the LDC part comes in,but—
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why?
MS.CILEK: —it will go into the fee schedule.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean,I know it was not a pleasant time when I was part of staff
when you had to bring fees to the Board because the fee—the Board only likes one thing,when fees are
reduced. But it's a fact of raising revenue to support the effort of staff and providing reviews.It should be a
part of the fee schedule,not a--not the—
MS.CILEK: The program--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: —LDC.
MS.CILEK: --has always been established in the LDC,as far as I know. So just making sure that
they're paying and putting an amount in the fee schedule is what we're looking to do. Just as a reminder,the
Board has asked us to come back and evaluate the land management slash endowment because it's not
sufficient as of right now.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're short.
MS.CILEK: And it's come up several times.They are excited,I think,to have a number to move
forward with.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can we work on this--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your microphone.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can we have them bring this particular one back? Because I know that
I remember this one causing some problems,and when the previous board asked them to,because they just
plain stopped buying land,and we were short money maintaining it.
MS.CILEK: Sure. I mean,if I could get more direction,I think we're okay in the monetary
payment one using the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think that's true.
Page 20 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
MS.CILEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We stopped buying land because we no longer had the program and
raising the revenue. There's--Alex,correct me if I'm wrong. Again,I'm going back seven years,but didn't
the Conservation Collier raise sufficient revenue to put monies into perpetuity and to maintain the lands that
were purchased?
MS. SULECKI: We began to--when the economic downturn came,we looked at what we had,and
we projected out our management into the long term.And at that point it looked like the split that we had set
aside for land management was not going to be enough. So in 2011 we stopped buying and put the remainder
of the land--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MS. SULECKI: --money that we were going to buy with;we backfilled the land management
account so that we would have enough money to go into the future with that. And that's why we stopped
buying several--a couple years earlier than the levy stopped.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,we also made a significant purchase in eastern Collier,which
was a--
MS.SULECKI: We did,but we still had money left.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just--I'm just kind of confused on where we're going with
this,Mark. I like the Planning Commission recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that solves one of them.The problem is that we've still got this 4-1
ratio,and I can't see how that's making sense. And at the same time,there's a discrepancy in the endowment
portion of it that--again,I mean,Joe,with your position having to review things for maintenance of acreage
of exotics on your CDD,if you were to turn to Page 46,some of these costs just don't make sense,and I'm
trying to understand them better;at least they don't appear without maybe further explanation. And that's part
of this big number of endowment that is added to every acre that comes through. This is an initial clearing of
exotics that's not here—
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and that's looked at at 4,000 an acre. But Item 1,nuisance and exotic
weed control,herbiciding,annual cost based on work performed to date. It's 166,000 per acre.But then you
go down to No.2,assessment of vegetation for nuisance and exotic weed presence,another$160.72. Well,
honestly,when you're walking around spraying weed control,why wouldn't you be assessing what you're
spraying and all wrapped up in one walk?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you work down the field notes,No.3;$40 an acre twice a year.
What kind of field notes would you need?
MS.SULECKI: Well,that's staff costs for the field,and the staff works with the developers,works
with maps,does some other things here.Let's see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does staff--I don't understand what staffs got to do for field
notes. Oh,there might be exotics out there.Check it.
MS.SULECKI: We have field logs,and they have to create maps for the contractor that shows
where the exotics are. It does take some time;two hours a year.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But these are costs for maintaining Conservancy Collier lands.
MS.SULECKI: Yes. And this acreage,this is based on the nuisance and exotic weed control that
we are now paying at the multi-parcel projects.And this--right now you can't use this option other than for
the multi-parcel projects that we have. So these costs are based on those particular areas and what it's costing
us.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,the next question is,if these are your costs,have you--since
we're talking costs,have you gone out to CDDs and other entities that have to raise revenue to take care of
lands that are in preservation on properties specifically in some of the large developments? I mean,I don't
think they incur these kind of costs.
MS. SULECKI: No. But we have to use what--the contractors that are on our county contract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but you use them based on the RFPs given to them. For example,
Page 21 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
No.9,routine monitoring schedule,one hour a month,$40,but we're doing field notes for—
MS.SULECKI: That's—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —forty dollars.
MS.SULECKI: --two hours a year for field notes,working with contractors,documentation,logs
and photos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how—I mean,this certainly seems like overkill for maintenance. I
don't understand it myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Preservation,even if you--in a PUD,what is it,once a year,a
report on your preserves. Pm not sure.
MS.SULECKI: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it is,yeah. Tim--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Basically once a year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim does the one that you're doing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,Tim does that.
MS.SULECKI: So staff time in here,we have four hours for two site visits during the year,and then
we have two hours for in the office working with it,and that seemed reasonable to us given our experience.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you visit every acre you have right now twice a year?
MS.SULECKI: No,not every acre,but every property.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But this is based on every acre,right?
MS.SULECKI: This is based on the multi-parcel projects specifically,how long it takes to get there,
what we do there.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But it's a per acre or per parcel?
MS.SULECKI: This is per acre.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's based on doing every acre twice a year?
MS.SULECKI: It's based on doing those particular acres that we get in from the donation,yes,we
go twice a year. Well,actually,we go more than that,but for exotics we go twice a year.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You just said you don't do every acre twice a year.
MS.SULECKI: We do the acres that are donated. We don't visit,let's say—in Red Maple Swamp,
we own 150 acres. We don't visit every of those acres every year. We're waiting to gather contiguous
acreage so we can treat it.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because when I see a lot of preserves,I see a lot of exotic
vegetation all the time,and I've said this many times,and I don't think any of this takes into account
controlled burns. And the environment down here,every few years you should do a controlled burn to burn
everything down to give new growth for the fauna that lives among the flora. You know,you have a big
concern with the flora,but the biosystem is the fauna,too.
MS.SULECKI: We do that in pine flatwoods,but these are wetland areas. We don't burn them.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point,I mean,from my perspective,I can't--the maintenance costs
just don't—something doesn't seem right with those. I talked about two or three sections of them that I
certainly question. I think that DSAC had the same—had some concern over them,obviously,because they
didn't see the evaluation staying what it was.
And I think that after--I don't have any argument with the initial clearing. Everybody has to do that,
and it is much more expensive. But part of that initial clearing is the ability for the contractor--at least it was
when I was in the private sector,the contractor had to cut and squirt everything or haul away depending on
how far back from the perimeter it was. And if they missed something,they came back out at their midyear
check,and they took care of it. If we're not doing that,maybe we should be. But that wouldn't seem to need
this much followup because most of it should have been taken care of right the first time.
MS.SULECKI: Well,Fll just mention that in the beginning of redoing this option,we did--I did
some research among other counties to see if they had these kind of programs and what they charge for
Page 22 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
maintenance,and they don't all have them and it's not all the same,but two of them,Orange County and
Brevard County,charge$500 per acre.
I also talked to some of the—Pm sorry—mitigation banks,and they charge between 500 and$1,000
per acre for management. That's what it costs to them,I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's perpetual?
MS.SULECKI: I don't know. I didn't ask for perpetual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you want to go from here? I know we're not comfortable with
passing this one tonight. When we get to the list of recommendations to the Board,we can just ask this one
to come back with some further refinement on the issues we brought up for discussion.
MS.CILEK: Well,we can bring this back to the Planning Commission. I think we'll wait to go to
the Board.
So we have—maintenance cost is an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two issues: The ratio for offsite mitigation and how that's justified
based on the fact that rural lands is about 10 percent value of urban lands,and then I think this maintenance
cost is a little concerning to more than the majority of us as far as how that's derived.
And I'm not sure going to another government is the answer. Government may be the problem. And
so maybe we need to look at something other than government for comparison,so...
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But,again,just for clarification,when this comes back,are we
looking for—you're looking for our final recommendation on,basically,choice DSAC,choice CCLAC,or
choice CCPC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That will be the first one,but there's three elements: There's that,
there's the ratio of offsite mitigation,whether it's 4-1, 10-1,or even needs to exist,or do we just keep it
monetary,and then is the endowment—what ratio should the endowment be?And we've got multiple inputs
on that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean,in the Army Corps,when you're—typically,there's a 3-1
ratio was the rule of thumb for impact to wetlands.That was sort of rule of thumb. So if you're going to a
mitigation bank and you're going to impact wetlands,it was kind of a 3-1 was basically what we would tell
folks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the problem we have here is we have a monetary donation that,if you
can—if you can reduce that monetary donation by doing a 3-1 ratio on any wetlands to wetlands,you put a
big hole—everybody's going to be doing that,and we're going to see a lot of the green space in the urban area
demise because it's going to be easier to sell it off and do a 3-1 ratio to the—but that's for core wetlands,not
necessarily what we're trying to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically,when I say 3-1,it was what you had to pay in a
mitigation bank. So if somebody wanted to impact wetlands,you basically were told to consider--can figure
for every acre you impact,you're going to mitigate three times as much through a mitigation bank.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The value of the Corps—did the Corps look at the value of the property
that was being mitigated or the mitigation lands out east somewhere?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It had to be an approved mitigation land. It had to be an approved
mitigation bank through a mitigation bank service.So,like,panther--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So they'd buy three acres of panther land for one acre of urban land.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the urban land would be worth 200,000,but the panther land would be
worth 8-or 9,000.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: See,they didn't look at value. They looked at the quality of the
wetland.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was a wetland quality and whether it was deemed,you know,that
the—
MS.CILEK: Right. To confirm,if we were to justify the ratio using the same percentage or the
same number in the AUIR rural area,we would have a much higher ratio. Okay.
Page 23 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. It would be higher than even I 0-1 because,you're right,
the dollars out east compared to here...
MS.CILEK: Okay. Just to confirm...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the point is what are we trying to do with this whole thing of
allowing offsite mitigation? If we're trying to encourage it,then,yeah,keep the ratios low,keep everything
low. If we're trying to discourage it and keep more green space in the urban area,then we want these ratios
all consistent and higher.That's the bottom line to this whole thing.
MS.CILEK: We can come up with a different higher ratio based on the—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the ratio's got to be consistent across the board. You don't use
one as a low ratio,like we did in the monetary one,then we go to a different ratio in the other one,a higher
ratio;25 percent versus 10 percent.That's a pretty big spread.
MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director.
Just remember,when the Board of County Commissioners were discussing that,it really wasn't a
discussion as to whether there was value or not value within offsite mitigation or presence of preserves within
our urbanized area. It was specifically a concern of the long-term maintenance cost and the donations to
Conservation Collier not being able to handle that,
And I think what the chair has established is if we don't make the land donation option almost
identical in the cost component to the cash donation,then we're only going to allow for people to take
advantage of a lesser cost option,and it's going to result in the depletion of the urban preserves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good way to put it,Mike. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because the land is so much more expensive. I remember speaking
with the panther mitigation,and they were charging at the time,last year,75,000 an acre.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that's expensive,very expensive for an offsite mitigation.
MS.CILEK: So we'll take a look at the ratio,and we'll take a look at the maintenance costs. I do
think ifs important just to keep in mind the Board's objective,which was to make sure the maintenance costs
were enough. So if in the off chance staff is doing a little over-the-top work,that may be the case,but if there
is slightly more money in the funds,it just means they're going to be able to take care of them longer and take
care of any things that come up that are surprises along the way. That's just something to keep in mind with
the maintenance costs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I don't trust that those private sector numbers are
accurate as far as what it actually costs,because they make a profit. And if they can make a good profit,they
will.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These costs numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the numbers in our—
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,what Diane just said about Panther Island and how
expensive that is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. Well,I think we've talked in that one—
MS.CILEK: Sure. Another thing we might recommend then,is if we do change the maintenance
costs,would be to put a provision in to just reassess it in five years to make sure that it is enough. And if the
maintenance costs are coming out above that,then it could be examined at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know that water park in North Naples?
MS.CILEK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a big preserve on the south of that water park. It's a pretty good
size.
MS.CILEK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you ask Barry Williams what he's paying to maintain that
preserve.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. Good point.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just had a fire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just ask him. See what--but he's going to have to have the records,so
Page 24 of 29
r �
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
we can go back and see what he's put in the AU—we can pull those records at some point. But why don't we
see what he does?
MS.CILEK: Yeah. We just have to make sure we're comparing apples to apples when it comes to
preserves. A lot of Alex's stuff is in the middle of a targeted area with lots of other areas that are not being
removed of exotics;whereas,that area isn't really connected to a lot of other preserves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but exotics tend to be more proficient around disturbed areas like
roadsides and things like that,and that you have a lot more of in the urban area than you may have in the rural
area,so...
MS.CILEK: We can take a look and see what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just--Alex,again,as an example,Serenity Park,which is,of
course,along Collier Boulevard/951,that's Conservation Collier,right?
MS.CILEK: Nope.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that—no,it's not. That belongs to the parks now? Didn't
Conservancy Collier buy--I'm just curious because that's a parcel of land that I'm thinking about would
be—something would be comparable.
MS.SULECKI: I think the Transportation Department is actually owning and managing that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. There's another piece of property they can look at. What
does it cost to maintain that? I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,David's here,and he could get us the numbers from the
Transportation Department,and that would work for that,and Barry Williams could get us the—it would be
nice to see what the other agencies or departments in Collier County do for the same thing. And if they're not
coming in at 5-or 600-an acre,that certainly would help to understand how they're doing it.
MS.SULECKI: Well,I would just note that these costs were developed based on this particular
land,and costs change with different types of land,different methods of access,and the amount of exotics
that are out there. So the costs are very variable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline,let's try to move on to Page 51.
MS.CILEK: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the floodplain—well,the compensation one,isn't it? Stan's favorite
one. Water management requirements and stormwater plans for—
MS.CILEK: It's not floodplain compensation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I know. I just wanted to get him—he's awake now.
MS.CILEK: That's fine. Wake me up,too,there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into a discussion,does anybody have any questions about
this particular one? Because it went through last one without any problems.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's good.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good stuff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. So let's move to the end of our agenda. And,Caroline,
that takes through the five things that we had to discuss;is that not right?
MS.CILEK: Yes,I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll read them off under 9A. We have Sections 1,2,3,4,and 5. The
first one,Chapter 2,zoning districts and uses including Section A,2.03.06,Planned Unit Development
districts,and Section 2.03.09,open space zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you tell me what page you're on,please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm on the agenda. This was the first several pages we discussed in our
packet,and we asked Caroline to make some adjustments to them,but they're minor in nature in regards
to--they were very clear,so most of it's grammatical or something.
Is there a motion to approve subject to the changes directed to staff?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
Page 25 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan.Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Next item is Chapter 3. This is resource protection including--well,this is the one we're going to
continue. This is the preservation standards. We're going to move that. We're going to just bring that onto
another meeting.
So that takes us to Chapter 5,supplemental standards,adding Section 5.05.15,conversion of golf
courses. And this,again,will be subject to all the discussion that we had as we went through it.
Caroline?
MS.CILEK: And if I find any other typos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,yes,typical is the staff normally handles these.
Subject to those discussions we had,is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen jumped. Karen seconded. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Chapter 6,infrastructure improvements and adequate public facilities requirements. It was this last
one we did. It's Section 6.05.01 and 6.05.03. Is there a recommendation to approve?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 26 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
And the last one is Chapter 10,application review and decision-making procedures,including
Section 10.03.06,public notice and required hearings for land use petitions. Is there a motion to recommend
approval on that one subject to any staff corrections?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Patrick.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So doesn't that still--included in that is section—does this
Chapter 10 include anything that we're going to postpone on,which goes back to the infrastructure
improvements or no?
MS.CILEK: Technically,this Chapter 10 section is a part of 5.05.15,the golf course conversion
amendment.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. All those in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Procedural,Mark. You passed over 3.05.07.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But there was a piece of that that has to be amended for the golf
course conversion,which we--
MS.CILEK: Yes. Typically,you would just approve,like,the golf course amendment,and I think
you did that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know you said on the record that we were passing that,but there is
a section—
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The section that we're going to be moving forward on is the section
involving Conservation Collier. That was what was meant.
MS.CILEK: So let's continue that to a date certain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't do it Thursday.
MS.CILEK: Nope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it the second meeting in February. That way you'll have time to get
it into the March hearing. Will that work?
MS.CILEK: Yes,that should work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the March hearing for the Board.
Okay. Is there a motion to continue Section 3.05.07 in regards to the Conservation Collier aspects of
it to the second meeting in February?
Page 27 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
how does a 4-1 ratio from urban value to rural value work for the amount of acreage purchased as a land
donation? It doesn't--the two don't fit. One is a 25 percent ratio,and the other is a 10 percent—or less than
10 percent ratio.
So wouldn't you want 10-1 instead of 4-1? I mean,and then it gets into a practicality of how
practical is land donations then. I'm just wondering,it just doesn't seem like it gets there evenly. I'm not
saying you're wrong. I just don't know how you equate it.
MS.SULECKI: Well,we had to also leave part of the equation for the land donation,I mean,the
endowment amount. So with the land donation and the endowment together,they were equaling that
200,000,roughly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well—and the endowment's a whole nother issue we've got to discuss here
in a minute.
But in a land donation,based on--say that we use the Planning Commission's number,213-,that
still has got the endowment on top of it; is that correct? No,that's including the endowment.
MS.SULECKI: That includes the endowment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's based on 176,000 per acre which,in the case of rural,it
would be 8.37 of that number. So in the case of this particular thing at a 4-1,Pm not sure it's--I'm trying to
figure out how it's equivalent to the--
MS.CILEK: We're also doing,like,two different time periods here. When we were working with
CCLAC,we were using different numbers than what we used to provide you with the 8.37 percent,okay.
They're total different numbers. So when you compare them,they're not going to line up.
When we were working with CCLAC,their one goal was to provide a number that was more on par
with urban land,and to get there,we had to go up to a higher ratio. They weren't using a 14-or$15,000
number. They were using a higher number for when they--for the purchase of land,from what I recall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,let's—I don't know. No one else seems to have any questions
on that,so I'll stop.
And let's move on to the next one. We'll come back and deal with that when we have to vote on this.
The other issue is the cost between--for the endowment. DSAC had a value of 13,200 as the
beginning principal value—balance,and it depreciated over time,do an annual management cost,and what
they looked at was,after five years,the annual management cost dropped down substantially because,I
would assume,then,you've got some control over the new growth,and the old growth is stumped and
squirted and it's finally died,and now you've got the remaining seedlings coming in from nature or whatever,
the winds,the birds,whatever else brings them in.
CCLAC,on the other hand,started out at 32,5-,which is the number they've been using and,with the
annual management costs,they see management—actually,it looks like it's going up all the way through the
process. Can you explain the two wide deviations between the analyses of those two organizations?
MS.CILEK: Well,fast it's important to keep in mind that the table includes inflation,so that's,like,
why it's going up. Because in 20 years$558 won't be$558 worth of value as it is today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it always starts with the base and goes up. There's no credit for
getting control of the property's exotics and eventually dropping the value,because you're not going in and
clearing 100 percent of all the exotics there. You're clearing what little saplings might start or stumps
restarting,right?
MS.CILEK: So Alex can speak to this,but basically what she's finding is that five years isn't the
right number. She's not finding that it costs less after five years to take care of the lands,and so she has
numbers to support that.
Do you want to use those?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on the CDD,right?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you find? Because you've got vendors out there clearing exotics,
and I know they're taking care of the exotics in the south side of the project. Already that was basically a
maintenance issue after it got cleared initially. Do you see number--
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've not—after the initial clearing,I've not seen much maintenance
Page 19 of 29
"Special LDC"CCPC meeting January 30,2017
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And discussion? Oh,Mike?
MR.BOSI: Chair,that's the February 16th meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to just move it to the February 16th meeting,which is
the second meeting in February.
There's a motion made and seconded.Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
And I think that takes us to the end of it,right,Caroline? For tonight,at least.
MS.CILEK: Yes. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business,no old business. Anybody—there's no members
of the public left. So let's--is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan.
All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIVIITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here.
Page 28 of 29