Loading...
CCPC Agenda 09/07/2017 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 7, 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—July 20,2017 and August 17,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. PL20170000007: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add 320 multi-family dwelling units in Tract B & C: multi-family residential as an alternative to commercial development on Tract B & C: commercial community;to add development standards for Tract B&C multi-family residential;to add Exhibit A-1 Tract B & C Master Plan and Exhibit A-2 enhanced Type D buffer for property consisting of 209.17± acres; located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the August 17,2017 CCPC meeting: A. PUDA-PL20170001626: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2005-63, as amended, the Cirrus Pointe RPUD, to reduce the minimum floor area for multi- family dwelling units, and to approve a Second Amended and Restated Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement to allow the Developer to have the option of constructing owner occupied units or rental units designated as affordable housing units. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.92 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the July 20, 2017 and August 17, 2017 CCPC meeting: B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two,Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending: Chapter Three — Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, to amend design standards relating to off-site preserves and to modify requirements for monetary payment and land donation off-site preserve alternatives; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP,LDC Manager] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Neighborhood Information meeting(NIM)discussion. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi,Director] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp July 20, 2017 Page 1 of 35 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 20, 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative July 20, 2017 Page 2 of 35 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday July 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt had a conflicting environmental seminar he had to attend today, so that's why he won't be here. Addenda to the agenda. We only have one item on today's agenda for the advertised public hearing, and it's discussion of the preservation standards that we previously reviewed in January. Then I have -- I remember from past that Stan had wanted to add a discussion at some point concerning submerged land -- no, sea level rise. Do you still want to do that, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eventually, yeah. Today would be good, but I can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get past it so we know what it is your issue is. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's add it to -- since today there's only one item on the agenda, let's add it to new business; new business, 10A. Then 10B -- I heard from the County Attorney's Office that Ned -- and I saw he passed something around this morning -- has an issue he'd like to discuss about NIMs. Ned, is that okay for today's agenda? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 11B (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, because those are announced today, if there's any action needed on those, we may have to forgo the action till it's properly noted, but we'll see what the issues are when we get to them. Planning Commission absences: We originally had scheduled a meeting for the 31st in the evening to discuss an LDC amendment, and there's no need for that now based on some recent actions by the Board of County Commissioners, so the Planning Commission's meeting on the July 31st will not occur. And we have no cases to discuss on August 3rd. So the Planning Commission meeting on August 3rd is canceled. And, for your benefit, there are two items tentatively scheduled for the second meeting in August. You'll probably be notified by staff on whether or not they end up getting advertised and put forth on that date or they move to another date, which takes us to the next -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Yes, sir. July 20, 2017 Page 3 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. Just so that you know, I will not be in attendance on the second meeting in August due to an unavoidable out-of-town conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were included in our electronic transmittals. May 18th. Does anybody have any changes to May 18th's minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The second one is the July 1st meeting. Anybody have any changes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move approval by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to -- well, we're not going to -- there's no BCC report and recaps. Ray's not here, and we'll let Mike -- get him off the hook on that. I have no chairman's report. Consent agenda, there's nothing on it. ***We'll move right into the first advertised public hearing, which is 9A. It's an adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, and this particular one is for 3.05.07, the preservation standards. We don't normally swear in for these. I don't see a need to today. We'll just go into presentation and discussion. Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Good morning. Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager with Growth Management July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 35 Department. Happy to be here again. It's been quite some time since we reviewed this amendment last, and looking forward to finally getting through it today. So we have at least one new planning commissioner today, so I'll give just a brief overview of the history of the amendment and some of the other things that are changing in the amendment. So this amendment actually goes back to 2015 when the Board had some concerns about the amount of money that came along with land donations for off-site preservation and gave staff direction to increase the land management endowment so that it lasted longer than the current endowments are lasting, and to also consider removing the land donation alternative. So we had kind of two options as we started this amendment. And as we've gotten into the amendment, we've also tried to -- or gotten into this section, we've also tried to include in the amendment closing some loopholes, some issues that we've noticed in this section, so there's a number of other changes to the section in addition to the changes regarding the land management endowment. So beginning with the applicability section, I'll just kind of walk you through each section. What we -- what this section does is allows for off-site preservation for the preserve requirements for projects that have a preserve requirement of up to one acre. There is an exemption from that one-acre limitation for affordable housing and essential services facilities. There's also a PUD deviation section where off-site preservation can be allowed for preserve requirements up to two acres through that PUD deviation process. There are -- there's also a stipulation that you cannot get a deviation if those preserves have already been identified on an SDP or plat. The current restrictions section is being retitled to a prohibition section. What this does is ensures that these prohibitions can't be deviated from. And then getting to what was the subject of most of our discussion back in January, the off-site preservation alternatives. There are two alternatives for off-site preservation. The first is a monetary payment. In this case, just a monetary payment is paid from the developer and that monetary payment is made up of two elements: The cost to purchase the land. And at the last Planning Commission meeting, you all had talked about basing that on the AUIR. And the next element of that payment is the land management endowment. So this is where we had the most discussion; what that endowment should be. That's based on the staff estimate of the annual cost for exotics maintenance and then also an initial exotics removal cost. And it's that staff estimate of annual exotics that we've made modifications to, and that's really the main change from the last time you saw this in January. The second alternative is the option for a land donation that -- in addition to the donation of land also comes along with that land management endowment, again, made up of the same two elements: The annual exotic maintenance cost and the initial exotics removal cost. And there's also a 4-1 donation ratio included. So, as I said, we made some modifications to that annual cost, the estimated annual cost for exotics management. And you can see the change here. At the last meeting we were using a figure of $558 per year, and we've modified that now to $304 per year based on a couple of changes, namely to the costs for site visits, administrative tasks and signage replacement, so, really, some of the staff costs associated with managing these parcels. So in your packet today there was -- there's a table in Exhibit 1 that identifies the management costs for Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head. Since sending that packet out to you, we've been able to put together a little bit more information about actual costs that Conservation Collier has paid for just the exotics removal portion of that -- of the management of those parcels. And so you can see in the case of Red Maple Swamp the average cost over about four years was $142 per acre. So if we were to take the staff costs identified on that last slide and add that to the $142 for exotics removal, that total cost would end up to be $300 per acre to manage the parcels in Red Maple Swamp. And then looking at Winchester Head, the average cost for three years of management was $506. Again, that's just for the exotics maintenance portion. Adding the staff costs to that brings that cost up to 664. So looking at these two examples, looking at some of the other examples in Table 1 in Exhibit 1, I July 20, 2017 Page 5 of 35 think that the modification to that land management -- annual land management cost really does represent kind of a minimum of staff costs associated with managing these parcels. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, can we ask questions at any time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to Jeremy. I was going to kind of let him get through it to see if he answers some of your questions, but if you have something, I don't know why we can't. MR. FRANTZ: I'm happy to take questions whenever. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I kind of remember asking about the exotics in Winchester Head at one time, and I was told that there was no exotic removal because the parcels were so disjointed. Are you removing the exotics from Winchester Head parcels? And how effectively are you doing? 100 percent removal, or is this just some parcels, some -- MR. FRANTZ: My understanding is that the removal that we're doing is only for parcels that have been donated, but I will stand corrected. That's correct. So only for the parcels that have been donated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all the parcels that have been donated have had all the exotics removed from them? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. MS. SULECKI: Good morning. Alex Sulecki, for the record, Conservation Collier Coordinator. Yes. Thank you for the question. We remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. That's our goal. And all of the donated parcels in Winchester Head have been treated. They were initially treated when they were given to us, and we've treated them again to follow up on that initial treatment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Back up. You said we removed parcels -- we remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. What does that mean? MS. SULECKI: That means we like to have no more than 5 percent exotics on the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So if I were to go out there and take a look, I wouldn't hardly see any exotics at all on any of the parcels in Winchester Head that the county owns? MS. SULECKI: You would see a lot less than what's next door depending on where you are in the cycle. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So then, if you recall, we were using a 20-year model to generate that endowment cost using the annual maintenance cost. So plugging that $304 into that same 20-year model we used in the past comes out to an $18,000 land management endowment. So what that means for these two alternatives in terms of the costs associated, you can see here we have two different costs for the monetary payment alternative depending on the location of the development, whether it's in the urban area or non-urban area, and then again for the land donation alternative there is that land management endowment per acre as well as a 4-1 donation ratio. I have a couple of corrections to your packet that I just wanted to go over really briefly. On Page 4 we have this image that kind of depicts the applicability for off-site donations for a number -- in a number of circumstances. And you can see where I've got this red line crossing out right-of-way acquisitions. That was an existing provision that was removed early on in the vetting process of this amendment, but it was never removed from this image. And on Pages 8 and 9, we have two tables that describe the elements of the land donation fee. In your packet it calls the numbers in the right-hand column the per acre cost. That was incorrect. The per acre cost is actually in the parentheticals on the left-hand side, and the total cost that you see on the right-hand side is actually the total cost per donation in those instances due to the donation ratios. And on Page 24, this is actually in the amendment text we noticed that there was a reference to a couple of sections that have been deleted, and so we've just removed that reference. So that's the end of my presentation, and we're open to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, being the newest member to this group, would not presume to offer substantive changes to things July 20, 2017 Page 6 of 35 which have been looked at very carefully by the people, the other people up here. But when I looked at the proposed LDC language, I found it, at least in my perception, not to be sufficiently clear. And so I attempted to revise it in a way that, at least with one exception, was intended not to make any substantive changes in what staff was proposing and that this commission had previously reviewed with the sole objective being to make it more clear and readable, also in the event that down the road this language were to become a dispute of some sort between adverse parties, that the county would, at least from my perception, be in a better position to defend the substance of what was being offered. So having said that, and in order to present in as clear a way as possible my suggested changes to this language, I have handed out a redliner, a black and white redliner that, unfortunately, probably because of the limitations of my printer, is hard to read, and so I apologize for that. I also printed one color copy, and for some reason the color copy picked up my additions but not my deletions. So it was of limited value. But staff already has that in hand for use on the overhead. May I go through these, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That would be best, Ned. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. First of all -- and you might refer to the redliner. You will see that I've suggested a subject for Subsection F that seems to incorporate everything that is being addressed in that subsection. I then moved purpose and intent into its own subsection so that it would apply to the entire section. It then occurred to me that I was confused by the section captioned "applicability." It seemed to me rather that that section was intended to deal with preserve requirements of one acre or less. And so I reorganized the language so that Subsection 2, little romanette ii, dealt only with preserve requirements of one acre or less. Then there was language -- and I should say that I've had several very helpful conversations with Jeremy about this off-line, and he helped me focus on what the intentions were so that I could be sure that I didn't change the meaning unintentionally. But the last sentence of what was No. 2, applicability, I believe is intended to apply not only to one-acre-or-less situations but the greater preserve requirement -- acreage requirement as well. So I moved that to a free-standing Sub 3 so that it's clear it applies to both one acre or less and greater than one acre. Let's see. I renamed -- I moved the 2D from exceptions to the subject that seemed to -- at least wording, which in my judgment, at least, better captured what was to be said in there: Preserve requirement of greater than one acre. So all of that deals with that. And then the new Subsection 4 is the language that is intended to apply to both situations: One acre or less and greater than one acre. Then I rewrote slightly the prohibition section to try to make it a little more clear without, I hope, changing any of the substance of it. The Subdivision C of what is now 6 was actually changed by staff, and I accepted their changes. I had raised the question that it didn't seem to make any sense to me as written, and so they changed it, and I embraced their changes. Then the only substantive change I made is down in what is now 7A on Option 1 -- well, it's also on Option 2. But, first of all, I had to get over the hurdle of whether a land donation was a required option under the GMP. I looked at the language, and the word "or" is used between -- or among the options rather than "and." So I took it from that that land donation does not have to be an option as long as at least one of those disjunctive options were offered. So having gotten over that hurdle though, I thought about when off-site donations or off-site -- payments for off-site preserve requirements are made, it seemed to me that they should -- those payments should reflect not the situs of the donated land but the situs of the original land so that in urban areas the higher price would apply to the calculation of the donation than it would in rural areas. And so that shows up as a parenthetical in what is now what I would propose to be 7A. And those were the changes that I made or am proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like clarification, but I certainly think we're going to have to July 20, 2017 Page 7 of 35 provide some time for staff to see if the clarifications produce the equivalent intent that was intended from the way staff had written it. Unless you've already reviewed it ahead of time, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, we did get the opportunity, as I said, to speak about his changes. I have looked at the -- a version prior to this that was passed out today. And I don't have any objections myself to the changes. I don't see any changes that would affect the substance of the amendment, so unless there's an objection maybe from the County Attorney's Office to any of the changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only concern is if it's not been vetted as thoroughly for us to read ahead of time and possibly other members of staff or stakeholders who may want to read it. That's the immediate concern if you get into this extensive kind of change. MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. Mike Bosi, the Planning and Zoning Director. One of the things I would like to do if we would take any action on this, it would have to be -- it would delay, because we would need environmental staff, we would need Conservation Collier, we would need all the stakeholders to be able to also, you know, come to the substantive -- or the agreement that these aren't substantive changes and that it's been vetted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get through the day and see where it all goes, and we'll have to make a decision if we want to go forward after that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I didn't get it ahead of time, but I did read through Mr. Fryer's changes. I do have a couple changes to his language if you'd like me to address it now or wait until we get to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just wait until we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait till we get to it in the section, if that's okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there may be -- we're going to -- typically we walk through these kind of step by step, so we're still going to do that. We can see how these changes -- or you can react to them as we get into each page. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which, honestly, takes us to any other questions from the Planning Commission, holistically, before we just walk through the pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one item I had thought about last night; because I have been very, very troubled over this issue of monetary payment and endowments and also the issue of what we, as quality in Collier County, look to in our developments, and one of the greatest things we have is preservation and green space. And we have a lot more of it than most other counties. We have great architecture. There's a lot of things we do that are different than Lee and Miami and other places, and we need to keep those up. What bothers me most about this entire thing is it's all based on the allowance of a deviation for preservation that somehow turns into a monetary buy-out for a program that I'm not sure -- I'm not very comfortable with. And why do we even need to go there in the first place? I mean, I went through yesterday and found examples of where we prohibit deviations in other parts of the code and when we have strict criteria that looks at public health, safety, and welfare and things like that in other parts of the code if they're going to ask for a deviation. And I'm just now taking a step back, and it's not because I thought the deviation initially was a bad idea. It's because I think this is a bad idea where this is heading in the way we're arbitrarily pulling numbers together to say this is how much you've got to pay. I just don't like the methodology here. But in thinking about that, I thought, well, if we want Collier County to be what it's been, why are we allowing these preservation areas -- now, in some areas of this you called them preservation areas, but in the GMP I think it's referred to as open space or other kind of -- maybe not -- maybe not preservation, but green space. I forgot the other words. But why aren't we looking at this and just keeping it and saying if you -- not encouraging. Because if July 20, 2017 Page 8 of 35 you give a deviation as an option, they're going to take it. And if you give them up to two acres, they're going to take it, and this just isn't coming out right. I think we're going to be encouraging when we're trying to discourage. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And I appreciate the comments from the Chair. And I think what Jeremy's response would be was we were reacting upon a specific direction from the Board of County Commissioners to address the endowment cost. The questions and the comments that the Chair made are much more programmatic and influenced from a policy discussion. And the question is the direction and the allowance for off-site preservation, should that be an acceptable deviation within our codes that we provide for? That's a much different question than what the Board of County Commissioners asked us to act upon. I think that's a fair recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners that they have concern with the allowance -- the continued allowance for off-site preservation within our LDC and ask the Board of County Commissioners, could we revisit that or should we revisit that in whatever manner that you would like. So I think because we touch those issues within this amendment, it's a fair recommendation to make to the Board of County Commissioners. But from staff's perspective, we were tasked specifically with the charge to find a more appropriate endowment for the off-site -- when we have conservation land provided for. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if memory serves me correct, we started down this path a number of years ago when we had an industrial property. I believe it was, like, a towing company, and the on-site preservation was kind of silly because it was a very small lot, and it just made no sense to preserve a small number of trees. And we've somehow expanded that concept to something that was very different than what we were originally talking about. You know, eventually you get to the point where it's become almost like an exaction where we don't really want you to do a preserve in these areas, so wink, wink, wink, give us money and, you know, we'll put it to better use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, Jeff, when -- my reading of that last night again, I just can't -- I can't accept the monetary issues put forth in this document. And then I got to thinking, why are we even doing this in the first place? This is not what has made Collier County better; by encouraging ways or providing ways to circumvent our rules. And I would just as soon maybe we take a look at this in a different light. And I know, Jeremy, you've spent a lot of time on it. I would have mentioned it to you when we had talked this week. It was last night when I finally gave up trying to figure out what all these numbers meant. And I got to thinking of a couple things. When I -- I had a little fishing boat, 17-foot long. And I remember people used to joke with me. Do you know what a boat is? And I said, what? They said, well, it's a hole in the water you continuously dump money. Well, when 91 percent of Conservation Collier's purchases are in the rural lands in areas that, by the way, already have a lot of environmentally sensitive areas that are protected and they buy something out there and they try to maintain it, it becomes another hole in the landscape that we're constantly going to dump money into. And proof of that is, there's $32 million in Conservation Collier's budgeted account now for maintenance. Now, they've got 3,700 acres, a little less than that. That's like $9,000 an acre for perpetual maintenance going on out there. And as Einstein once said -- and I had to write the quote down -- the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. We will never see a different result in the rural area until those areas are cleared surrounding them and the seed source starts diminishing. It's like Stan had brought up a long time ago. Everywhere he and I kayak or he and Duke or other people kayak, all we see is exotics. We're never going to get rid of them piecemealing it and picking one hole and dumping continuous taxpayer dollars into it. So I am not comfortable with this. And I know you've spent a lot of time on it, but it's the monetary July 20, 2017 Page 9 of 35 part of it that gets me. And then I thought, well, how do we stop that? All of a sudden a light bulb went on and said, why don't we just stop the deviations? Without the deviations, there's no monetary issue. So, anyway, that's kind of a tact I've been trying to think of. I wanted to express that to you today to see what kind of reaction and discussions we have, and maybe that's a better way to go. MR. BOSI: And as the characteristics of Jeremy, he -- in his thorough due diligence, he did call to the attention, I think, a relevant fact related to the Growth Management Plan related to these off-site preserves. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: So regarding the deviation, there is a section in the GMP conservation -- or the CCME that requires a deviation process from these standards from the off-site donation process. So that's the reason that we have that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. It says -- look at the third word; "may." You think "may" is a requirement? And, by the way, it says "native vegetation." It doesn't say preservation or preserves, habitat, and things like that. So if you've got a native tree there, it could theoretically fit the green space objectives that many of us have moved here for. But do you really think that the "may" is a mandatory? MR. FRANTZ: Well, this is the section that we're relying upon when we included the deviation process. Under the current program, you can get a deviation. It's just not enumerated in this section, and so there's no upper limit on the deviations, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your starting comment was, it's required. I'm wondering if it's required or just it's something we should consider. MR. BOSI: And I think you have to read that sentence in -- fully. And it's saying it may grant the deviation, and because it may grant the deviation, you have to have in place the Land Development Code regulations for how you process that deviation. So you don't have to grant the deviation, but by having the possibility in the GMP, it enhance -- requires that you have an LDC regulation that dictates for how you could obtain that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if it says the county may grant a deviation, wouldn't that mean we have the choice whether we want to even grant it or not? And if we don't want to, we simply write the implementation code, which is the LDC, so that we don't -- they're prohibited. We're actually doing it. We've done it in numerous cases. MR. BOSI: Well, I think you would have a conflicting policy within your GMP. You're specifically saying you may grant them a deviation, but then within your LDC regulation you're saying that there's no opportunity for deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the choice we've made based on that policy. MR. BOSI: Well, that would be an inconsistency. That policy would need to be addressed, I believe. And I'm not saying that it's not appropriate. And, once again, let me say that this is a discussion, I believe, that is at a policy level that the Board is -- or the Planning Commission would potentially request the Board to make an evaluation upon because of the concerns, and they're expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the value of IRMA preserves, and there's justification for it. It's just it's much greater than, you know, the specific action that Jeremy was tasked with from the BCC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But, Mike, don't we already have a deviation process by allowing one or two acres to go off-site? MR. BOSI: Yes, we do, and I think what the Chair is suggesting that maybe the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that we eliminate the opportunity for that off-site deviation process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think what he's suggesting is the off-site deviations beyond the one or two acres. Am I correct -- or for the whole section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Heidi, this -- the effort to deal with a monetary piece of this thing has been such a nightmare, and it's so seemingly arbitrary in the number of different ways it could be done. I just am not comfortable with it. And then I tried to figure out a way, okay, we need to get away from this. I don't think it was right, and if it isn't, how do we get away from it? Well, don't allow deviations for preserves to begin with or native vegetation. July 20, 2017 Page 10 of 35 And, by the way, it is native vegetation. It's not preserves. It's a big difference. And we keep focusing on preserves, and we are not thinking necessarily just of native vegetation, but it can be either one. So someone doesn't have to have a site with preserves on it, preserve-quality green space, but they've got to have a -- if the site has native vegetation, that in itself would qualify for the ability to leave it on site, and then they'd have to have, by this language, a deviation to take it off-site. MR. KLATZKOW: There needs to be policy decision underlying all of this, and the policy decision is whether or not you're required to do this, period, or if you reach a certain size we don't care. And I don't really know that we've ever had that discussion. I mean, again, my recollection was we had this one instance where we had this one parcel, and it seemed to be an unfair result, and this all grew out of that. I don't know that we ever had that basic policy decision as do we want these preserves in these -- we call them preserves -- in these urban areas, and what size should they be. And if we're not going to call them preserves, native vegetation is fine, too. Or what do we want? Do we want preserves or do we want green space? I mean, they're very different ideas. That's the basic policy issue that everything else will flow from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, by instituting this deviation process or even supporting it, we're encouraging you to come through as a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what policy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- variance. MR. KLATZKOW: What policy does the deviation support is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm -- well, apparently the deviations to support Policy 611 of the CCME. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I don't know what the GMP says, but what's the policy? What do we want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's another whole -- that's a board-level discussion, I agree with you. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yes. But at the end of the day, you're the body here charged with looking at this stuff and making recommendations to the Board. And if you don't believe that a certain mechanism is currently working -- and, apparently, you don't -- you know, it's -- one of the things the Planning Commission does is make recommendations to the Board to fix it. But what I'm saying is you need a core policy here that everything else grows out of, and I don't know that we have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and as an alternative, too, Jeremy and I started talking, and I think yesterday we actually met. Because on Monday I suggested, if we're going to go provide an opportunity to go from one to two acres off-site -- and there doesn't seem to be anything limiting the first acre except the prohibitions -- then what's the criteria to go from one to two? Because without criteria, it becomes more arbitrary. And so Jeremy tried to write up criteria. And I got thinking about that last night, and I related it back to variances. And I thought, well, wait a minute. If we undid deviations for this preservation or native habitat and we left it as a variance application with a prohibition above a certain threshold, then they would have to meet the hardship criteria and other criteria of the variance. That might be a better standard to consider in leaving it like that as its treated elsewhere in the code and not get into this whole new ball of wax involving a deviation for something that may not be the right policy to begin with. Anyway, that's how I got to where my thoughts were. I thought I'd express them so that at least during the discussion we have time to talk about them. And Summer's up here anxiously trying to patiently say something. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. I'm Summer Araque, Environmental Planning Supervisor. As the supervisor of the section who uses this, I really wanted to make some key points on some things that have been said. Currently the GMP does allow for deviations, but deviations are not included in the code, in this section of the code. So applicants can go back to the GMP and refer to that to request their deviation but, like you said, July 20, 2017 Page 11 of 35 there's no criteria; so with that, the sky is the limit. They can request as much as they want. So that's why we put limitations in here. Currently, a commercial property can take two off without getting any deviations if the preserve requirement is two acres or less and they don't meet any of the restrictions, prohibitions, et cetera. So that's why we went with that two acres. So, actually, we moved it down to, across the board, one acre or less, but you could deviate up to two, and two is the limit. And that's why we did that, because of properties wanting to come in and remove seven, eight -- they start with seven, eight acres requesting a deviation. Who knows what the acreage is next that they request. And I think, too, in regards to the native vegetation, the way that this policy is written is that it's referring to the native vegetation on the site is what we use to determine the preserve requirement. So just some clarification there. And I'm happy to answer any other questions, and I might pop up again depending on the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please do. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just expressing some thoughts I had last night, because I cannot get comfortable with this monetary issue we're dealing with, and I'm trying to avoid a way to have to do that, so -- MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. And that's a whole different issue that's really outside of my section, but I think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It's in your section now. That's what we're doing here today. I wish we weren't. MS. ARAQUE: But what I mean is my -- that's a Conservation Collier thing. When I say "my section," I say Environmental Planning. Yes, it's in our section of the code. But as far as we're concerned, we're dealing with the property comes in, can they take the preserve off-site? And if we're not going to amend the GMP, and that's not up to me, then we -- I would really highly request that we have something in the code that limits petitions from coming in and requesting as much acreage as they want, because currently they can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to consider -- MS. ARAQUE: -- and have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the recommendation will never be to take the deviation process out of this section of the code, it would be to make the preservation and prohibition then to remove it. So it wouldn't be -- you wouldn't have that issue anymore. MS. ARAQUE: Currently, there is no deviation section in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but apparently there's people that believe we need to put one in there based on what you just said because of this Section 6.1.1. MS. ARAQUE: Right, because of the GMP, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the need and we put it in there but we take and address the "may" as, okay, that means we can or can't -- MS. ARAQUE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll decide not -- maybe we could decide not to and leave the preservation alone. We've got -- the flood of deviations coming in with PUDs is getting more overwhelming than necessary, and I'm not getting very comfortable with it, and I thought maybe it would stabilize, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. MS. ARAQUE: And if it weren't for the GMP, I would -- then it would be really easy to not allow any deviations in this section. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we had left off and starting to move into the document. And just for our discussions, does the rest of this board want to walk through the pages of the document? I know Ned already has, and he's distributed a document which -- if it's clarifications that help the situation, by all means, they July 20, 2017 Page 12 of 35 should be considered by staff and go forward with it. As far as my comments on the rest of this, I have a few. I don't know if the rest of you had any others. Anybody have anything else that they want to -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some observations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The endowment models, if you look at them, they -- because you have a certain interest rate that it starts out with, the 2.25 percent, and then you have this maintenance number that increases by 3 percent, the model, because of the way they picked the numbers, it starts going up and then it starts coming down. So I took their Excel sheet and duplicated it and ran it all the way down. And in 50 years you totally run out of money, period. So it's not in perpetuity. It's just 50 years. The DSAC model, though, runs a little longer, though, because they figure in the first few years you're going to spend a lot of money to take out the exotics, and then the amount of maintenance after that is going to be lower. I don't know if that's true or not. And you were talking about all the different places you see exotics. We canoed to Lely Outfall Canal yesterday, down over the spreader weir and out into the Naples Bay. It's a beautiful ride if anybody wants to do it. And one of the best features of that is you will see every exotic known to man along the banks: Carrotwood, Melaleuca, the Brazilian pepper. The only one I didn't see was downy rose myrtle. But if you want an example of where it's a good teaching tool to show people what these things look like, Australian pines just huge. You're not going to get rid of this stuff. You're just not. You were right about that. I agree with almost -- I agree with everything you said. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, he's out in the woods as much as I am or, actually, you're out more than I am anymore. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm retired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. It makes it a little easier. I just -- the experiences I have out there just don't seem -- I don't know how we're ever thinking that we can keep dumping money into this and see a different result. I just don't. But, anyway, with that, if we want to walk through the comments we have on the rest of it, just depending on how this goes so everything at least is on record, we have the first part of the first few pages, let's say through Page 3 of the packet. Does anybody have any questions? And this is on Page 4 of 20 of the packet. It's labeled Page 3, but it's actually electronic page 4. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comments, I've basically already stated them. I'm concerned about the -- if we allow the deviation, you're going to have it for zero to one for every project that doesn't fall into the prohibitions. The prohibitions aren't criteria. There's a different level, so I still think we need the criteria. So even if they don't hit one of the prohibitions, we still need to see criteria to say, okay, you're not prohibitive because you don't have this kind of vegetation, but what's some criteria that we could put on there that might help not see it moved off-site? So that piece of it's still part of the discussion that I saw on Page 3, for example. But the piece from one to two acres is more concerning, because if we even insinuate you can go up to two acres, you'll have everybody in here. They'll hire an expert to say what they want them to say, and the experts will stand here and tell us it's bad vegetation, and it will all be disappearing, so -- but that's just what happens. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Can you just remove deviation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to -- wait till we get done walking through this. That's something we probably need to talk about, and I want to hear public speakers and other things, too. If we go to the next few pages, and on the bottom right of your packet, it should say Packet Page 4 of 20, for example. Let's go to Page -- through Page 7 of 20 and see if we have any other issues. And this is where we get into the references to the deviations section and how many acres, and it July 20, 2017 Page 13 of 35 might be here, if nothing else, we decide not to open the deviation up for one to two acres, and we just prohibit past one acre and then drop that other piece out. We get into the -- after that we get into Pages 8, 9 and 10. If we could look at those. If anybody has any questions. Jeremy corrected a table or two on there that needed some correction. We get into a discussion on Page 8 of CLACC's 4-1 ratio for land donations and how it applies, and that's the piece that's starting to get us into the monetary part of it. So I would certainly like to understand the 4-1 ratio. If we were looking at using the AUIR, now how does a 4-1 ratio fit in? But I think -- I don't know what's the rest. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of clarification. What's an AU -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual update inventory report. In a couple of meetings, you will experience it live. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's actually one of the more interesting and probably one of the most important documents this county deals with. It sets the pattern for all the expenditures of our budget for the upcoming year. It talks about all the capital improvements, what each department's doing, and how they want to spend their money. And it's there, if we make changes, will probably have the greatest impact on the budget. But very few people who involve themselves with the AUIR. We sit here to an empty audience, and we talk about it, and it's very limited in, unfortunately, how much the public gets involved. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything else on those pages. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the actual text, it starts on Page 10 of 20, and I think on Page 11 of 20 we start getting into the actual issues. Some of it's already been talked about in the narrative that Jamie (sic) provided in the first 10 pages. In the CCME, Jeremy, it refers to native vegetation retention. It doesn't say anything about habitat or items like that. How do we look at determining what is -- how do we determine the functionality of the native vegetation retention, say, if it was less than one acre or even between one and two acres? Case in point, Addie's Corner came in to us. They originally had to set aside a certain quantity of preserve, and nobody ever did anything there. So over 10 years the exotics supposedly invaded the balance of the property, and now the preserve count could be reduced. And that means the functionality then was no longer viable because -- the functionality of what? The functionality as habitat? The functionality as wetlands? Whereas, the CCME refers to just native vegetation retention. So does that mean if those exotics weren't cleared, the native vegetation couldn't have survived? Because if it could, then why would we change it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So on Page 12 of 20 there's some of the applicability provisions that we've struck through. And we had a couple of sections that dealt with that issue. And in this -- in the revision we've eliminated that analysis of the success of the preserve or the exotics coverage so that is no longer a factor in the revised amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if -- and let's use Addie's Corner because it's a relative -- it's a most recent example. If they came in after this was adopted and they said, we want to reduce our preserves because we've hired someone who says that it's got greater -- it's got over 75 percent exotic infestation, would we then say, well, you can't -- that doesn't matter. You go in and clear the exotics out, and the native vegetation should still survive? I mean, it does, so why would we say it's not functional? So we wouldn't? MR. FRANTZ: Right. I mean, unless they met some of the other applicability. But, yeah, just in terms of their preserves are, you know, covered in exotics; that's no longer one of the applicability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that surely would have helped a lot of people understand it better from the neighborhood there. Anybody else got any on Page -- we're up to Page 12. And that's the page that starts with your PUD July 20, 2017 Page 14 of 35 deviations, and that's part of where my introduction discussion had -- where I was focusing on. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into the next couple of pages, and we start talking about the options that Ted has -- or Ned -- I'm sorry, Ned -- Ned has offered some suggestions to as well. And I, you know -- again, my struggle has been trying to deal with the monetary issues here. I still am concerned about that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, if no one else has any comments, my comment is on Page 12, Line 16, 17 and 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And it's also -- Mr. Fryer picked up part of the conflict. So you have your prohibitions for the off-site preserve, and then it says, the remaining portion of the on-site preserve must be a minimum of one acre in size. And then that last sentence, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying for off-site native vegetation; something needs to be done with that section. Because it's either saying you can have less on-site preserve or you have to have more on-site preserve. If it says more on-site preserve, then I don't know how staff will enforce that greater than one acre because it's going to be anywhere between one and two acres. So it either needs to say "or greater if preserved with higher quality habitat," which then will create conflict with staff and the developer as to how much between one and two acres in addition to the one needs to be on site, or you just say the minimum has to be one acre. I don't know how you want to go with that, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? Jeremy? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. I'm fine with your recommendation to just put a period after one acre in size -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: -- because what this section is currently saying, in so many words -- but I think it's difficult to understand -- is that if you have a high-quality habitat referred to in A and B above, like a xeric scrub, I think is one of the examples, and you wanted to leave, say, just a half an acre of that, you could with this provision. So if we just want to stay to, if you're going to take anything off site, you can't leave small amounts on. You just need to either take it all off or keep it on. Does that make sense? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that the prohibition, if it has any of the A or B, then they can't take it off site. They can't take part of it off site and say we'll just keep the part that has the xeric scrub. I don't think that's how this is written. MS. ARAQUE: I think that original writers of this may have been trying to think of 50 different scenarios that you could come across, and one of those scenarios could be that you might have, say, a pop ash area, which is a rare habitat, and maybe it's only just a half acre but surrounded by something else that's not necessarily protected by A and B, so then in that case they would take the half acre of the -- what's not covered under A and B off but leave the other half acre on. It's really, in my opinion, not something that's been utilized. I think that it is considering a situation that may or may not be out there, and I think that it's just fine to put a period after "one acre in size." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then there is some excess language going back to Page 11 on Lines 49, 50, and 51, where it says shall not be allowed to have the on-site native preservation retention provided off-site. That's kind of duplicative now that you've changed it to a prohibition. So I would recommend deletion of that language. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And then while I'm here, at one point I would like to go through Mr. Fryer's and put those up on the visualizer page by page when we get to that point. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what we'll do is we'll walk through the pages, then we'll step back again, and now that you've had time to take a look at some of Ned's comments you can -- we'll bring them up then. That would be good. As we go into the options on those Pages 12 and 13, Jeremy, the per -- on Page 12, which is electronic page 13, Option 1, and I think it -- yeah, it does actually get used. And Option 2 is a reference to a July 20, 2017 Page 15 of 35 percentage. The per-acre land value for nonurban designated land shall be 8.37 percent of the current AUIR. How did we pick 8.37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: That was based on the costs that Conservation Collier has -- the difference in costs that Conservation Collier has paid for urban preserves and nonurban preserves, and then we applied that ratio to the AUIR number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how does the 4-1 ratio relate to the 8.37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: It's not a part of the monetary payment alternative. That's only applicable to the land donation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And that 4 -- the reason that ratio exists was to -- one of the discussion points that we've had at past Planning Commission meetings was to see if there was a way to find some parity between the costs associated with these two alternatives, and so that was the motivation for adding that ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, if we're moving on to, let's say, Page -- well, that takes us -- the LDC language ends on Page 15 of 20, which is -- that's your electronic, down in the right-hand corner. Then we get into tables and your exhibit. Let's take the rest of the pages. Anybody have any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to hear -- oh, you wanted to walk through Ned's stuff first, Summer? You want to do that right now? MS. ARAQUE: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're either going to have public speakers or you. What would you prefer? MS. ARAQUE: Let's do public speakers, because I have not had time to look through all of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, then why'd you ask? MS. ARAQUE: I was just saying, if you're giving me the option, I'll take the later option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, would you -- let's start, if we have any -- let's start -- if there's any registered public speakers, call those first, then we'll go to those that aren't. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. We do have one registered speaker. It's Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't need to -- well, if you want to register, you're fine. If you don't, we'll still call you. MS. JOHNSON: Following the rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You always do. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I can't, obviously, comment on some of the proposed new language. I do appreciate your desire to make this more understandable because this is complicated. So probably if the stakeholders would have some additional time, if you do decide that you would like to incorporate some of that new language, to bring that back to a future meeting. In looking at this policy section in its entirety, the Conservancy's preference would be for it to all go away, not because of the issues of the monetary donations and land donations and payments, but because it just isn't a good policy idea to allow for on-site preserves, on-site native vegetation and green space to be taken off site. And I remember when this idea came up. And, Jeff, I didn't recall that it really started with an industrial parcel, but I do remember sitting at the table will Bill Lorenz going around and around in circles and saying, how can you -- how can you determine that at one acre an on-site preserve is so not valuable that you can just go ahead, wipe it out, and take it off site? Where is that magic number? And there really is no magic number. I mean, that's the problem. The Conservancy fought very hard to make sure that we could get that off-site option to be so low as possible. One acre, at least for the residential and PUDs, was that number. But that is supposed to be a ceiling. And I think what we've seen recently is that it's simply a floor that provides a launching pad to then take acres and acres of preserve off site, and that's what we were concerned would happen. July 20, 2017 Page 16 of 35 So, ideally, if it could all go, that will be great. If that isn't possible, then tightening up the language to make sure that it isn't abused like it has been in the past is going to be very, very important. So some of the things that we like about what staff has done is, you know -- and I think that it does, in the first parts -- and I'll just go by the -- not the packet page but just the LDC page number, Page 10, is hopefully under the purpose and intent it's saying that the purpose is to preserve native vegetation on site and to make it very clear, if you're going out off site, it's in very limited circumstances. I do have a question on Line -- I guess it's Line 24 and 25 where it talks about existing portions of preserves located within single-family platted lots. I don't know what that means. In talking with staff, there is a little bit of confusion about, you know, is this if you have a PUD that has a little bit of their preserve on a platted lot, then you can take that off site, but if that's in an already-developed community, you shouldn't be going back and removing preserves. So the Conservancy would recommend that you eliminate that No. B. It was a carryover from what was already in there, but staff is recommending removal of other what I would call problematic language on Page 11 and so we'd recommend that that be removed also. Going to Page 11. On Line 12, where it talks about the existing and proposed preserves with that 75 percent exotic coverage, the Conservancy definitely agrees that that should be removed. I mean, right now the irony is a landowner is incentivized to allow their property to become exotics infested because then they have to preserve less on site. So we want to remove that incorrect incentivization where we can. And then also, No. G, starting on Line 17, if you're not managing your creative preserve as you should be, you should not be rewarded by allowed -- being allowed to go off site. As far as the PUD deviations under 2, little i, starting on Line 31, the Conservancy's recommendation would be you prohibit deviations for this. Again, that one acre or the two acre for commercial industrial, that was supposed to be a hard ceiling. And if you allow deviations like this, it's no longer a hard ceiling. If you have to have some sort of deviation, then allow it between one acre and 1.1 acres. Okay. If you're just a hair over one acre, then we'll let you apply for a deviation, but it should not be doubled to two acres. So our recommendation: Remove it in its entirety. If you can't, then make it really a very nominal number. As far as the options for the Conservation Collier, the monetary payment and land donation, you know, it looks like reference to the AUIR could be a good way to make sure that if you are in the urbanized area and you utilize the off-site preservation policies, that the cost is commensurate with what you're getting in return. It needs to be painful, because we really don't want people using this option. So it has to hurt a little bit. And, you know, hopefully with the numbers that Jeremy has put in here for what the AUIR for the parks shows, there is going to be that painfulness. As far as the land donation and the 4-1 ratios, that's something that the Conservancy really hasn't weighed in on in the past. We don't really have, as a policy department, the expertise to weigh in on that. It is interesting the vast array of recommendations from the CCLAC to DSAC to staff, but we're leaving that for the land management experts. So with that, if you have any questions for me, I think that summarizes -- oh. And we agree with Heidi that on Page 12, that Subparagraph C, it's confusing. I'm not sure that putting a period after "one acre in size" really eliminates all the confusion, but I'm going to have to think on that a little bit more. So with that... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Johnson, I'm coming down the road toward where you are on getting rid of all of it, but along the way I ask myself and would ask you, in the case of native vegetation areas that -- where the area is simply too small to be viable, I don't know whether it's slash pines or some other vegetation that just isn't going to live very well in the same sandbox with the development, those situations, on a small scale, I assume you'd be willing to move off site? MS. JOHNSON: Well, it gets to how do you define viable. Are you talking about viability as, you know, part of a home range for a panther? Are you talking about urban wildlife may be able to utilize the site? July 20, 2017 Page 17 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just talking about viability of the vegetation itself. MS. JOHNSON: Well, as long as you don't go in there and plow it over, it's going to be viable. The vegetation will survive. So I'm not sure that there's any magic number that below that number, the vegetation won't survive. If you set it aside and you manage it or you don't pave it or dump all your stormwater in it, the vegetation itself is going to survive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The other question I had has to do with affordable housing which, as you know, is an express policy of the BCC. And in some cases, it's been proposed that some of the allowances for off-site preservation be more generous in the case of affordable housing because it would enable more affordable housing on site. What is your position or your organization's position on that? MS. JOHNSON: Well, you know, it's -- there's this balance between you don't want to dis-incentivize affordable housing and, yet, if you're putting in an affordable housing community, having some of that native vegetation could be a nice amenity for the people living there. We haven't, you know, taken a specific position on that affordable housing component in these policies, but certainly an affordable housing community, I think, could benefit from some green space, open space, just as every other community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree completely. I think the developers, though, would say that in order to make the affordable housing affordable, we've got to reduce costs or increase capacity or density, and that's why they would want to move the native vegetation off. MS. JOHNSON: That excuse has been used by -- I've heard it used by the non-affordable housing. You know, if I have to preserve on site, then my project is no longer marketable and viable, but then when they decide that they might not have the votes of the County Commission, all of a sudden, well, they can preserve on site because they can make it work. So if you allow an allowance for off site, then I think every applicant is going to say, yeah, I have to go off site to make it work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My final question, I guess, is really for the Chair or the Commission or County Attorney or staff, and that has to do with the history of this. In the little reading I was able to do to try to gain some background, it seemed to me around 2010, at the time of the recession, it was decided or determined that in order to continue to incent developers to undertake developments, that we would make it easier for them to comply with some of these rules, and that's why things like off-site reserves and donated land and the like came into being; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without checking the time frame, Ned, I couldn't tell you for sure. I know that after the recession we tried to open up the floodgate for development in Collier County, just like the governor tried to open the state up, and I don't think we've but a cork in it yet, so maybe now is the time to start considering that. But I can't tell you the time frame now. MS. JOHNSON: I think these policies predated the recession, but I think the recession allowed these policies to really not be used. But it seems like it was a number of years. I don't know if Summer -- MS. ARAQUE: (Nods head.) MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In any event, seeing as we may well be out of the recession, it may be an appropriate time to consider things like tightening these restrictions somewhat. MS. JOHNSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in or out of a recession, if we can keep the standards of values for the natural habitat in Collier County higher, it's going to benefit all of the property owners in Collier County, because all of our properties will stay stronger. So just eliminating these would help that. Second of all, affordable housing; one of the criteria that we stress so vividly to allow affordable housing, it's no different than the regular housing. We want everybody to fit in. We want the communities to be compatible with one another. Well, if they've got the exception not to have the green space everybody else requires, we're hurting that compatibility. So maybe they can find a way to work with the people who should benefit from it, just like everybody else in Collier County does, and that green space -- as the prelude to this whole document said, there's a benefit to the trees, 20 times what they're worth. July 20, 2017 Page 18 of 35 Last question of you in particular, Nicole, is Conservancy, I believe, owns parcels of land throughout Collier County. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you have some down in Rookery Bay. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- yeah, I think you do. I've been down in that area. And I'm going to have to notify Code Enforcement you're not clearing your exotics like we do on our property. But it goes to the point, I don't think most agencies are. I think right now -- and you have -- whether it's Big Cypress or the rest of them that have got these huge swaths of land in the rural area, they're not out there maintaining it and clearing it every single year because I think they realize it's a hole in the water you are going to just pour money into. So I think maybe we need to rethink about how we treat our rural landscape in regards to perpetual maintenance of exotics. I think that's the biggest failure of the language I've seen in this document which is triggering the other concerns I've expressed today, so... And now that you don't do it, I mean, there's your example. There's the gold standard for Collier County right there. MS. JOHNSON: We try. You know, it's a phased approach. And we're doing some great work in our preserves on site, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your -- the Conservancy facility in the urban area. Oh, yeah. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's real tough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your home. MS. JOHNSON: But you're right, it's -- you do have to allow for the fact that it is -- it's a constant battle to get rid of exotics and then keep them off properties. So, yeah, it's -- you have to cut the land managers some slack on that. And just one final thing. We were talking about affordable housing. I know that the Habitat for Humanity project that was proposed on Whitaker Lane -- I'm not sure where that eventually panned out, but even though -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're still processing a conditional use. They just got acknowledged that -- they had a meeting in March, so that it was able to allow them to continue processing, so... MS. JOHNSON: But they, at least in their initial plans, even though they didn't have to retain native vegetation on site, they chose to do so, at least in their initial application. So I think that goes to show that you can have an affordable project and still retain native vegetation. I don't know where it's gone from there, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a different twist. They originally came in and were going to take advantage of no vegetation on site, but then they ran into the part of the site that's actually a flowway that's -- MS. JOHNSON: Ah, they had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- somewhat controlled by either South Florida or Big Cypress, and they weren't finding it as flexible with their rules to remove all that as they were with our rules. So I think that's why most of it's now staying. That's the last I heard. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, thank goodness for some agency being tough on that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You made a comment during your presentation about how developers are allowing their parcels to become infested with exotics because it lowers the value. Is that why you guys do it? If you -- MS. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just, you know, you said cut the land manager some slack. MS. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you go out 41 past Port of the Islands five miles, there is July 20, 2017 Page 19 of 35 the east river on the right. If you go -- launch into that area and go under the bridge and take the canal on the north side of 41 up maybe another mile, there's a route that goes out into -- up into the Everglades, up into the Big Cypress, Fakahatchee, whatever. As you get about a mile away from 41, it becomes solid Brazilian pepper. I mean, it's everywhere. Now, this is not a -- you know, not a matter of cutting the land manager some slack. You guys have totally lost control of exotics, just totally. It's so thick you can't go through it. MS. JOHNSON: I don't disagree, but I think that's a different issue than -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, it's not. MS. JOHNSON: -- the urban parcels -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is the seed source. MS. JOHNSON: -- that then benefit. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's the seed source for everything else that's infested in Collier County. I can show you county parcels -- and I don't know if they're still there -- that are infested with earleaf acacia. That stuff is everywhere. You know, you've got a handle on the Melaleuca, but it's coming back. The Brazilian pepper is just out of control. I'm seeing Carrotwood in places where, you know, it shouldn't be. It's a lost cause. And, you know, it's just -- like he said, it's a hole somewhere that you're just pouring money into just to pay people to do something. But it's senseless. It really is. But that's just me. MS. JOHNSON: Well -- and I don't believe that you're referring to Conservancy property in the Everglades area, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, no. I'm talking about the National Park Service who is a federal agency who somebody should get on their butts and say, hey, you know, you've got this big thing. Why don't you have a big fire, you know? MS. JOHNSON: But when we're talking about having native vegetation, having green space in urban parcels, that is negatively impacted by the fact that those parcels that have been sitting in the urbanized area and accumulating exotics year after year after year then benefit from the fact that it's exotics infested and they have to set less aside, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What benefit is to the park system to do that, you know, to let their parcels infest? (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not a matter of somebody's benefit from it. It's a natural process, and you've lost control of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew that this would get Stan going, and we succeeded. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Stick a fork in me; I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole. Any other registered public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes; Mr. Doug Fee. MR. FEE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. FEE: Okay. I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. And I appreciate this conversation and the fact that you all are discussing it this morning. I wasn't planning to defend the Conservancy; however, I live in Tarpon Cove, and across the street from the entrance of my development is 13 acres that the county owns. It's owned by the Utility Department and is used for a flowway in the Wiggins Pass area. I have yet to see the county take care of its exotics on these 13 acres, okay. So we can all point fingers, but what I can tell you is it's very important to maintain exotics, to get rid of them. As a homeowner in a development that has preserves -- let's say we have 20 percent of our development -- we put money into our reserves every year to make sure that we get rid of exotics. And, in July 20, 2017 Page 20 of 35 fact, the county code requires it, and the county Code Enforcement will come around if we do not do it. So there is great value in maintaining preserves. The other thing I wanted to mention was we know the expense of taking care of preserve land green space. The Conservancy in our area has, for many years, performed water testing in the Cocohatchee River area, and that is very valuable because it lets us know where the water quality is and, you know, what we can do to make sure that we keep the standard up there. So thank you, Conservancy. Why I came down here was to encourage you to maintain preserves in Collier County, okay. And what I mean by that is, I'm not exactly sure -- I'm right with you, Mr. Strain. Nicole said it very well. I'm not sure how this actually got started. In North Naples, you can see this map -- and I'll use a pointer here -- much of this area is golf course. It's green. And, in fact, you tell any of the homeowners who live on these golf courses that we want to change preserve requirements, they will be up in arms because it's a big part of why they buy here in Naples. You go six miles, 10 miles north, there may not be those requirements. So we do have green space that is contiguous. It's important to keep it. Specifically, what happened was a year ago or two years ago there was seven acres on 41 that a Mercedes dealership built, and they were able to mitigate their property. I do not believe they put any preserves on that property. It was seven acres. They got to buy land out in the eastern area and then develop the site. Well, interesting, directly behind the seven acres was a homeowner association that had eight to 10 acres itself, and it has a conservation easement and, in fact, that homeowner association maintains it for the wildlife, for the preserve. So it was contiguous. So I think sometimes you have to look at what's surrounding. We have a property on Wiggins Pass. Right now it's only one acres (sic), and if they don't have a preserve requirement, they're going to donate 17,000 to Conservation Collier. That money is then going to buy land somewhere else. But, in fact, in this one acre, it's next door to the 13 acres that the county owns for the flowway, okay; property owner adjoining. So I'm just throwing out some things that -- you know, it's hard -- I guess case by case, but in this case I don't understand why you'd have the mitigation when, in fact, in that very area there is green that's required and being maintained. The other thing that I wanted to talk about was -- so I would be for basically getting rid of the deviation, okay. I can see in very highly industrial areas where it would be appropriate to intensify and allow mitigation. But when it comes to strip centers, residential, I don't want to see you lower the standards. We need our green space. It's very important. And I don't think you can even distinguish between the urban area and the rural area, okay. One of the other things I wanted to mention was, right here, this is the beach and Delnor-Wiggins and Barefoot. Many years ago, and several times over the years, I have mentioned that the county should consider an NRPA in this area, okay; Cocohatchee River. Conservation Collier -- you'll hear the environmentalists stand up and say, we need to, you know, take this money and prioritize, and let's pick the NRPAs, which I believe is appropriate. But we have an area that really needs to be established as a NRPA. And if you're going to deviate, allow the deviation and have the money come in, you have an area in the urban area that you could spend these dollars and preserve and not necessarily send it out east. While I'm for green space and preserving and all that, you have an area that, over the years, is going to have pressure. And my point is only that if you're going to go forward with any of this language -- I've talked to Alex -- there should be identified lands in the areas that we're allowing the mitigation that can be bought with those funds that benefit that area that's giving up the green space, okay. Much like impact fees, you collect them in that area. You spend them in that area. It's supposed to benefit the area that is having the development. So I guess what I would say is if you're going to have this language, if there's any way to allocate the money in the general area -- you might even pick the district -- keep the money, spend the money in that area because, certainly, there is going to be lands that can be preserved wholly, you know, in the big picture. And so I hope that helps you in your planning. And I appreciate each one of you taking the time. And, of course, you know, we want to make sure Naples, Collier County stays above the standards that they July 20, 2017 Page 21 of 35 have in other counties. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, are there any other registered speakers? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question for Mr. Fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I agree with the points you made about, basically, spending the money locally. My question to you, though, sir, you mentioned that exotic vegetation seemed to be taking over in some areas owned by the county. Have you been able to bring this to the attention of anyone at staff? MR. FEE: The county doesn't have immense funds, I'll just put it to you that way. There's a lot of programs that need funds. And while I do support and I know it's necessary, there must be reasons why those 13 acres, the utility -- the other thing about it is is somebody has mentioned that if it's not developed land and there's no homeowner associations, no PUD, that there may not be an exotic removal requirement. I don't know if that's the case or not. If the county owns land that hasn't been developed but it's just holding it, does it have that requirement on itself to maintain it? I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll ask the same question. MR. BOSI: And I'll defer to environmental staff. But if it's undeveloped property, there's no DOs. There's no local DOs. There's no requirement to remove exotic vegetation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if a parcel is developed, you have to remove the exotic vegetation, right? MR. BOSI: Once again, I'll defer to my environmental staff who applies this, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And my next question was going to be, isn't the Lely Outfall Canal considered a development? And why is it lined with exotic vegetation on both sides? And if I tell you that, will you send somebody out to remove it? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. We're getting into a rabbit hole here, but this is interesting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. I take that back. I want to get home today. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm serious. I take it back. I don't want to know. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you the number to Code Enforcement. That's all you need to do is file a complaint with Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, don't do that to Code Enforcement. Don't do that to Code Enforcement. MS. ARAQUE: My staff will assist Code Enforcement in the investigation. Thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just going to give you some projects that were not developed, and they are big; the old Mirasol, kind of in that area GL has built behind it the different ones now. If that had not started development, is that correct that they do not need to do anything? You can be a landowner? And, I mean, that's hundreds of acres. But as long as they just let it sit there -- MS. ARAQUE: Correct. Until you develop, you're not required to remove the exotics unless we receive a complaint, and then they have to remove so many feet into the property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Like 75 feet or something like that? MS. ARAQUE: I think it's 200 feet. I would have to clarify that, but I think that's what it is. But they have to receive a complaint from the adjacent property owner that's being impacted. Not anybody can just make the complaint. It has to be an impacted property owner. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. July 20, 2017 Page 22 of 35 MS. ARAQUE: While I'm up here, Mr. Fryer, would you mind emailing me those revisions, and then I can have the board office print those out so we can take a look at those? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. You bet. MS. ARAQUE: I sent you an email, so you should have my email address. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say earlier, Summer, you wanted to talk about his revisions. Is that something you want to do now, or what would you -- MS. ARAQUE: I'm fine unless the court reporter and other people need to take a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was -- that's why I'm asking. If you're going to speak -- MS. ARAQUE: We can wait till after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other members of the public here today that would like to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've finished with public speakers. When we get back from break, you will be the first up, and we'll hear whatever you've got to say, and then we can finish talking about it. MS. ARAQUE: Maybe over the break I can give some copies to others to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Copies of what? MS. ARAQUE: Of his proposed revisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're available. MS. ARAQUE: Because some of our stakeholders don't have a copy of that. I'm going to have the board office print that out. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that we'll take a break for -- we'll come back at 10:40. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. Okay. Welcome back from our break. We're going to resume the meeting. We left off with the ending of the public comments, and we'll move into Summer's discussion about the handout supplied by Ned earlier this morning. Summer, are you -- yeah, Summer's coming. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I say one sentence before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, what I endeavored to do here was just that, to clarify, without indicating support or opposition to either option or the language, although I do have some evolving and becoming rather strong opinions, and they're aligned, I think, with yours on what to do going forward. So this is not an indication that I was in support of either of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I think everybody's taking it that way. The clarifications -- and I like it that you focus on this because these -- every clarification we can have is much, much welcomed, because our code is real confusing. And if we can make it easier to read -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I changed the substance of any of this, I erred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what staff is -- when they get time to study it, that's what they'll hopefully dwell on. Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So we'll start at the top with the off-site vegetation and purpose and intent; that looks fine. But I think -- let me grab the mike here. I think that this should stay as applicability there. And I think what you're doing here is you're saying preserve requirement one acre or less and then preserve requirement greater than one acre. I think there's, like, a little misunderstanding of, like, how this is written. This is actually applicability, and this is exception. So in this particular case with the exceptions, the preserve could be less than one acre. We're just July 20, 2017 Page 23 of 35 saying in the case where the preserve is greater than one acre, the essential services and affordable housing may actually be able to take that preserve requirement off site without getting a deviation even if it is more than one acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason I changed that or am proposing to do so is a rule of draftsmanship. You've got Subsection 2 calling it applicability, but the stated subject in the major part, the superior part of that section, is that it applies to one acres or less -- one acre or less and, therefore, the subsections also need only to apply to one acre or less just for the purpose of drafting logic. So I tried to preserve your intent which was that this -- the language that I struck, the preserve requirement shall be based on, is going to apply in both cases. But if you just put it up in 2, then it raised a logic question and creates an ambiguity whether it also then applies to the greater than one. MS. ARAQUE: Does anybody else have anything on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you dug your hole on this one. I'll let you argue it. MS. ARAQUE: No, because I think that this is applicability of when you can take something off site. These are exceptions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, except your first sentence says one acre or less. So you've defined the subject in the first sentence. You've got to keep limited to that in your subsections. MS. ARAQUE: You're talking about this right here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about the original No. 2, which you called applicability. It said the on-site preserve requirement may be met off site when the preserve requirement is one acre or less for only the following situations, then you list A, B, and C. You've defined the subject matter of 2 to one acre or less. And all I tried to do was accomplish what I thought was your objective which was to make that struck language apply whether it's one acre or less or more than one acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your added language that she's questioning, though, is redundant language to what she has in the sentence after yours. So if we were to provide her with her comfort level leaving applicability in and leaving out that first double i that you added prior to the first sentence, is that going to really make any -- cause any problem? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think the problem it causes is then the language, "the preserve requirement," is going to apply only to one acre or less because it is part of that same subsection, and it's not going to apply in the case of greater than one acre. The way -- I mean, it's just a matter of structure. I tell you what I'll do is I'll defer to the County Attorney, who's going to have to, you know, enforce these things or construe them for enforcement if it comes to that, your superior exposure and experience of this stuff. I'm just offering you guys what has been, you know, the essence of my training over 45 years of drafting documents. But if it's -- if the understanding is different down here, certainly, I mean, I defer to you guys. MR. FRANTZ: I would suggest that it sounds like whatever the recommendation is going to be today that we'll probably be coming back to you with some revised language. So we could take some more time to look at these sections and come back with language that's a little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, originally, that's what we had suggested is what -- staff would need some time with this, because just dropping it on the agenda today would not probably give you time to cover it, and then -- but I think Summer indicated she wanted to talk about it. So, you want -- you can have further discussion, or you can wait, get together with Ned on the side after the meeting, and then try to understand better what he's suggesting, and then come back with better language. It's whatever you prefer, Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. If we're able to work on this further, then I think that's the best option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think after we get done today, it's probably going to need to have further clarification at the next meeting that we have so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: When it comes down to it, Mr. Chairman, for my vote at least, I'm probably going to be voting against all of this. I was just trying to clarify it, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So just so everybody knows. MS. ARAQUE: I think, actually, I really only had two things. I think most all of your other recommendations were very good and very valid, including the beginning where we didn't even have a -- where we struck out the title of the section. So, no, I think the bulk of these are good suggestions. Thank July 20, 2017 Page 24 of 35 you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other comments from staff or you, Mike, do you have anything else you want to add? MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we don't have any other public speakers. This is going to have to be -- we're going to have to provide direction to staff and let them come back with revised language at the next meeting, and hopefully we'll end it there. So we've had plenty of discussion. I know some of you have already indicated your preferences. I just need someone to articulate it so we can agree on the direction that we would give to staff. If you're in agreement with that we drop back and not propose this deviation section and leave it as prohibited to go off site with the exception of, I would strongly suggest, industrial areas, let that remain as it -- I think we can go up to two acres in industrial areas, is it, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: If there is a preserve requirement of two acres or less in industrial, then there's no -- or I guess there's no requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think industrial ought to be left alone. But as far as the rest of it goes, we can close this door and let it go forward that way. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I agree. And, again, just looking at the reactions and the feedback from the people here, I mean, to me I don't want people wasting their time going back making revisions if it sounds like the consensus of this -- of these commissioners is that -- not to do it at all and leave it prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the downside to that piece is if it goes to the Board without this language being, let's say, redone and then corrected to the best of our ability because we feel it shouldn't even be there in the first place, now, the Board still may, by policy, feel it should be, and then they're not going to have corrective language to deal with. I don't know what -- the issue on that. Mike, maybe you've got a better feel for that, or somebody, but -- MR. BOSI: Well, the Board's going to have -- the way that it would be brought is we would bring the recommendation of DSAC, we'd bring the recommendation of CCLAC, and we'd -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Speak up. MR. BOSI: We'd bring the recommendation of DSAC, the recommendation of CCLAC, and then we'd make the recommendation of Planning Commission. You have two recommendations for various components for the endowment related to the off-site preservation with the language that's being proposed, and then the alternative from the Planning Commission would be, I think what I'm hearing is, just to disallow the off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's where I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're looking at that with the exception of the industrial component that -- or there -- I mean, the industrial parks, nothing's going to survive there anyway, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only other exception that maybe was worth consideration is for affordable housing. If this is going to dampen the enthusiasm of developers to develop that kind of property, then maybe we ought to at least think or talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think anything that they find as an excuse will be used. This will just be another one. I'm not sure, though, that -- if affordable housing doesn't take on a better way to fit in with existing neighborhoods, it's just going to be harder and harder for neighbors to accept affordable housing, and every meeting will be attended by multitudes of people who are opposing it because it's not compatible. So I -- and this is a huge compatibility issue. Preservations are a natural buffer. They have all kinds of benefits for both the people living in the affordable homes as well as those around it. And I also think that if you live in an affordable house, you should have the same benefits if you're in this community. So I'd just as soon see that eliminated as well. July 20, 2017 Page 25 of 35 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the one -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm with you, but I'm not sure where the BCC is. But that's up to them to decide where they are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, I -- what you're saying is if they can take it off site because it's affordable housing, then they live on barren land, and that, to me, is much worse. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and the landscaping, generally, in the affordable projects that I've seen and driven through, is not up to standards of some of the gated communities, which I don't expect it to be. But this only further erodes it, so I'm not sure that's really helping anybody. So I think the only exception we ought to consider for where the CCME requires the ability for the Board to consider deviations, they may provide deviations, fine. Let that be met by the industrial park deviations being kept intact and eliminate the rest of it for preserve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd go with that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else okay with that? Okay. Then that's the direction that we're giving to staff to come back at our next meeting, which will be the second meeting in August, to finalize this, hopefully. MR. FRANTZ: And just to clarify, that recommendation is to completely strike out Section F, the off-site vegetation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just get the off-site and deviation section out of there. Then we won't have this constant turmoil with applicants. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, did this not originally come up because it was industrial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would have to go back and research to tell you. It's been a long time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I remember Commissioner Henning having a problem with something commercial, and they needed it to do their building. So that's kind of what I'm referring to. MR. FRANTZ: For industrial projects, there just is no preserve requirement, so they don't use the off-site vegetation alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So for clarification, the Land Development Code, outside of this section of the code, allows that for industrial-zoned properties. If your preserve requirement is two acres or less, you're not required to have a preserve. You don't even have to use the off-site provision; however, there is a possibility that you could have an industrial property -- we don't see it too often, but -- that has, like, a three-acre requirement for preserve. Then they would have to have some preserve on site, so that's where you could consider possibly including deviations in the off-site preserve section for maybe only industrial, so I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just leave industrial the way it is. If they have a big enough piece of property where they need a three-acre preserve, let them leave it on site then. MS. ARAQUE: That sounds -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's just -- you're looking at a large piece of industrial tract, I mean, in business parks and stuff like that. So, okay, leave it there. MS. ARAQUE: But I just want to clarify that LDC requirement. But I'm still not understanding your direction. You're saying remove the deviations altogether? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prohibit deviations for off-site preserves -- for off-site application of preserves. It's done. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And include that in this section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then from there going forward, it's not going to -- we're not going to have deviations coming in asking for it anymore. It's over with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that will take away the need to be concerned about land July 20, 2017 Page 26 of 35 donations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- 4-1 and valuation and all that; gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, all that goes away. MS. ARAQUE: So are we getting rid of the off-site preserve altogether? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think we need an F. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The entire F -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There's not going to be in this section. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- would be deleted and replaced with PUD deviations, and we'll say PUD deviations are prohibited from the section. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's always one of the biggest complaints from the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every time. And every time it's a game being played because -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nobody likes it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's just -- this will stop all that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We can put this in File 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: File 13? Whatever you want. Okay. Staff got enough understanding of what to do at this point? MR. FRANTZ: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll move into the rest of the items on our agenda. ***That takes us to new business. The first item up today on 10A under new business will be Stan Chrzanowski's discussion on salt -- sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About in March, I think, of last year, 2016, a couple of scientists named DeConto and Pollard published an article in Nature Magazine. The article said that their study of the Antarctic ice shelf indicated that there's a good probability that the shelf could melt enough by the year 2100 to raise sea levels around the world six foot. Now, that article caught a lot of people's attentions. I sent copies of the article to the Board of County Commissioners when it came out. I got a couple of responses from Commissioner Fiala. Not too many questions after that. But it kind of caught my attention, and I started going -- if you go into Google News and ask it to alert you any time there's an article on sea level rise, it will send you all the articles, and it's incredible the amount of articles coming out on sea level rise. Well, it turned out that the U.S. Navy was starting to take it seriously because, for some strange reason, they built all their naval bases at sea level. That was supposed to be funny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's kind of depressing, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I think the Navy thought it was kind of depressing, too. I started seeing all these articles, and that was just Antarctica. Then they realized that Greenland is losing its ice cap and that that could contribute two feet to sea level rise. The islands that you see in Northern Canada up in the Arctic Circle, that's all ice above sea level now. There's a misconception. When you have floating ice, like in the Arctic, when it melts, it's like ice cubes in a glass; nothing happens. But when you have glaciers above sea level and they melt like Antarctica, Canada, or Greenland, then you start getting a rise in the sea level. The numbers started out -- now, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their numbers are, like, three years old before any of this hit the fan, and they were talking eight inches. And the Corps of Engineers accepted that, and I think most people accepted that, and then they started looking at all the science that was coming out. July 20, 2017 Page 27 of 35 And the worst numbers, I think, came out of a guy name Hansen who said 15 feet by summing everybody's worst-case scenario together. Now they're starting to talk about it's going to be three feet, and the 6-foot number, when you total them all together, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, and the thermal expansion of the ocean itself, you have two miles of ocean, and everything expands when it's heated. Water expands when it's heated. When you heat two miles of ocean, it might come up a foot per every degree centigrade maybe. So, you know, if you raise the entire temperature of the ocean one or two degrees it's going to come up. So when you sum all these together, I think the number that they've come up with as a median right now is pretty well accepted, is like maybe around 6-foot. But nobody can tell you exactly how fast it's going to rise by 2100, and that's what I was pushing to try to find out. There's a scientist named Ben Strauss with a website called climatecentral.org, and they publish a lot of climate data. And I contacted Rob DeConto, the guy that wrote the article, and he sent me to Ben Strauss. And the county appointed Amy Patterson as being in charge of this, and she's been in contact with Ben Strauss. You also had Harvard coming in trying to tell us how we should redo our architectural standards or the City of Naples how they should prepare for sea level rise. But the thing about sea level rise is, you know, you get storm surge, the surge comes in, causes its damage, and leaves. With sea level rise you get two high tides a day every day for the rest of your life, and if those high tides come in and flood your roads twice a day, you don't -- there's nothing you can do about that. You just leave. Well, that's about what we're looking at. In areas like Goodland and Chokoloskee you have to start wondering, if they're right, if it rises three feet by the year 2050 or 2060, you're going to be removing Chokoloskee. Well, how do you do that? You know, do you just abandon it and leave it out there as an artificial reef, or do you actually go out there and tell people, I'm going to pull up your house and charge you for it, or do you tell them you're going to have to pull up your house and pay for it yourself? And -- you know, there's a whole lot of things to consider that I don't think anybody's really looking at at the county. I mean, we have an emergency management department. If they're right, if it's six foot, we're going to lose the Everglades. Average elevation of the Everglades is six; mean high, high water around there is three. It will flood to Elevation 9 twice a day every day, and we're going to lose the Everglades. We're going to lose Rookery Bay. I'll be long dead, 50 years dead when it happens, but probably only a couple years dead when we lose Rookery Bay because it's right on the coast if the science is right. So what -- the first thing you have to find out is, who is right about how fast it's going to rise, then you have to look at what we have out there. I mean, everybody looks at the civilized areas, you know, Naples itself. The sea walls are maybe, like, Elevation 5.5, so you lose those within 20 years. But Collier Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay, 10,000 Islands, all that, that's totally gone by the time my grandchildren are adults if it's right. I think somebody should look at that. I think somebody should make a presentation to us. Maybe get Amy Patterson to get Ben Strauss in here to tell us what the best science is, what's going to happen right now. I think this is a serious issue. I mean, I don't care about climate change. I don't care about anthropogenic warming, anything like that. But the sea level is rising. There's no doubt in anybody's mind, and look it up. If there's any doubt in your mind, just go into Google and type in "sea level rise" and look. And that's why I wanted somebody to come up here and give us a presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the things this board can do is request those kinds of studies and planning considerations as part of our duties. So if the Board feels like we agree with you and we want that to happen, we can ask staff to put together, over a period of time, for a convenient time in the future, how -- say it will be in the next 60 or 90 days, whatever it would take, for you all to come back with your best-case status on where we're at today with considerations of sea level rise. Is that -- if we were to want that as a group, is that something you could do, Mike? MR. BOSI: You're discussing policy issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We just want to understand what you see as more planning aspects. July 20, 2017 Page 28 of 35 We don't -- we're not trying to set policy. That's the Board's job. We could recommend that they consider policies, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Because we spend money -- like, we're talking about Florida is spending a lot of money on Everglades restoration. Well, if the Everglades is going to be gone by the year 2100, what are we spending the money for? Things like that. You know, yeah, that's policy, but I think that's a planning issue, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, before you go take this too strong, is someone in the county looking at sea level rise? Isn't that -- we have -- that was brought up by the Board before. MR. BOSI: As Stan has mentioned, Amy Patterson's group -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- is currently working through the Board's direction in terms of addressing and providing a framework for that issue to be presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then why doesn't she just come to us and explain to us what her task is and how far along she is with it and just give us a status report? That's all I think we're looking for. MR. BOSI: Okay. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's keep it simple. We know that we're not scientists. We just need to get the simple here's -- we've realized some things. Stan's right, or wrong, whatever she wants to say. I don't think she's going to say you're -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How high and how fast, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. This is what we expect, and this is how we're looking at it. And we're preparing this for the Board, and that's just a status report to us. That would give us what we need. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that work? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else satisfied? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One ice cap just broke off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***The next item up is 10B, which was a discussion based on a handout from Ned concerning NIMs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As every knows, I haven't been on this commission for very long, but one thing that struck me early on and repeatedly was the absence in the NIM transcripts of, at least in my judgment, adequate attribution to who was talking. Now, we want to, of course, preserve the right of private citizens and neighbors to speak without forcing them to identify themselves, and I think I've addressed that. But it's important for us as we assess the situation and decide how we're going to exercise the discretion, it helps to know what the grassroots, if you will, what the people at the very granular level on the ground are thinking and saying and feeling about these developments. And in addition, I think it's also very important for us and for staff to get a clear handle on representations, if you will, assurances that are made in the course of those NIMs by developers with regard to what they plan to do to remediate or address some of the concerns that are expressed. The material I handed out, at the back of it you will see just a couple of pages, and I printed on both sides here, just for illustrative purposes. And it's not the court reporter's fault, because the court reporter's not there. The court reporter does the best that he or she can with the tape recording that's provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If I'm not mistaken, the court reporter -- first of all, they're not required to court report it. They're simply required to record it and make notes. The few -- there's a couple engineering firms that have taken it upon themselves to have a court reporter here who actually types -- actually does verbatim notes of the meeting, minutes of the meeting. Now, the rules that they go by are theirs because they're not required to have a court reporter there. They're not required to provide any of this. You know, that's probably a -- July 20, 2017 Page 29 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking for a low-cost solution to what at least I perceive to be a real problem. And so I'm not suggesting that the developer should pay to have a court reporter present, but I am suggesting in an earlier iteration of this -- and I had some very helpful conversations -- electronic conversations with Heidi about how to deal with this and how to put it in front of this group. In an earlier iteration I made it clear that there would be a requirement on the part of the developer to have it transcribed after the fact and that the transcription would become part of the official record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, after the fact wouldn't help because the recordings don't identify the speakers either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but that takes me to my suggestion, and my suggestion is that -- now, of course, in addition to the proponents, there's going to be a facilitator there from staff, and the facilitator and the proponent should, number one, assure that people don't talk over one another because I think that gets to be a free-for-all and makes it impossible for a court reporter to transcribe even after the fact, but also if we require the applicants, the advocates to identify themselves each time they speak, we'll know who is making the representations, that it comes from the developer, an agent or developer, and then people who are not required to identify themselves, we can assume that they are interested neighbors. Now, I've offered a solution just because I feel like I should if I'm going to express a problem, but the essence of what I'm wanting to do today is express a problem. And I'm not asking for an adoption of this -- either this exact language or the location or placement of a proposed solution, but what I am asking for is that we, as a Planning Commission, ask staff to give consideration to this problem, and that is to say if the members of this commission agree with me that there's a problem to begin with. If they don't, then I don't want to waste people's time. But if people think there's a problem, let's try to identify a solution, and that work should start with staff work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I respond, Ned? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you can. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ned, that is one of the biggest problems. I did speak with one of the agent's people that do this. And if you take, like, your cell phone, they just have that sitting up there where the room has a lot of people, and you don't hear anything. You don't even hear the questions. I said, can you get something where we can hear you, where you take it around, you know? Because we're missing everything, and these NIMs are very important. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have either of you ever asked for the recordings from the NIMs and listened to them? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Should we be required to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think if -- it's a great way to understand how the NIMs transpire. I listen to just about all of them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you able -- well, you probably know Mr. Arnold's voice, for instance, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really care who the voices are. I put everybody -- everybody that speaks, they carry weight. So I listen to what their concerns are, whether they're pro or against, and out of that I decide, okay, this project had certain concerns over it expressed by individuals -- it doesn't matter what side they're on -- then I take those concerns, especially if I hear a commitment made by the developer, and those are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But how do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're summarized. Every one of the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: By the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the developer. That's why I listen to the -- that's why I listen to the tape, because if I hear something on the tape that isn't on the summary, then I have a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, anyway, it's just something to consider. July 20, 2017 Page 30 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you're -- you've got way more experience than I have and I'm sure are more facile at sorting this stuff out, but -- and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I do not feel like I can gain a sufficient understanding of what happened from that NIM by the way that it is transcribed now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then this is probably going to take a code change, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BOSI: And, Mr. Fryer, this is -- this would be the beginning of a potential Land Development Code amendment process. And how that would work -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Heidi guided me otherwise. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. All the details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws so, actually, an amendment could be done to Code of Laws for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code of Laws? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Administrative Code can be amended by resolution. Yeah, the LDC only requires the NIM. The details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the Admin Code? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Admin, procedures. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the admin -- our Administrative Code is in the Collier County Code of Laws, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I actually started with a draft ordinance -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So it's not an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and Heidi guided me away from that, which made sense because why take it to a higher level than you need to? But I have proposed ordinance language, if that's the direction that people want to go in. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He has distributed the correct section of the Administrative Code, and Mr. Fryer had spoken to me about getting a transcript. That's the last that I knew, that you were going to recommend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you see this then working its way through processes to become language? Simply going to the Board, having them amend the Admin Code? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to going to the Board to have them amend the Admin Code, is there any other meetings that the Admin Code level would take it to? I mean, DSAC, stakeholders, anything like that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. Not -- it's not required. Now, whether they want that information, that's another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this would impact every single project in regards to NIMs, plus a lot of other NIMs that are held for projects that are not to the level of PUDs. MR. BOSI: And, just for fairness, the NIMs are not meetings that are run by staff. Those are the applicant's meeting. So I would think, in fairness, we would at least want to provide any potential modifications to the process for how a NIM is supposed to be with at least the DSAC. And, speaking with Jeremy, that would be our normal process for any Administrative Code changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that if -- I think that's the route to go, but absolutely to include the concerns that Ned has expressed that I think the rest of us probably are on the same page. I would love to see a transcript instead of having to listen to those obnoxious tapes. If there's a way to make this better, I'm all for it. So I think if DSAC were to understand the frustrations, maybe by what they've seen as examples here, and their support was added to the admin recommendation to change to the Board -- because those don't come to us; they go straight to the Board -- that would be helpful. Anybody else have any concerns over? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move in that direction, then, Mike, as a request from this board to consider the added language. MR. FEE: Can I say something? July 20, 2017 Page 31 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, certainly, if it needs to go through other groups, that's fine as well. The more input the better. I just -- from my perspective, I just don't feel like I can do my job properly with what's being supplied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a disagreement with you. I just -- I don't have a problem with it as it is, but I understand your concern. Mike, did you want anything else to add? MR. BOSI: I think -- and it would be -- simply, would it be the requirement for a court reporter for transcripts to be provided at each individual NIM? That's what the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not necessarily the court reporter be present. But if the advocates, if the developers identify themselves, that's what I want to know, and then I can assume that the people who are listed as unidentified are neighbors. And what I'm going at here is wanting to know if a developer makes a commitment or a representation with respect to what they're proposing to do to ameliorate a problem raised by a neighbor. MR. BOSI: And that's the sole purpose of why staff attends the neighborhood information meetings, to record it -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. BOSI: -- to record any commitments that are provided for. So I'm still a little -- the clarification would be, simply, that each speaker has to -- the requirement that each speaker identify themselves before that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the same thing that happens here. In fact, you're here all the time. Every time you speak, you say, "for the record, I'm Mike Bosi," so it's not -- it's not something that is going to, I think, create an unreasonable burden on the people. All I'm asking is when the proponents stand up they say, for the record, I'm Mr. Arnold for the developer, and then say what they're going to say; that's all. In fact, maybe to help clarify what I'm driving at, let me also circulate through staff the draft ordinance that I had prepared, which is more detailed than this. I took Heidi's good suggestion to boil it down and put it in an administrative procedure, but some of that was lost in my effort. And perhaps when you see that, you'll gain a better understanding of what I'm concerned about and what my proposed solution is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So if I'm hearing you correctly and to clarify, if I may, Mrs. Ebert. Mike's question, the speaker that's identifying themself is the applicant or the applicant's agents, not the public. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the second thing is, I'm hearing you say you want a trans -- you want the transcript of the tape of the meeting, recorded meeting or -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I understand -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- you want a court reporter there to transcribe? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I don't want a court reporter there because that adds cost, and I'm not trying to do that. I realize it's still going to be a cost to have a court reporter, but I'm assuming it's less expensive if they don't have to be on site. And it would be easier for them to transcribe if at least they have the benefit of the developer's -- or the proponent's agent saying, you know, I'm Mr. Smith representing the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, right now they're not required to transcribe it. So now we are requiring them to transcribe it, so that means you would need a court reporter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is added cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to be an added cost in some cases, but in some cases, for instance, in Addie's Corner they did it anyway. In other cases I know they do a summary. I find the summary inadequate, and I'm not willing to rely on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is why we have the audio. But if you don't want to use the audio -- so what we would be introducing is an audio transcribed by a court reporter to provide to us; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Essentially, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you had said you didn't want to increase the cost. That will July 20, 2017 Page 32 of 35 change the cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It will change the cost for those developers who have not transcribed it. But some do. For instance, in Addie's Corner, it was transcribed. So they won't notice a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- or they'll say it's getting too complicated; we're just going to stick to what the code requires. That's the -- it's nice that they were doing that, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the code doesn't -- the code doesn't prohibit the administrative procedures from extending the requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but it will -- if we put it in the administrative procedures, it will be a requirement, and that will increase the cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is true, for some, for those who aren't already doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What I have found going to some of these NIM meetings is their recording equipment is very poor. That's why you're not hearing this stuff. It's unidentified, unidentified. And I don't care who's speaking, whether it's the developer or whatever; when we get it, there's too much of this unidentified. So to me, it's poor equipment. If they had a microphone that you could hear, that would be easy to transcribe. It's just -- that's what I'm finding is they put these little things out there like a phone, and that's what captures whatever they can capture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mike, I think the best thing to do is take a look at how this could work into a better system, whether it be done by the staff, done by a court reporter afterwards, and just see what -- just take it to DSAC as a walk-on item or a discussion item for them, if you could, and get some feedback. I think that would be the first step, and then we can decide -- well, it's not our discussion. Then it goes -- it's an Admin Code issue, so that would go to the Board. We could certainly recommend to the Board something after we get some feedback. MR. BOSI: So I'm just trying to understand. What I'm going to ask the DSAC that there's -- the Planning Commission would like to explore further measures to more accurately capture the conversation such as transcribing the actual recordings at the NIM? Because that's not required now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That about sums it up. MR. BOSI: Just want to make sure -- I wanted to carry the same message. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're exploring the request. So I don't think we've got enough information to say absolutely we need to do it. I'd like to see what the industry thinks as far as practicability of it. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and that's all I can think of at this point. Anybody else? Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I think it also requires, beyond just the transcript, it's an identification of those that are there on behalf of the developer and then identifying when those folks speak. So, you know, I guess Ned's not asking to chase down the citizen who might stand up and, you know, say something and no one knows who that guy in the back with the green shirt was or whatever, but those who are running the meeting and required to do the meeting, they actually will have to be identified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly what I'm driving at. MR. BOSI: So every time a member of the development team speaks, they have to identify themselves as a representative. MR. EASTMAN: No, not necessarily -- they don't have to say it over and over again. They just -- when the transcript is finalized, it indicates when and where they speak. MR. BOSI: But there's no requirement for a transcript now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's so -- there would have to be a transcript is what -- the transcript, then, would have to reflect those people that spoke by them identifying themselves on the recording to if they're associated with the developer. MR. EASTMAN: Correct. And I don't want to speak for Ned, but I think Ned's moving toward making a transcription a requirement of the NIM saying that he doesn't want to rely upon the executive summary. And having sat on this board for years, I've seen you, Chairman Strain, utilize the NIM and the statements made at the NIM to keep people honest over and over and over again. July 20, 2017 Page 33 of 35 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I was going to continue doing that. MR. EASTMAN: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I suppose I would resort to that if needs be, but I'd rather not have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll just have to see. I'd like to get some input from at least DSAC at this point. Anybody else on the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, I'll see what you've got to say if you want to take a few minutes. MR. FEE: For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I wasn't sure that was on the agenda, or it was added before the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was added as an add-on, walk-on. MR. FEE: Got it. I appreciate that you've brought this up. Many years ago, I can remember when we did not have a neighborhood information meeting, and I think it is very valuable from both sides, from the development side as well as the neighborhood side, so -- support it. As far as reviewing it, I definitely feel that there should be -- I don't know how long it's been since there's been any Administrative Code or Land Development Code review of the neighborhood information meeting. I believe it needs to be reviewed. When it's in the Admin Code, I understand it only really goes to the Board. It always used to be with land use matters that there were several bites at the apple for the public to review these. And what I would say to you, while I understand the ability to do it quicker -- and, you know, I would say on land use matters with the Admin Code, it would be important that you, as planners, at least get to have that opportunity at one meeting. How you go about requiring that, that's up to the lawyers here. And so I think it would be difficult to bring it to the Board because they may rely on you to make some recommendations, review it, and bring it -- you know, they're just going to hear the public. They're not going to hear the planners. So I definitely feel that it's ripe for review, specifically. With notice requirements, does the NIM require that the landowner -- I think there's, like, a 500-foot radius. But my understanding is if you draw the circle and you have three buildings in a PUD, it's those three buildings of that PUD that get notified, but you may have affected parties that are outside of that but are still in the neighboring PUD. Are they required to give notice? If I live in a neighbor, and my neighborhood -- my neighbor says, oh, I received this card in the mail, and they're one building over but we live in the same neighborhood, he may go to the meeting and I may not. So I think there may be a reason to review that 500-foot. If it touches a PUD, then it should be all the homeowners in that PUD and not select buildings. The other thing that I will say is typically you'll get applications in CityView for PUD amendments or PIDI, whatever you call them, and then you'll have Site Development Plans. And with neighborhood information meetings, there's the requirement for them to hold the meeting but, typically, it's before staff has even reviewed the application, and things will change in what gets submitted, and then the neighborhood won't actually hear the negotiations or whatever comes about. So I think it's a timing issue, too, that it -- maybe not to be early on or, if it's early on and it goes a length of time, they definitely should have to come back and say what the changes are. So, anyways, if that helps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike said that staff attends all NIMs, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So sometimes you attend the NIM before you get the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. BOSI: No. The NIM, as required, can only be held after the first review from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they've got to be held within one year of our meeting. Tom was next, by the way. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Fee suggested that if one member of a community gets a notice and then the July 20, 2017 Page 34 of 35 other person that's, say, 501 feet away, the whole remainder of the community should get the notice. Perhaps a better and more efficient way to do that was to keep it at the 500 feet, but when you involve a community, send it to that HOA or the chairman of that HOA or that group, because that could become onerous when you nip the tip of the iceberg on a huge community with the 500 feet, and then you have literally thousands of people that, in some cases, could be a mile away, and that could be particularly onerous if we follow that suggestion. MR. BOSI: And our code does require that. The HOAs are notified, and it's only the structures within the 500 feet. So that scenario is provided for by the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already in the code. MR. FEE: I recently went to a NIM within the last two months, and the planner, Eric Johnson, who's not here, sat in the audience. And I knew -- I know who Eric is, but 99 percent of the people would not know, and there was no -- there's no ability for them to know who to speak to on the county's part. It was a NIM by the developer, but the county staff more or less was in the audience. So I think it's important that they also be identifying themselves. And I would go for the transcript, because if there's $100 fee for an hour or two meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be more than that, but -- MR. FEE: -- staff puts a -- when it goes to the Board, staff puts a staff summary. So why not have the transcript, which is, in essence, what the developer's putting in as well. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And that takes us to the end of new business. And there's no old business. Any other public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN July 20, 2017 Page 35 of 35 ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. August 17, 2017 Page 1 of 49 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 17, 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Karen Homiak ABSENT: Ned Fryer Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Fred Reischl, Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative August 17, 2017 Page 2 of 49 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer is absent. Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Fryer indicated they had other commitments they had to meet today, so they're excused -- their absences are excused. And, with that, we'll move into normally a simple item, addenda to the agenda, but it will not be so simple today. We have a little discussion to have. Most of you were notified either by email or phone concerning the Cirrus Pointe project. What happened is last Thursday, after the staff report was issued, it was noticed that the NIM meetings and minutes and standards were not in there. In reviewing the LDC, they're required to be -- that NIM is required to be heard 15 days before this public meeting. This was only seven days, so we couldn't hear it today under any circumstances because its inconsistent with our Code of Laws -- or our Land Development Code. As a result, we looked for another date in which this room was available, try -- in keeping in with the expedited permitting process that Cirrus Pointe was set up under. The soonest date that could have been possible was the 31st of August, but then earlier this week another discovery was made is that they had not gotten time in front of the CRA. The NIM that was held in that area provided the simple notice of 500 feet. A lot of the people in Bayshore involved in the CRA were all not aware of everything that was going on with the NIM and the other issues. So with the help of Commissioner Taylor and Leo Ochs we were able to -- we were able to be able now to continue this until the September 7th meeting, which is our regular meeting, and the CRA will have time to have had a presentation by the applicant for the Cirrus Pointe project to their board first so they can provide us with their recommendation and input on that particular project. That also -- what is particularly important is that provides the time for the Planning Commission report to get to the Board before the Board's 26th meeting. So everything stays on schedule. The whole issue probably occurred because of the expedited permitting. I think everybody rushed to get this accommodated and, as a result, some things didn't get correlated as they normally would. So, with that, I would like to get a motion from this panel to continue PUDA-PL20170001626, which is the Cirrus Pointe RPUD, to the September 7th meeting of this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) August 17, 2017 Page 3 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. There is another point I'd like to stress to staff, and it was something that now shows up because of this particular case. It was odd that the CRA hadn't had time to review this, and there's various issues that went back and forth between the applicant and the CRA trying to find a time where it worked for everybody, but I also noticed that in the checklist that's provided for a rezone application, as well as checklists for conditional uses, variances, and other things, those checklists don't contain a reference to the CRA. Now, I know the CRA is not a required review, but I think it would be -- it would be beneficial if the applicants were noticed earlier on that they need to get with the -- that it be preferrable to talk with the CRA or present to the CRA if they're involved in one. And we have two CRAs. We have Bayshore and Immokalee. You could add a line to a checklist so everybody just knows it's there and can then respond to it. I think it may help avoid these kind of situations. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I definitely agree. We have on our checklist routing slips for special reviews such as City of Naples or Marco Island or Airport Authority. We definitely will add that for the CRA -- both CRAs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one was kind of like a double whammy as far as scheduling, because one reason was the NIM, and I think everybody's aware of that now. And the second now is the CRA issue wasn't even discovered until this week. So it's good that -- if we could do that. At least the applicants know early on they better address it, because when it gets here, that's one of the things we'd be asking for. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And during the pre-application meetings for these types of petitions, it's always good to go through the checklists for those special reviews to make sure the applicant's aware that they need to coordinate with them, and staff needs to make sure the routing goes to those agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, Ray. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know -- and I appreciate your comments, Mark -- on the 22nd, next Tuesday, Deborah Forrester will be in. She's the executive director for the Immokalee CRA as well as the Bayshore CRA. She'll be in to the planning offices at three o'clock. And we're going to bring in not only the principal planners, but our redevelopment team, our LDC amendment team, introduce the team to Deborah and discuss some of these coordination issues that maybe we had lacked in the past without the designated executive director. So these issues are going to be put on the table, as you said, and articulated a little bit better to the planners in terms of how that coordination needs to be stressed at the very beginning of the process. But I appreciate those comments, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the other thing, if anybody -- are any members of the public here specifically for the Cirrus Pointe project? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If those of you -- those that are watching, the CRA is going to meet on this matter. They have a regular meeting. It was initially scheduled for September 5th, I believe. By us going on the 7th, we'll have time to have a verbal analysis or a presentation done by the CRA director or a member of the CRA at our meeting on the 7th, so we'll have the benefit, then, of the CRA's input on this August 17, 2017 Page 4 of 49 matter. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I will not be here on the 7th. It's very frustrating because I spent a lot of time with that project. But my youngest granddaughter is getting married, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I'm flying out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an opportunity then. Can we add a few more things to the agenda? Thank you for letting us know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You don't look that old. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that does take us to the Planning Commission absences. Now, you all had been polled about the August 31st, and I've already let Troy know. The 31st is off. We no longer need it, so we will not be in this room on the 31st. So your attendance, then, obviously, is not needed. How many know if they cannot make it on the 7th? I already know Diane can't. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll still have a quorum. Plus we have two other members who most likely will be able to be here. The next meeting after that, and we do have items scheduled for it, is September 21st. So just keep that in mind. And on the 7th I'll poll everybody to make sure when have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will be there on the 21st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Approval of minutes; anybody -- I don't believe there were any -- yeah, there weren't any minutes attached to it this time, so we're good. And that takes us to the BCC reports and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not hold a meeting in August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report; I don't have anything today. ***And we'll move directly into -- oh, and there's no consent items left over from last meeting, so we will move directly into our first advertised public hearing. It's 9A. It's PL20170000007. That's for the Briarwood PUD located on the east side of Livingston Road north of Radio Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures, way over on Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I received several letters and emails from the community that are incorporated in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, what he said, and then a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Quite a few emails that I received, and I also spoke with staff and Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from my part, I have received a lot of emails. I've sent them all to the planner. They're part of public record. I've also reviewed the audio for the NIM. And there was other meetings held. They weren't official NIMs, but they were presentations to some of the neighborhoods. I attended one of those early on to understand this project. When it was first presented to me by citizens in the area, it was presented as an affordable housing project. I soon learned that was not the case. And I'll ask the applicant to expand on that when we get into the meeting. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. August 17, 2017 Page 5 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Lots of emails and letters; all public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. And I did have conversations with at least one of the Board of County Commissioners. I think it was Ms. Taylor. With that, Bob, as you make your presentation -- there's been a lot of information, and I was approached early on with some information. It turns out to be misinformation. It was concerning the nature of how this operation -- how your proposal was going to operate. And I looked at everything you've provided thoroughly. I didn't see any reference to affordable housing in there. So I would like, as part of your presentation, to discuss that aspect of the project. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can start right off the bat. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes. There is no proposal here -- this is a market-rated project. There's no proposal for any affordable housing. It hasn't been reviewed for that. It wasn't submitted. It's never had that as an element of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: With me this morning, my client Brett Boyd, sitting right there; Rich Yovanovich, he's the land use attorney; also have Terry Cole with Hole Montes, who's the civil engineer. Actually, he is not working on the design of this project, but he's up to speed, because that civil engineer is out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, for disclosure, I did meet with you and I think Richard and the applicant -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- earlier this week on these for a pre-meeting. MR. MULHERE: And also Norm Trebilcock, who is our traffic engineer and planner. You have -- I think Mike put the aerial up there; Mike Bosi. It sort of shows the general area. It doesn't show the entire PUD which actually runs a little bit further to the north. But the sub -- this is new. Every time -- I just figured out how to use the old one; we've got a new one here, so -- and, Rich, do you want to -- can someone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the orientation actually may work better, huh? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That's good. It's pretty dark, but there we go. It's really not much different than what was on the screen, but -- is that on? Yes. So this is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might just want to slide that up a little bit. We can't -- the bottom's cut off. There you go. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: This is the subject property right here that's a 15.99-acre parcel within the Briarwood PUD, and this is the multifamily project within the PUD that's most close -- our closest neighbor, Dover Parc, and this is the recreational facility here. This is a little preserve right here. Just for getting it on the record, that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to pick that mike up closer to you there, Bob. MR. MULHERE: That's the zoning map. Briarwood is here, Maplewood is here, and they both extend a little -- excuse me. They both extend a little bit further to the north. The commercial tract -- as I know you're aware because you had another petition some time ago, the commercial tract allows -- it's 15.99 acres. It's undeveloped, and it allows for a whole list of commercial uses, including shopping center, retail, restaurant. And presently it's owned by Lowe's Corporation. It would allow that type of home improvement store as well. I believe there was actually an SDP approved years ago for a Lowe's home improvement store. The square footage that's allowed on that -- on those commercial tracts in the PUD is limited to 20 percent of the commercial area. If you do the math on that, that translates to a maximum square footage of 139,305 square feet. That PUD also allows for up to 600 dwelling units, most of which have been constructed. Nearly all of those have been constructed north of this property within the PUD. We had quite a bit of public outreach. I know in your packet there is the summary minutes from the August 17, 2017 Page 6 of 49 NIM that we held on May 16th. We had very good attendance at that. There were a lot of great questions asked. But even prior to that, my client held two, sort of, town hall meetings, and so we had a fair amount of public outreach for this. But in addition to those two -- three meetings, the informal town hall meetings and the formal NIM, we also have -- I personally have spoke to a number of the residents over the telephone after the advertisement went out and they were notified of the hearing. And even before that, after some of these meetings, residents reached out; particularly, they were residents in Dover Parc. They're the closest to it and the most affected. I know my client also spoke to a number of the residents. Let me put on the conceptual site plan. One of the issues -- one of the issues that I heard from folks that called me with concerns and also heard expressed numerous times was the question about having an interconnection between this project and the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. And we never proposed to have an interconnection. This PUD is already interconnected further to the north with some RSF3 zoned properties that function as part of the PUD, though they're not zoned PUD. I just wanted to point out there's two access points to this tract separate and apart from the access points to the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. One is here on Radio Road. These are already improved. They were paid for by the then owner of the property while the Radio Road and Livingston Roads were improved. So the turn lanes are in. The access points are in. One is here, and one is right here. There is an existing roadway right here called Skelly Road -- I think that says Shelly Road, but it's Skelly Road -- that sort of ends in a cul-de-sac right here. And we do not intend to actually make that interconnection. We would basically have landscaping and a wall here, so that roadway would stop right here short of our project. We do intend to have gates in this community here, here, and here so that there is some parking that's available here outside of the gates. But once you enter into the community, you would have to go through these gates. Part of the discussion about the interconnection -- about the interconnection and the recreational facilities -- because that was part of the discussion, too. At the neighborhood information meeting the issue was raised about whether or not -- if this was developed as residential, there was a legal ability for my client and the future residents of this project both to have vehicular access to the remainder of Briarwood and also to use their recreational facilities. And while we never intended to do that -- and I believe we clearly stated that several times at that meeting -- it was requested that we do the research. Mr. Yovanovich did that research. There was a legal ability to access their recreational facilities and their roads; however, we do not intend to do that, and we would be happy with the condition or stipulation that says that we will not do that. Moving beyond that, there is also recorded instruments that require my client to pay a fair share contribution for the costs of those recreational facilities. And although we will not use those -- well, one, I don't think we could actually change that requirement and, two, we've already agreed that we would make that fair share contribution. So hopefully that answers some of the questions that I know people have. Let's talk about stormwater. You can see on the conceptual site plan there is a lake there. This project, the Briarwood PUD, has an overall stormwater management plan that was approved. This project is included in that overall stormwater management plan, as you would expect. This lake will be connected to the other lakes in the overall stormwater management plan. It will provide for some additional water quality and storage capacity. And, obviously, with respect to the question of stormwater management and the costs of maintaining that moving forward in the future, we will have to also contribute our fair share cost for those improvements to this master stormwater management plan, and we assume that would be on a pro rata share based on acreage. We did request one deviation which staff has recommended approval for. I'll put that on the -- I want to just point out something about the site planning. As we had discussions with the folks that live in the condominium which is closest to us -- and if you look at the aerial, I want to point out that, basically, from this, sort of, Skelly Road here, moving towards Livingston, this is a preserve here. This is a recreational facility, and so there's quite a bit of -- there's no residential structures there and quite a bit of vegetation in this August 17, 2017 Page 7 of 49 area. But these residential structures do exist close to our property moving this way. Here is a lake. They don't -- obviously there's no residential structures there; but right in here. So in preparing the site plan and discussing the desires of the neighbors, we had several iterations of this site plan -- four or five -- and we moved these structures and these parking structures and this parking. We kind of condensed it and moved it so that we could have a substantial buffer area, particularly where we're adjacent to those residential condominium structures. As I said, when you get up into this area, it narrows down, but it's wider here, wider here, and wider here. And that was in order to provide for the -- at the request of those residents. They have a pretty tall hedge. And beyond the hedge they wanted to be able to access it for maintenance. So we've agreed to retain an 8- to 10-foot clear area there and put our landscape buffer on the other side of that. So this is anywhere from a minimum of 15, probably closer to 20 feet. And as a result -- I also wanted to point out that there are some easements along Livingston and also along Radio that are a right-of-way easement, provides for the turn lanes, and then there's a slope easement, a 10-foot slope easement. And as a result of squeezing this, we requested a deviation from the required Type D landscape buffer along the two arterial roadways so that we could provide more landscaping over here. And I'll put that on the visualizer. I have to go a little smaller. That's probably good enough. You won't be able to read the text. Maybe a little bigger. I'm sorry, Ray. Oh, Fred, sorry. Ray's over there. Got a long arm, Ray. Okay. So this width of the easement varies. Here's your 10-foot county road or slope easement, and this is this 10-foot enhanced Type D buffer. We did work with Mark Templeton to identify a palette of plants that are larger and more plants, and also we'd be putting in a decorative fence in there. And I have an exhibit in a few minutes I'll show you that depicts that or something similar to that. So staff did recommend approval for that deviation. That's 10-foot wide with all the -- actually far more than the required plantings at different levels; canopy trees, midstory, and then, of course, the hedges that are required. I wanted to talk just a minute about we do obviously have a finding from staff that we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. So let's focus on density calculations for a minute, because we are requesting 320 units. This PUD is 209.17 acres in size. So this is Option 1 for calculating the density. If you -- the PUD is eligible for five dwelling units per acre and that's based on the Comprehensive Planning staff's evaluation; a base of four plus a bonus unit for the access to the two arterial roadways. If you do that math, that times 209.17 acres is 1,046 units. The PUD was approved for 600, and so that leaves available 446 dwelling units. We are requesting 320. The PUD was originally approved on the 209.17 acres. You subtract out the 15.99-acre commercial tract, and you base the PUD's per-acre density on the remaining 193.18 as is prescribed by our Land Development Code as a method for calculating density, you come up with a density of 3.12 dwelling units per acre. When you add in what we are requesting, that density increases to 4.4 dwelling units per acre on a gross. There is another way you could calculate density that we're eligible for. We don't need it. It's just informational. This 16-acre tract, 15.99 tract, is eligible for a bonus for conversion from commercial to residential because it's not within an activity center, and that 16 units per acre, you could actually realize 1,222 dwelling units. The rest of the math doesn't change. We really don't need that. It's just for informational purposes. The first option is the one that I think really matters. Now, I wanted to talk a little bit about the -- what this project would look like. And at the conclusion of my comments -- which I'm getting close to the end -- is my client will come up and talk a little bit about the actual operational and unit sizes and marketing that he's done. He's got a lot of good information. I'd rather have him make that brief presentation to you, because I think he's got that information really in his head more so than I do. So I think that the project that is the closest by comparison to this that probably you're all familiar with would be the Orchid Run project. You know, for me -- I don't know if everyone agrees, but I think it August 17, 2017 Page 8 of 49 was very well done. It's a very attractive project. It's on the intersection of two six-lane roadways, just as this project is. That project is about 22 acres in size, but about six acres of that -- about four and change are in the FP&L easement and another 1.8 acres are actually in the canal easement, the Golden Gate Canal easement. When you look at the net of what's developable, it's a little bit over 15 acres in size. Our project is 15.99 acres in size. So, again, they're very similar. They have two and four-story buildings in there. We're proposing three- and four-story buildings. Again, very similar. The net density on that project, if you look at that 15-and-change acres, is 19 units per acre. We're proposing 20 units per acre. So, yes, a little bit more, but not much more, and very similar. I wanted to show you some photographs of that project, because ours will be very similar to that. This also shows the landscape buffer, although ours is enhanced beyond what you see there from a planting perspective, as we agreed to with the deviation. That sort of decorative fence, although it may not be exactly that way, that gives you an idea of what we're proposing for sort of an aluminum or metal decorative fence. Also, with the canopy trees, there will be canopy trees, midstory trees, and then double hedge row. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, since you're showing that photograph, and before we pass it, just so the Planning Commission's clear, that's a -- looks like a wider buffer than what you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: It is, but you can also see that a portion of it is turf. And I think in here this is about 10 feet. I walked it. I couldn't attest to it, but it's about 10 feet in width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a portion on the backside, too. MR. MULHERE: Yes; a little bit, yes. By the way, what I didn't point out -- and I'm glad you asked that question -- is that that slope easement, that's 10 feet wide, you know, will remain as it is today. It won't be part of our landscape buffer but, you know, it functions the same way as the turf area here does. This is another example. And you can see the buildings in the back, parking in the front and, of course, the landscape buffer there. And here's, I think, another example right here. You see that four-story building. So, just in conclusion, obviously we have a team here that can answer any of your questions if I haven't answered them. And I'm going to ask Brett to come up here in one minute, but I just wanted to point out some summary kind of thoughts. I think you all know that the county has a significant shortage of rental housing, market rate rental housing -- it's in the thousands of units -- and that market rates are -- rental rates are very high. And I think there's two ways, potential ways that I know of, that you can address that, and maybe one is a combination, so maybe there's three ways. You can subsidize rental housing, or you can increase the supply. It's simple supply and demand. If you increase the supply, you will reduce the cost of those units. There are a significant amount of -- number of units that have been approved and maybe are either under construction or will be soon. I heard a number of approximately 2,000 including this project. That doesn't even meet the projected shortage. So when you think about economic development, when you think about trying to attract employees, what better location than a location that's in the heart at the urban area. Really, when you look at that aerial, this is almost an infill parcel. It's surrounded by development. Across the street is the Wawa store. Across the way the other way is Foxfire to the south, plus their golf maintenance shed. We've taken pains to create a relationship with our closest neighbors that addresses their concerns, and so this is a really good location. Staff has reviewed this project and recommended approval. We know that this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we know that this will be an excellent project, very well done, very, very high-end and very similar to in sort of the quality of a project that you can look at that's already been developed that's very attractive. And we sort of looked at that when we began to design this and tried to model this in many ways similar. Not exactly the same. Not the same architecture, but very similar to that. So with that, I'm going to ask Brett to come up and talk a little bit about -- I know I heard some questions about sizes and rents and so forth, so I'm going to let him speak to those issue. August 17, 2017 Page 9 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Can I ask you a question first? MR. MULHERE: Yes; sure, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there any way at all to make sure that these apartments are rented by county staff or fire, police? Any way like that to make sure of that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think there's different demands. I want -- I think that's something that Brett's going to get into and then we'll come -- I think if you would give us a little leeway, we'll answer that question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But the reason I say that is there's also a -- there's also a demand, for example, for a certain segment of senior housing. And so -- you're talking about some; you're not talking about all. And I think we can address that question, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I'm talking about all; not some. MR. MULHERE: Okay. All right. I guess that will teach me to put words in your mouth, huh? Yeah. MR. BOYD: Good morning. For the record, Brett Boyd, Boyd Land Development. I'm the applicant for this project. It's nice to be here this morning. Nice to have all the residents here as well, and I'm hoping to at least communicate some of their concerns and issues that have come up over this process. Communication was very important on -- as far as one of my goals early on, so that's why we had two town hall meetings before the NIM. Anything that came up with the neighbors subsequent to that, I have encouraged myself to come to meetings to address any specific letters, and I tried to be very responsive to that. Obviously, I can't present a project today that's going to address everybody's concerns, but I'm hoping to make modifications and try to be a good neighbor. One of the first things that we did, as you can see in the site plan, a lot of buildings are pushed up near the right-of-way. And what I did early on -- this is probably the 21st site plan iteration. Initially I had buildings closer to Dover Parc, and one of the first things we did, obviously, is try to address those concerns and push the buildings further away from the existing residents and to address their concerns about buffering and walls and landscaping, things like that. So that was a priority for me and our team as far as communicating with the neighbors. Obviously, I can't make everybody happy, but I'm hoping to at least present today a good quality project for Briarwood and Collier County. As far as what we've tried to design, we've got -- I don't know if we can show that, Bob; the elevation boards. The design style is called plan Spanish Colonial Revival, whatever that means. It's, I'm told, a Santa Barbara look, and it's an all concrete construction. So it's all concrete including the floors between the units. It's a plank construction and concrete block. And so -- and we have barrel tile roofs. We're trying to be somewhat of a green type of project. We're looking at incorporating some of that Solarcity tesla roofing systems. We're looking at adding some solar panels that could make us a little bit more green. We're putting electric vehicle charging stations in the garages and some other charging stations outside of the garages as well. So we're, again, trying to have something that's attractive and that would be an access for the neighbors. And we're not looking to diminish property values. We're looking to increase property values in the neighborhood. That's my goal. Some of the concerns that I heard a lot of is traffic. I understand it. I live in the same district as you all do. I deal with the same traffic. The positive here with multifamily is that we do have a reduced amount of traffic, and I'll let Norm talk to that a little bit, but we're less than half as much traffic as a shopping center. Primarily our access will be off of Livingston Road. And you can see the site plan there. That's the primary access. That's where the clubhouse is. We do have a secondary access for Radio Road as well. And to follow up on a comment that Bob made that I just want to make sure there's clarity, because August 17, 2017 Page 10 of 49 we still get questions about it; the recreational facilities, this is something that we want absolutely nothing to do -- we're willing to make it part of the record that we have no legal access to your -- or when I say "legal access," we have -- that we would make it a record that we would not have access to your recreational facilities, period. That still means that I do pay for it, though. I'm going to pay my pro rata share of your recreational facilities but I don't get to use it. What we have proposed here in our application is I've got a budget of about $2.6 million in our pool, the pool deck area, the fitness center, the clubhouse. So we're trying to make a premier type of project for our own tenants that they're going to use. And they have no rights to -- in our leases it will say that. They have no rights to access your recreational facilities. Also, we have -- right now we do have the right for access into Briarwood but, again, we're willing to make that a condition of our application that we will not have any access through Briarwood. We have a standalone project here, but we want to be good neighbors, and I think there's a way to make this work where we can make our financial contributions to Briarwood and your recreational facilities but we don't use them. Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about tenant mix. We've done a lot of studies to see who our tenants are going to be at this project. In up to age 29, it's about 15 to 20 percent, up to age 39 is another 20 to 22 percent, and a majority is 40 and over. So there will be some young professionals, but there's also folks that are my age, 55 and above, that are looking for a nice quality development with a lot of amenities that would like to live the Naples experience. Our average unit sizes, which are very important that I want to communicate today to the neighbors -- our average square footage is about a little over a thousand square feet; 1,047 square feet. Our rents range anywhere from $1,400 to $2,000 a month. Our leases are -- the only leases that -- when we lease up the project, we're looking for one-year leases or even longer. The reason for that -- and I think you can appreciate that for some of you who rent out units there in Briarwood -- it costs money to turn over your renters. So we're looking to try to make a good quality product for our development and for folks to keep leasing, the same tenants, because it costs money. So if you have shorter leases, you're going to have time where that unit -- it takes time to lease that unit out to market. And that's a cost of doing business. So we are -- our lease up is one year leases. You can do something shorter than that, but you pay a premium for it. And I think you can see, even on -- looking at the information on the website for Orchid Run up the street, you pay a 30, 40 percent premium if you do something less than a one-year lease. So there's a penalty to do something shorter. So, again, at our price point and our square footage, we're a different market than those of you who have investments in Briarwood. And I know there's a number of people in Briarwood that are renting their units, and that's an important issue for them. But, overall, we're trying to do a nice, quality development. We're trying to be responsive to your suggestions and your comments, and we hope to be an asset and improve the immediate market area. Thank you very much. Oh, let me -- Rich would like me to give you a little bit more detail on the square footage sizes. The smallest units are 756 square feet. There's 54 of them. And I can, again, send an email out to anchor to send them on to all of you. First of all, let me just give you a broad scope. One-bedrooms is 44 percent of the total, two-bedrooms are 48 percent, and three-bedrooms are 8 percent. The square footages, the one-bedrooms range from 756 square feet up to 790 square feet; the two-bedrooms range from 1,122 square feet up to -- there's a few large ones at 1,600 square feet. There's just a few of those; and then three-bedrooms are about 1,400 square feet. So that gives you a little bit of a feel of the breakdown. So I'd be happy to address any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- and I'm assuming you're -- do you have more presentation, or do you want questions now? Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to address just a couple of comments. When Bob spoke about the water management system, it's a master water management system for Briarwood. The way the documents are currently written, this parcel would not be required to pay any proportionate share towards what maintenance of the water management system. August 17, 2017 Page 11 of 49 My client has said they're willing to pay their proportionate share, which is currently a financial obligation it doesn't have under the documents. So I just wanted to make that clear that they are agreeing to incur some additional expenses that they're not currently required to do. And regarding kind of the history of where my letter came from is we were at a neighborhood information meeting, and a lot of people were questioning my client when he said he had the right to use the recreational facilities under their documents but he did not intend to use those facilities. Since I have real estate partners, I had not read the documents myself. I said, let me go back. Let me read all the documents. I'll send you a letter explaining all of the rights that currently exist under those documents. So that's where that letter came from. It was no way intended -- and some people said in their meetings that we're trying to bully them into using their facilities or using their roads. It was purely an informational: This is what the documents currently provide. We're giving up the right to use the recreational facilities. We're not going to interconnect our project with your roadways. So that was just letting you know what's out there that what we're -- and what we're willing to make sure we're not impacting your community. That was the purpose of that letter; explaining what the legal documents say. I know Ms. Kraus, who wrote their declaration. Whatever she wants us to record on the property to assure everything we're saying to you right now regarding not using the recreational facilities, et cetera, she can draft it, we'll review it to make sure it makes everybody in Briarwood comfortable, that we're codifying what we're saying. And I just wanted to briefly talk about kind of where my letter came from, the history of that letter, and it was just simply explaining what's in the recorded documents right now. And with that, I think we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding anything to do with the project. Oh, one other thing. This is -- I wanted to -- Mr. Boyd intends to spend approximately $60 million to build this project; 60, six zero. When you divide that by 320 units, that's $188,000 per-unit investment. This is not going to be anything that in any way negatively impacts that community. That's a significant investment in just the infrastructure as well as the building cost. So this is no way, in any way, going to harm the property values in that community and, frankly, we believe it's going to enhance the property values in that area. With that, I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, and then Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Back to where I was before. I keep seeing articles on the news and the newspapers about how the local police and fire and everybody lives up in Fort Myers because they can't afford to live down here, and I keep seeing the excuse that we need to build more apartments down here so that these people don't have to go to Fort Myers. But is there legally any way to make sure that a certain -- I said "all." You know, I was half joking, but maybe not. Is there any way to make sure that a goodly percentage of these units that you're going to build actually do get rented by local first responders, or however you want to word it, people that work at the hospital, you know, like that? Is there any legal way to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we have done on other similar market-rate projects is we committed with the initial advertising, and as units become available, that we would let the school system know, Mr. Eastman know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I forgot about them; yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: School system. We would let the Sheriff's Office -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Teachers. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- everybody know that, you know, we're getting ready to come online, so they would obviously know about it and have the opportunity to come in. And assuming they qualify, you know, have good credit, they could obviously use it. And we've also agreed in other instances when a unit comes up -- because usually there's about a 60-day notice period, you know, when you're not going to renew your lease. Again, we would provide information to the county, the Sheriff's Office, the school system. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not the point. These people are lower paid than -- August 17, 2017 Page 12 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, let me tell you something that maybe this board, collectively, has not been aware of. In the last year, year and a half, the following projects have been in process or approved for apartments: We have Santa Barbara and Davis, 320; we have Ave Maria for 264; we have Lely on the Rattlesnake for 304; we have Milano Lakes that's under construction for 296; we have Manatee and 951 for 483 units; we have Isles of Collier for 340; and now we're adding, potentially, Briarwood at 320. That brings 2,326 units just in seven larger projects already hitting the books, more or less, for the past year. Now, I think that's a wide variety of projects to pick from for anybody of any caliber that would want to live in those, and I'm just telling you that, as a part, maybe in response to your question about why aren't we singling out different categories of people to be in certain apartments. That's -- I mean, that's social engineering, but that's your call. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can these people afford to rent in any of those projects? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I would suggest that the Lely one, possibly -- Milano Lakes for sure, maybe Ave Maria, the Manatee Road and 951. These are all apartment complexes that are in areas I would think with -- and with features that appear generally on the applications that don't have the features this particular project has in regards to comparison up the street to Orchid Run. I'm just telling you there's a lot of apartments coming on the last year that have been in process in Collier County that most of the public is not aware of. They're just -- because they're in the backroom. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all this stuff I'm hearing about people have to live up in Fort Myers and commute down here from Naples (sic) -- people that work this Naples and all that's just not true? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not one of the projects I just told you about that's built. They're all either in process or either under construction. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I can't tell you what's going to happen when these open up. And I know there's different ranges. For example, down in the Manatee Road and 951, they're looking at a sizable project down there, and if that goes -- it's in for -- they either had a pre-app or maybe a preliminary SDP. If a project like that goes, it's substantial in size, and it's an area that would probably look at less expensive units if that's what your goal is. So I'm just providing that information as an offset to what we're talking about today, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I appreciate that. That is what I was asking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any other questions at this time? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, just one little comment. That cul-de-sac that you're not going to use that comes out of their project, you're going to have to get onto their land because they're not going to be able to leave just a dead-end road there, so you're going to need their permission to get on their land and change that, unless they won't give you the permission and leave a dead-end, something like that. You know that, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes; thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we have had those conversations. There's even been preliminary design of a hammerhead or a small circle. Obviously, it's not our property. They'll have to give us permission, but we could -- you know, we could certainly construct that or fix that as part of the process. And that's the discussions we've had with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I just had one quick thing for Rich. On your July 26th letter, Rich, I did go through that, so I can understand where the people had a problem, and I just figured you were going to write strong letter to follow. So I'm glad you clarified that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's presentation? Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I do. And for those that don't know, I'm a realtor here in Naples, Florida; 15-year resident. My question kind of stems from some things that have already been brought up. When I -- I don't do August 17, 2017 Page 13 of 49 rentals in my business, but when I put my ear to the ground in the market, and I just go on my phone and just Google "apartments for rent in Naples," and I'm talking about just in the surrounding area, not out there like Ave Maria -- a lot of friends are Collier County sheriffs, they're teachers, et cetera, that are struggling. I see -- I just typed in on my phone while you were talking, and 1,200 apartments came up for rent in this area, including communities that we've mentioned, like Orchid Run, et cetera, all in the same kind of price range, rental range of that 1,400 to over 2,000 per month deal. I guess I'm struggling with is there really a need when I know a ton of -- lots of homeowners that are here seasonally, the only way they can afford to have their place here in paradise is by being able to rent that out potentially throughout the year. When we add more apartments, my personal opinion is, I don't see that being super affordable at $24,000 a year just in rent for an apartment when, potentially, a $350,000 house I could buy and pay HOA and taxes and pay less than that per month. So I think the challenge is not we need more rental apartments. I think the challenge is why people are driving from Lee County is because up there they can rent a lot of things for under $1,000 a month, or at least more than from what I've been told and what I see Collier County can offer. The issue's not the number of apartments. I think, based on what I'm hearing, these upcoming apartment complexes, the issue is who can afford -- what teacher, what cop, a starting salary, especially with a family, potentially, can afford to live in a two-bedroom apartment and pay $2,000 a month, 24 grand a year? And I'm not really speaking, per se, to this project; just, in general, an observation that I think we're going to run into some problems. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a couple things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: One, the market demand is clearly there. I know you Googled and you came up with 1,200 apartments. I don't know if they're all vacant right now or not vacant right now, but I could tell you I get a fair number of calls about land development and land development opportunities, and I get more calls in the last couple years about where are there apartment sites that are properly zoned and ready to go because everybody else is at a 96 or above percent rental; a lot of demand. When we did Mr. Torres' project out on Collier Boulevard, Vicki Tracy came here and said she's got a big CCRC that she's doing in Lely Resort. And she says, you know, I've got no place for my people. You guys need to be building these apartments as quick as you can because we don't have a stock of apartments for people that want to come and work here and live here. So are we going to meet every need through this project? No project can meet every need through this (sic) project. And I'm not saying there isn't a need for some apartments at a much lower rate. I will tell you that people like me, people like Bob, when we try to bring those types of projects forward, we're not well received in trying to do that. So although we recognize a need in that area, and maybe we could find other locations to make that need, it's not always a popular thing to get through and bring forward. This project, I guarantee you Mr. Boyd wouldn't be putting at risk $60 million if there wasn't a demand for this project. And I guarantee you there are still unmet demand even after all 2,300 of those units, if they all get built, come online. We have worked closely with the county and the school district and others to make sure that people know about these units. A lot of sheriff's deputies and firefighters, they're two-income families, and they can easily -- you know, they're both working. They can easily afford the rent. And, you know, frankly, a lot of people don't want to own a home anymore. There's a lot of people who just -- although maybe I can -- the home ownership deal is not of interest to them. They would rather rent for a while and figure out where they want to live or maybe never buy a place. So we're not -- there's a demand, and we're going to -- we're going to meet that -- help meet that demand. And I agree, Mr. Dearborn, with everything you said about maybe finding other locations to bring the rents down or other options, but I can't solve all those problems with this one. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So just for clarification -- and I thank you, Richard. August 17, 2017 Page 14 of 49 I wasn't -- I wasn't getting up here to make a statement in affordable apartments. What I was saying is when I Google apartments for rent in Naples and 1,200 came up just now all in that same kind of price range, those are available units right now available for rent. I'm not going to challenge the fact that, you know, November, December through March, April, May there's a higher demand for people wanting to be down here. But you're talking about doing annual rentals. I just question, is there a need for that many apartments at that price point. I understand it is what it is. If you pay $60 million, you're going to have to charge rent to get that money back. I'm not challenging that. I'm just challenging the issue that was brought up earlier. I think no matter what you do when you build this project, people are still going to have to drive from Lee County if they're a waiter, if they're a busboy, they work the valet at a hotel; they're going to squeeze in two or three people to help afford those rents, and they're most likely going to continue to be driving down from Lee County. I don't see those kind of people that are -- really there's a need for being able to be your clients in this type project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's not our market. Our market is the young professional that's coming to Collier County, young professionals that live in Collier County, younger families that want to stay in Collier County. Our market is not the -- you know, the busboys, the waiters. This project's not geared to serve that group of people. It's geared to serve a totally different marketplace. And that's, you know, I don't know -- MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. If I could just add, you know, the county is engaged right now into a substantial housing analysis, and I actually was at a Chamber public policy meeting last week, and Cormac Giblin was there, and he gave a little presentation. One of the things I thought was interesting that I think is, in part, a response to your question, and Stan's as well, is that the county is actually looking at all of their -- the staff at this point. I don't know that it's gotten up to the Board level. The direction to look at it came from the Board. They're looking at surplus properties that they have, and I think they've narrowed down to four or five sites that might make sense for housing opportunities. The other thing that Rich said that I just wanted to add to is I have a bunch of clients that call me, and they're looking for apartment sites. I just had one who that's all they do in Florida is build rental apartments, and they seriously looked at a site they had a little due diligence contract for. They decided not to take it down. But the first thing that I did as part of that due diligence -- the first thing that I looked at was, you know, what is around this project? Because what is the reality if you're going to invest, you know, several hundred thousand dollars in going through this process of you being successful? And this particular site, I thought, had a pretty good chance. But that's part of the process. You have to look at what's surrounding the property. You have to look at what makes sense and -- in terms of density, in terms of the neighbors. But we do need more; we need more. And I think these, 2,000, 2,300 units that are coming on board, these market-rate rental units will effectively reduce that rental price. It's going to take a year or year and a half to get them on. But I don't know that that meets all the demand, but I do think that will effectively reduce that rent because it's supply and demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what is the starting point of your rental? I forgot what you had earlier said. You talked a couple times about it. What is your starting point? MR. BOYD: The starting point is $1,340 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just let that -- leave that there for a minute and let me talk to this panel about something. The Housing Department's currently working on a more, let's say, accurate way of determining affordable housing in Collier County both as definition and as count. In that regard, currently like we have today, there are five or so levels of affordable housing. There's extremely low income, very low income, low income, moderate/workforce housing, and gap income. August 17, 2017 Page 15 of 49 Now, the top two is what we generally hear talked about when we want to talk about nurses and firefighters and people like that; workforce income and gap income. Now, if you take those under the new demand model that's being put together by the Housing Department, you will find that the low level, which is below the workforce, that's based on the AMI, average median income, and a multiplier, is $1,256 a month. That's for low. So if he's at 13 something right now, he's definitely in that modern -- that moderate income level that you started talking about when you were aiming for the firefighters and police officers and things like that. So I just wanted to make that -- put that on the record, because our new analysis that hopefully will be coming out from the Housing Department soon reflects the accuracy in determining these by the AMI and the number of units we currently have in the county both in the market rate as well as the approved section of the county. And you'll see all new numbers, and I'm hoping we'll have a -- when that's approved by the Board or as it goes through its process, I hope this panel gets to participate in that, because it will be a big factor in how we look at some of these projects. But I just wanted you to know that for the record. MR. BOYD: You covered what I was going to say, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know that, but thank you. That was coincidental. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One thing, too. And I understand everything you're saying. When we offer -- we talk about starting prices. I've run down to car dealerships because I saw an ad on TV where a brand new car is starting at 19,995, and every time I get there, that car costs me $26,000 because the one car that was 19,995 that I can afford or the 199 a month, for some reason I walk out of there I'm at 307. So I mean, that's just -- I understand there's a starting price, and I'm not challenging you or comparing you to a car dealership at all, sir. I'm just saying that the starting price means the average, based on what you told me, of 1,400 to 2,000, I bet you that average on the ones I'm seeing online in the area tend to run around 1,600 to 2,000 a month, and I'm curious where that number falls on your scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have -- I can tell you that the low is as far as it's shown on the demand table at this time, and it shows 1,265, I believe; that's for low. So each gap, if you start at very low, medium low, and then that, there's about a 3 to $500 differential between each one of gaps. So even if you take the lower differential of 300, you're over 1,500 a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and, by the way, if anybody heard what he said, when he goes in to buy a car, he always goes out spending more money than he wants to; he's not a good negotiator, so you may want to buy a house from him. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Next time take me with you. I'll get you your car. MR. BOYD: One followup. Very good point as far as the analogy with the cars. But 44 percent of the project is one-bedroom, and all of them are under $1,400 a month; all of them. So that's what it is. And up the street we -- right now, let's see, just up the street, there, just to give you all a feel for when you are in the business I'm in, you look at the rent per square foot, and maybe some of you all do that when you rent your houses out in Briarwood. But, overall, nationwide, $1.40 a square foot is a good, healthy development across the country. My project is $1.60 a square foot. Right now if you tried to rent anything at Orchid Run, it's $1.78 a foot. Now, we're trying to be comparable with amenities, but we know when there's more supply the rent's going to fall a little bit, so we're anticipating that. But I just wanted to let you know all of our one-bedrooms are under 1,400 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel of the presenter and any of their people? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the longest part of this questioning will probably be what I'm going to go into next. So just so you know, for the members of the public, at 10:30 we will be taking a August 17, 2017 Page 16 of 49 15-minute break for the court reporter; at 12 o'clock we will be taking a one-hour break for lunch. We have other cases today, so we'll be coming back, or other issues today, after lunch, most likely. But I wanted you to know that as we get close to those times, we'll be stopping and then recontinuing when we get back. So, with that, when I met with you yesterday or day before, whatever day it was, Bob, I had walked through some suggested concerns I had over the Development Standards Table, over some languages, and also the request that -- and I would like to ask staff to consider this from now on. When we get a PUD that has sections of it, a good number of the sections -- and I think this is the majority -- rewritten, it doesn't makes sense to leave the first three unattached or un-rewritten. It makes it actually very confusing for staff in the future. So I'd rather see a complete strikethrough version of the PUD provided when they're this encompassing. There was a lot of changes to this. Now, I understand it didn't start that way, but as they got into more and more things came out of it. And Bob has agreed that, by consent, he'll provide a full and complete package that will have a complete rewrite and strikethrough. MR. MULHERE: The entire PUD with all the strikethroughs and underlines so you can see it from the beginning to the end, which we would have been happy to do. Ray and I talked, and we're going to look at that process, too, so that we address your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your buffering, in your master plan you call out for a 10-foot Type A buffer along the inside buffer, the ones that do not front the roadway system. I was surprised to see that because Type A doesn't require a wall. The NIM did say you're going to have a 6-foot wall. Some information I've seen this morning, I think I saw the reference for an 8-foot wall. So what is the Type A buffer actually going to be? I understand it's going to be enhanced because that's part of the reason you need the reduction along the two road fronts. What are the enhancements? And I need to understand for the record what that involves. MR. MULHERE: Our intent was service for a 6-foot wall. There probably will be some -- there may be some elevation at the property line for that wall to sit on, but I don't know that we intended to achieve 8-foot. Certainly a 6-foot wall. But that, you know -- let me just show you this cross-section here. So this is a hedge on the Dover Parc property. This is the property line right here. This is -- I made reference to this, but a picture's worth a thousand words. So this is an 8- to 10-foot-wide clear area between our property line and the proposed wall, which would have landscaping on both sides, vines, and then our required landscape buffer would be on our side of the wall. And this is at the request of the Dover Parc residents that we've met with because they wanted to be able to access and take care of their -- you know, their landscaping that's here. And so we're pushing the wall further away, which also has the effect of reducing the visibility, from their perspective, into our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go, this -- was this included in our packet? MR. MULHERE: No. We just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's why it's not familiar. MR. MULHERE: We actually just, in the last maybe week or two, came up with some sort of final designs on this. It certainly could be. As you can see, when we prepared this, I labeled it Exhibit A3 in case that was something that the Planning Commission wished to have as a exhibit. And I recognize staff will have to look at this, and we could do that between now and consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking. I vaguely remember some of our buffers -- and because this wasn't in a packet, I didn't check this out ahead of time. Some of our buffers require plantings on both sides of the wall. This one shows it on one. Are you asking -- that needs to be verified by our staff, because if it is supposed to be on both sides of the wall, you will either need a deviation or you'll need to show the landscaping. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and with eight to 10 feet there, if we need to put some landscaping on that side of the wall, I think we could do it and still have plenty of room for clear areas. So we will get with staff to finalize this. August 17, 2017 Page 17 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any time you use the word "enhanced," you need to draw a parallel to what is existing versus what's enhanced in a table format so we can say, okay, you should have had calipers and heights of this nature. Now you're putting in ones of this nature; that's why it's enhanced. And I think you -- MR. MULHERE: I'll -- I can provide you -- with respect to the buffer along the right-of-way, it's enhanced. I'll provide you with a list of those enhancements. This one, I would call it a different buffer. I don't know that I'd call it enhanced. It's wider, but, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you're using this because of your need to offset the buffers along the two road fronts, we need to make sure this is adequate. That's what I'm suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I got it, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at -- well -- and it's your blowup of just your master plan for Tracts B and C where it does call out the buffers. So that Type A buffer notation, that 10-foot Type A buffer, somehow we need to put a cross-section note on there and include the reference to this new exhibit you're going to provide. That's it. Over on the right side, see the last sentence of that list of deviations? That is a strange sentence. How are you going to get trees to grow in straight lines? I just thought you've got to -- you're going from 20 feet, and canopy trees are usually wider than 10 feet, so now you're going to be planting these on one side of a 10-foot area, yet they're not allowed to grow past the slope easements. Do you -- can you enlighten me how you plan to handle that? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing that I can add in terms of enlightenment would be that they would have be to trimmed. You know, the whole idea of a canopy tree is to provide for shade. I think that's why it's there; you know, along the sidewalk, along the right-of-way. And I drove up and down Collier County roads and, boy, there's a lot of large canopy trees providing shade that, you know, do extend a little bit into the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the aerial that you provided today, the trees that are already there today go past the easement line, and they are overhanging that easement. I would rather -- I'm not sure that's the right way to phrase what we're trying to do here. When this started, the overhangs into utility easements, it was private utility easements, PUEs within PUDs where they were trying to put trees in the front yard, and they were putting them at the edge of those PUEs, and they were actually causing a lot of problems. So we asked the buildings and the trees to be more restricted. I'm not sure it's necessary on a slope easement. It certainly doesn't seem to be appearing in the roadway. It's way inside of the travel lane. So maybe instead of referencing the road easements and slope easements you reference any step back from the travel lane; the tree's overhang will be back from the travel -- will not impact the travel. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and that should be very achievable, because that slope easement's 10-foot wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. MULHERE: And the buffer is 10-foot wide, so if you plant your trees in the middle of buffer, you're -- you know, you're 15 feet from the edge of what is a right-of-way easement that provides for only a turn lane. You're still another 10 feet. So you'll be more than 20 feet away from the travel lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you rewrite that a little bit so it's not -- MR. MULHERE: I'll get with Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's going to be difficult to keep a tree growing at the width you're suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think we can come up with something that addresses -- you and I, we put that together, so I'm sure we can figure out something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're blaming it on Heidi; I understand. MR. MULHERE: Oh, no, no. I wrote the language. I put the language in there, but in response to a request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit A2, which is another buffer exhibit -- but I think it's intended to be the one -- it is intended to be the one along the county roads. August 17, 2017 Page 18 of 49 MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is considered an enhanced buffer because of the way you've reduced the size and then added the palette of trees that you said you and Mark Templeton worked out. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That palette needs to be part of the record. So you'll need to enter that as an exhibit -- as part of this exhibit in the consent agreement, or the consent hearing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Excuse me. That's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you -- see the word "enhanced" on the bottom? Be sure to tablize the difference between the standard buffer and what you've got that's enhanced in this one, because in the end what happens is people say they're enhanced but they really are doing nothing more than the code calls for. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I may -- I'll figure out the best way to do it, but I'll enumerate the enhancements on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The little reference, the second -- on the left side, the second notation, decorative fence with climbing vines planted eight feet on center, a lot of people look at a slatted wood fence as a decorative fence. We just had a debate about one on the Walmart on the East Trail. I'd rather not get into that on this project. I don't think you intend to put that. Can you be more definitive in how you're -- what this fence is going to be made of? MR. MULHERE: I think we'll add the word "metal" in there. I think it's going to be aluminum, but just to keep some flexibility, we'll say a decorative metal fence with climbing vines, if that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get into the text of Section 7 that you've rewritten as a new section of the PUD, you have under accessory uses your recreational uses. And I understand they're accessory to the multifamily. They are restricted to the location shown on the master plan, so that covers that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because normally we don't like those mixed up. We like separate reference -- separate sections for them, but I understand why this one's like that. But under 2, your customary accessory uses, you're not putting car washes in, and think I don't -- and I think that's an inappropriate word as far as what it could mean. Drive-through car washes with blowers and things, I'm sure that's not what's intended, but I would suggest we modify that to be more indicating. I think you said you wanted to do, like, hoses or wands or something like that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually drove past -- and I think it's actually in one of the pictures I put up there. I parked my car; I got out and looked at the Orchid Run. I don't know if I got a picture of it. I guess I didn't. There is a little car washing area within that. It has hoses and I think a vacuum, but it doesn't -- there's no -- you don't drive through. It's not any big thing. There's no structure. It's just a little area where you pull your car in and wash it. That's what we want. So my thought would be, maybe if we use the term "hand car wash area." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But I just don't want anybody ever thinking that we've suggested car washes could be on this corner. Nobody would be happy with that. The last part of the sentence I think you need to drop. Solid waste and recycling facilities. I know Dan Rodriguez would love to have another recycling facility in Collier County, but I don't think you want to put that there, so -- and we do require dumpster enclosures anyway, so I'd just prefer that you not do that. Speaking of which, on your master plan, where are your dumpster enclosures going -- where are they going to be located? And that's -- you don't -- you didn't provide that in the packet, but you do have a site plan. MR. MULHERE: I don't know that we have an exact area yet, likely -- excuse me -- likely close to the entrances so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not on mike. MR. MULHERE: Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. Likely close to the entrances. By the way, these -- as part of the service, people will put out their trash. It will be picked up and then put into the recycling and -- trash and recycling will be picked up and put into a container. August 17, 2017 Page 19 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to have dumpsters or you intend to have dumpsters and those kind of enclosures, please add them to the master plan for their locations or a minimum setback from the residential community to the sides. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we could do that. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 7 point -- we might as well leave this up for a minute. While you've got this up, I've got a question. Your garages, are they enclosed, or are they carports? MR. MULHERE: They're enclosed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking these things, if this -- if there's a motion for approval, everything that I'm saying, as you know, will probably be stipulated, so... Under 7.3, your first sentence, table sets forth the development standards for multifamily residential. It also sets forth for the recreational tract, too, the recreational area. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So we should add -- for multifamily -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it says clubhouse recreation building. MR. MULHERE: The recreation tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into your Table 7.3 on the top, the third column, you say "accessory." I think you need to add "accessory to the multifamily units." MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also use SPS a lot. Actually, that's as much writing as it would take to put in the actual number so there's no confusion. So I ask that you replace those with the actual numbers so we don't have a debate over what standard principal structure you're referring to. Same as -- SPS, same as principal structure. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The minimum yards under your internal to Tracts B and C, your minimum to the water body, I think you just need to say it's -- you're going to make that a lake tract, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you just say "minimum to lake tract," and then we don't have a discussion on what the water body is. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some transportation issues, but before we get into somebody else, let me make sure I've got all the issues I need on you. You're going to be gating the access -- all the access points. And I -- a question for you. On the master plan that's shown here -- well, this isn't a master -- your site plan. MR. MULHERE: Rich just asked me a question. I want to -- this will come in as an SDP. That lake won't be a separate tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're right. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then I need, though -- the lake has a reference on the separate tract. It won't be called a water body. It will be probably called a lake. MR. MULHERE: Minimum -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the same language in the standards table so nobody's confused over what it means. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your -- why do you have your gates on the north end inside the facilities? So that the public gets to use the clubhouse; is that how it's designed? Because that would not be helpful. MR. BOYD: There's an area there that's assessable to the public who want to initially come and see if they want to lease; they want to look at the complex. So we have a public area there that the public can come in and that don't necessarily need gate access. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So your sales center will be in the clubhouse that we're seeing right here? August 17, 2017 Page 20 of 49 MR. BOYD: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing -- and I was trying to find it in here. But one of the things we discussed was an existing section of the PUD, 8.13, I think. I don't know if you were going to get to that yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- is that the one on transportation? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm waiting on that for a minute. That's going to involve Mike and -- MR. MULHERE: Actually, no. That's accessory structures. It says, "Accessory structures must be constructed simultaneous with or following the construction of principal structures and shall conform with the setbacks of principal structures" which, obviously, we have a -- I'm not even sure the existing PUD conforms with that statement. But as far as we're concerned, we're going to add an exemption from that because we have different setbacks for some accessories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the -- MR. MULHERE: Parking structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't got to the old PUD yet, so I'll be getting there. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talked about the cost sharing of lakes. Somehow we're going to have to structure that into a requirement. The minimum principal setback from Dover Parc; I'm glad to hear your garages are enclosed. They actually are then a buffer to the Dover Parc project, so that works out beneficially, but your principal structure setback, you went to a lot of trouble to push them back as far as possible. I would like to show a property line setback to those -- that residential line, if there isn't already one that applies, specifically to Dover Parc. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, the table identifies from Tract D1, from Tract B1, and from Tract L1. Tract B1, I believe, is the multifamily development, and there is a 30-foot minimum setback from that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why is it 30 feet when your principal structures on this particular map are shown -- I mean, look at your parking spaces, the width of your drive lane, and then the buffers to the north and the building itself. The nearest one, which would be Building 8, is farther than 30 feet. Why don't we use what's on this plan since that's what we're talking about? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a conceptual plan. We don't have a detailed plan yet. We are trying to maximum that separation but, you know, typically in zoning, you put a minimum standard in. We don't have a final set plan yet. So if we have to shift anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to have a drive on the north side of Building 8? I mean, there's one shown here. You see the drive lane between the garage and the building? MR. MULHERE: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Building 8. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm trying to look. Oh, yes. Sorry. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have parking spaces on both sides of that drive lane? MR. MULHERE: It's intended, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have an 8- to 10-foot offset from the property line before you get to your wall? MR. MULHERE: Well, you can see it's a little less right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. I'm talking about from the wall to the property line. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about from the wall to the park -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got eight to 10 feet; let's say eight. You've got -- each parking space is what, 9 by 18 or something like that; so there's 36. You've got a 20-foot drive lane at the worst. So you've got 50 feet right there. So the setback from Dover is going to be at least 50 feet, so why August 17, 2017 Page 21 of 49 don't we use that? MR. MULHERE: I'll check -- I'll check those distances, and we'll revise it to put the maximum setback in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Fifty feet's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue with modifying the existing connections, I'm not sure how that works, and I'm probably going to, during break, talk with the County Attorney's Office to see how that gets to fit, because you are going to have to cut off that current cul-de-sac at Skelly Road, which is your turnaround area for -- especially for emergency vehicles and things like that. I know that if there's disagreement in the community over the outcome of this meeting and you need their cooperation to modify Skelly Road, I think that needs to be ironed out before we get that far so you don't run into a roadblock down the road. And I don't know how that works with staff, I don't know how it works for the County Attorney's Office, but it's a question that is sitting there, and I'm not sure how to fix it. I didn't really think about it until you made some statements today and the question came earlier by one of the other members. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, you make a good point. If we have to design around that cul-de-sac as it currently exists, we're going to need some flexibility, because if the community decides the way they'll kill this project is to refuse to let us move the cul-de-sac, we need to have some flexibility to modified that cul-de-sac on our property. It doesn't mean we're going to interconnect, but we need some flexibility maybe with walls and all that other stuff, if -- so we're going to need to address that, and I think that's an excellent point you brought up. Our desire and what we've heard from the community is no interconnection, but we have to have the ability to design around that issue if we can't get cooperation. I think it's the common area for the association; I'm not 100 percent sure. So we would need to make sure we have the flexibility to design around that if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to provide an alternate idea conceptually when you come back in consent. One item that you wouldn't need necessarily to do is provide a cul-de-sac. You could do a hammerhead turnaround which usually suffices. And those are narrower, so it wouldn't take up much additional property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah. I'm just saying that we'll have to -- we may have to -- you're right. That's an excellent point, and let us look at how that would work if we can't prevent the interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, too -- Fred Reischl, Planning and Zoning. Don't forget that that would be off site from this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If they -- no, no, no. You're missing the point. What he's saying is he may not be able to go off site to modify anything, so that means they may have to modify the hammerhead on his site to accommodate whatever requirements there are. Now -- and this is for Bob. Bob, during your discussion, you said that this project is already approved by South Florida Water Management District, the -- for the drainage. MR. MULHERE: The overall project, not this -- not this portion of it. There will be some modifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. There'll be some modifications for this project, but the overall -- this tract is included in the overall stormwater management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The tract is, but the specifics of the impervious areas of this project are not. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to clarify. We mentioned the palette of plants from -- you're going to provide for Mark Templeton if -- whatever you stated you worked out with him. MR. MULHERE: Yes. August 17, 2017 Page 22 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did mention you're going to use masonry construction, tile roofs. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have electric vehicle parking chargers in the garages. Those are all -- been put on record. Okay. Those are all elements of value to the community, and I just want to make sure, if we stipulate, some of those things have to be done, they get done to keep the project to be what it is proposed to be. You're looking at a minimum size unit of 750 feet. You have agreed to pay your proportionate share of water management system. Again, I'm not sure how that's going to work, but we have to figure that one out, along with the last one we talked about. Also, the PUD allows fill to be taken off site. And rather than get to those paragraphs, I'll bring it up now. You don't intend to take any fill off site, or what's your situation there? MR. MULHERE: No, we do not intend to. We believe that we'll need that fill to have a balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the size of the lake you've got, the amount of fetch formula that's going to allow you to go to a certain depth, you're not going to get that much fill out of that lake. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, I think I'm right -- but you'll correct me if I'm wrong -- the LDC, I think, has a certain minimum you can take off -- or maximum you can take off without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up to 20,000 acres. The problem I have is the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right, 20,000 cubic yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 20,000 cubic yards. This particular PUD allows it be to taken off without a restriction. That's what I'm concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we'll ever exceed -- I don't think we're going to take any. But, you know, the minute I say nothing's leaving the site, I get bitten. So I would like to -- can we agree that nothing above the maximum prescribed in the LDC will be removed from this site so it's not unlimited? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want it to be as the PUD states it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's code of -- it's the excavation section of Code of Laws, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I knew it existed somewhere in the regulations. So we're not asking you for any type of exemption or deviation for that on this parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like to ask Mike Sawyer a couple things before -- about your -- go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, he's probably a good person to ask the question to, but I'll ask it through you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding for apartments that go through a Site Development Plan process -- and can you put our Site Development Plan up, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I can't put anything up; I broke the visualizer. Troy, where are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. So I just want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a break in a couple minutes. Hopefully we can find someone to come in and fix it then. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding is that the internal pavement that you drive on is considered a driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not a road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that -- Bob. I just want to make sure we're clear on the record that under the Collier County regulations that's considered a driveway and not a road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It always has been. And I've been doing this for decades. So maybe Mike can enlighten us if he thinks it's different when he comes up. And he's probably going to come up after break, August 17, 2017 Page 23 of 49 because now that Bob broke the visual, we're going to have to get that fixed before we go too far. Bob, what I'll do is after break I will bring -- I will move into the transportation discussion on a couple issues. I have some more back-and-forth on the other issues as well, but I want to take them in order. This was a 204-page document, and I, unfortunately, had to lay it out in order, so we'll just have to move through it that way. Okay. With that, let's take a break, and we'll come back at -- 10:40 would be enough time, I think, for the court reporter. So 10:40 we'll resume the meeting. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. Hey, Mike, did you see what Ray just did? He missed the time. That's not like him. Now, Ray, Mike has never done that, so... Okay. We'll resume where we kind of left off. Bob, you're standing there. Is there something that you wanted to say before I picked up again? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, I'd like to ask Norm some questions so that when I ask Mike to come up he can also verify or respond. MR. MULHERE: Perfect. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Norm Trebilcock. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner, and I've been a past expert for you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a lot of questions about the way you did your report, because it's typical but, more or less, why you did it certain ways. Page 4, bottom, you say the following, "The Collier County approved PUD Ordinance 95-33 currently allows the site to be developed with an unspecified square footage of commercial area." That's not true. It's very specific. In fact, that specificity has caused some people problems in the past. It's 139,000 and some change. It's a computation of the acreage, which leads me to a couple other questions. You use the shopping center category. This has an SDP for a Lowe's for 138,371 or some change like that. Why didn't you use the hardware store or the Lowe's category? Because Lowe's by itself is not a shopping center. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. Well, what I did is I did look at the original TIS in 1975 when they did the zoning for the property, and it was identified as commercial, and it had 100,000 square feet of commercial for it then. And so what I did, just moving forward, is used that as the number for a shopping center that can be developed. I mean, to your point, yes, we could also show, I guess, 139,000 square feet of shopping center potentially. But as a -- I guess I did it this way as a matter of zoning, you know, what I would call, like, a highest and best use for the property potentially could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not an appraiser, though, are you? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're making -- MR. TREBILCOCK: -- more from a traffic -- a traffic engineering. Typically what I'll do is I'll try and look at, like, you know, the highest amount that can potentially be done there, reasonably so. So, you're right, I'm not an appraiser, but I do look at traffic, and I try and model what the traffic impacts could be for a property. So, you know, to your point, yes, the superstore home improvement center would be a different use. That could be used there, too; yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just back up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You use the shopping center 100,000 square feet. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you use a hardware store or a superstore shopping center, which isn't -- I mean, a superstore center at 139,000 square feet, which we have an SDP in the system for, which is Lowe's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. August 17, 2017 Page 24 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what outcome would we have from that? Have you done that scenario? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So if you had that, that would still be higher than what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what is the best way to portray the changes in this project, from what was already on the books as an SDP for a supercenter big box versus what your client's asking for? So, in essence, doing what I just suggested would have shown a better outcome for the traffic, which probably would have helped people understand the differences between what they could have versus what this does. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd suggest maybe you refine some of that TIS for the next hearing you go to from here, just so you have the number, unless you have a reason -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, I have that number, but the only thing is, is really, from a land use perspective, you can put in a shopping center. Again, just strictly from a zoning standpoint of what you can do on the property, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't think the Lowe's that the staff had for an SDP has been something you can do on the property? MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, you definitely can, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that's the high -- that is the more greater use at a higher intensity than the use you used, isn't it? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, no, exactly. Basically, if you did the Lowe's and used the pass-by numbers, it would be 241 peak-hour trips in the p.m. So it would be -- it would still be more than what we're proposing, but it wouldn't be as high as, like, 100-square-foot shopping center that was originally proposed in the PUD to begin with. So that was the only reasoning, so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was looking at the latest documents. If this project was not approved, then the fallback could easily be the Lowe's that already is on the record -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- per their SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That, to me, would be a more logical fallback than something else, because Lowe's still owns the property. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sure. That makes sense, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in reviewing the TISs that you -- where you said you used the 75 or 77, did you look at the TIS for the Lowe's SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. I didn't use that, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I have from your TIS at this time. Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Norm? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious. I saw Google Earth on there before. Can you go to Google Earth and zoom in around that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't know if the visualizer helps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Yeah, there you go. MR. TREBILCOCK: Wait. We had it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is Google Earth I'm looking at, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you zoom into that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: Bob, don't touch that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm dealing with Luddites or what? It's Google Earth. Everybody knows Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's the machine. August 17, 2017 Page 25 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just pan down. Yeah, there you go. Little closer. Whoa, there you go. Zoom in a little. Okay. Now, we're talking about taking out that circular portion at the end, which is kind of really a weird-looking cul-de-sac. What is that little road going off to the upper left there? Is that just into the woods? From the cul-de-sac itself. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. It doesn't serve anything directly, Stan. So to the good point that's made is you can see from -- really, from an emergency -- if you sever this connection, there really isn't need, necessarily, for a cul-de-sac there at all because, really, for emergency vehicles and turnaround, you know, you've got -- you can loop through in this area. You've got a through-type roadway that you can -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And then you've got a cul-de-sac up at the end of that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. This doesn't serve -- as you see, there's no driveways or anything like that loaded on it. We were just offering, as a -- you know, because there was some kind of, you know -- and you can see that cul-de-sac doesn't meet any current standards at all. It's an overall. But we were just offering that, you know, to the folks as an ability to turn around, that we could put it on their property. But, you know, to your point, it really isn't necessary at all, you know. The county would -- typically would require a properly improved cul-de-sac for them to develop themselves. It was just, I think, set up as a future interconnect. But that not being the case or desire, it can be severed here and not really create an issue for -- to develop the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And, in fact, what you have is a hammerhead. You'd pull in, you'd back into that thing and back out. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And we can get with the Development Services staff just to confirm that as well to make sure they would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before consent, for your own benefit, you need to do one or the other -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and figure out a solution. So, yeah, that would be a great idea. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can get Developmental Services to respond timely and get back to you in time for the consent, that would be great. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Uh-huh. Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. Mike, I'd like to ask just a couple short questions of you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. I think earlier Bob -- maybe I -- it was pointed out to me during the break, I think we had mentioned before, for those that are here, Livingston Road is three lanes. I think it was mentioned, maybe I misheard it. You had mentioned Radio Road was three lanes. It was brought to my attention that Radio Road is only two lanes, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes, correct. It's two lanes. Two lanes. If I said six lanes, I misspoke. It's two lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Patrick. MR. MULHERE: Well, four lanes total; two lanes each direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, good morning. MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike -- for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a couple things. First of all, are you familiar with this throat length for the cul-de-sac if it's cut off? Is that something you can offer now, or is that -- you'd rather leave that to -- MR. SAWYER: Honestly, I would not -- I would rather research that for you to get the exact figures for you. I would rather not do that just off the cuff. August 17, 2017 Page 26 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the ability or the assurance that the system that's within the -- a multifamily project such as this and the way they've shown, it would not be roads. They would be driveways. MR. SAWYER: Most of the time when these projects come in, they all come in as driveways. That's not to say that you couldn't, for whatever reason, if you wanted to plat them as right-of-ways, you would have that option, but you would have to plat them as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the county doesn't care if they're driveways at this point? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the proposed PUD changes, they've renumbered the transportation sections. Instead of 7.11, it's 8.11. 8.11B says the developer shall provide a fair share contribution to the traffic signal on Radio Road. And that's old language. Have you looked at that to see if it's still valid or not? Because I don't believe we're doing that now. MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now we have no plans to do even a study to look into putting additional signals in that road corridor. That's not to say that we couldn't if there was something in the future that drove a need to do a study to see if there were warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- MR. SAWYER: You never say never, I guess, at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is for the main entrance. So it isn't for this project. But my concern is it refers to the developer. And since this is one PUD, how are the contributions for the developer going to be determined when there's multiple developers of this PUD? MR. SAWYER: What we would do, if that were to come up, we would find out who the entity is that has responsibility for the overall PUD, and we would basically look at having our engineer that would be doing the design for the signal and all of the work associated with it, we would wind up having them prepare something that showed what the background traffic is as well as the fair share portion that would be responsible for the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The payment would have to be made by the entity assuming the responsibilities of the developer or the developer, if he's still intact. MR. SAWYER: Or whoever's been assigned, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I understand that piece of it. C says, "The developer shall provide left and right turn lanes on Radio Road at the main entrance to the project. This construction shall be coordinated with the four-laning of Radio Road." All that's been done, right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should that paragraph be dropped? MR. SAWYER: It certainly could be, or it could simply be stated as "complete." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One or the other. The applicant today, we can -- since we're changing the PUD, I wanted to update as much as we could, so... MR. SAWYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, that's all I had. I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: No problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that takes me to the end of my questioning at this time. So anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we'll go to a staff report. Fred? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. First of all, this was a team effort. I'd like to thank Eric Johnson and Nancy Gundlach for doing the majority of this work. I wrote the staff report, but they did most of the work prior to that. And as detailed in the staff report, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and it's compatible with the neighborhood, and we recommend approval including the Deviation No. 1, the only deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- we've talked about a series of changes here today, or August 17, 2017 Page 27 of 49 clarifications. Anything you heard would staff be objectionable to? MR. REISCHL: No issues. The only thing I wanted to remind you is that we don't deal with ownership; therefore, anything that you're thinking of as an apartment would also apply to multifamily single ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it could be condominium versus -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're going to go to public speakers. Now, we start with those that are registered and put in -- those that have slips submitted to Fred or Ray, and then at the end I'll ask anybody else who has not spoken to please -- if you want to address us, we certainly are here to listen to you. And we ask that everybody -- we asked early on to please rise if you wanted to be sworn in by the court reporter so you could testify. If you were not sworn in, please let us know so we get you sworn in so your testimony then goes on record that way. With that, we'll call the speakers. You can use either podium, and the limitation is five minutes, and we'll go from there. MR. REISCHL: First speaker is Janice Kiernan, to be followed by Kim Bennett. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who's timing the five minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, watching the clock. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's informal. So, ma'am, if you need 10 seconds over, it's okay. MS. KIERNAN: Good morning, everyone. My name is Janice Kiernan. I live in Briarwood. I own a home. I live there year-round. I would like to mention a few words about the density issues. The PUD was originally designed to allow the stores to be -- to enhance the Briarwood community and provide balance between residential and commercial zoning in that specific area according to the FLUE or the Future Land Use Element. If the zoning is to change to allow for the 320 apartments, then the density -- I don't understand why Briarwood themselves would be included, because you're changing the whole thing around. The original PUD did not -- was to allow for just the Briarwood and a quality of life to allow for certain -- the lakes and everything else. So now, in -- according to the new PUDA document that I saw 3/23/2017 supplied by the developer, the density changed, according to them, 2.85 to 4.4 per -- density per unit, but the Briarwood community is, itself, 193 acres. I don't understand. They have 15 acres on the corner and they're allowing to -- the 320 apartments in that unit -- on that development. This calculation comes to me to say that it's over 20 units per acre which is above the FLUE density ratings in the growth management process. So I can't understand in one case, oh, we don't want anything to do with them; in the next case it's like we include them for our density. On Page 11 of the PUDA, Table 7.3, which you mentioned in the past, the maximum building height they have zoned was 55 feet, yet the actual building heights on these is 62 feet. I don't understand that either. The original PUD suggested that the height of the buildings should be, at max, 30 feet, according to what I read. So 62 feet of building in that little 15.99 acres is going to look quite massive, I think, in that small space. The 320 unit apartments impacted -- will impact schools which right now have a maximum capacity, according to the sheets, and you're saying that there's more and more buildings being added as far as apartments. Now, these apartments, according to them, were mostly young professionals, which probably will have kids. Now, I see East Naples, the middle school, does not have any available capacity as of 2016. So that's something that should be taken into account. Water resource, especially in the winter months, is also something that -- August 17, 2017 Page 28 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit, because she's got to type as fast as you and I talk, and you're starting to talk real fast. So I do that when I have a lot of coffee in the morning, and she gets mad at me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many minutes does she have left? MS. KIERNAN: Yeah. I'm trying to fit it all in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. KIERNAN: I'll give her this, if she likes, so... Also, the water resources, especially in the winter months, the waste management treatment plants haven't been in consideration because even though you have 320 apartments there, you mentioned all these other apartments, and 320 apartments probably will mean more like a thousand-plus people. Roadways, it's not only the traffic, but you're forgetting the bike lanes that you guys were going to put in at one point, and the police and fire department, which includes the East Naples Fire Department. Now, also, what I was looking at was the evaluation that -- what they were supposed to fill in. And these PUDA's modifications do not meet the Collier County Growth Management Evaluation Criteria Option C, which states that the conformity of the original PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management should conform to the original PUD. So I'm not quite sure what's going on. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, just a couple responses. The 320 units, if you divide that by the 15.99 acres, you come out to 20 units per acre. That's how that calculation -- MS. KIERNAN: Over 20 units per acre, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually -- okay. It's rounded to 20, so that's how it works. MS. KIERNAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height -- the height you're referring to is what's called actual height. That's architectural height. That isn't zoned height. Zoned height is the same as Dover Parc in regards to stories; four stories. So they could put 12-foot -- MS. KIERNAN: Dover Parc -- everything in the area is only two stories high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their zoning allows four. They're asking for the same zoning of that neighboring area. As far as the school goes, we just happen to have Tom Eastman here, who's been dying for you to ask that question. Tom, would you mind responding to her. MR. EASTMAN: Historically, the school district has not stood in the way of development, be it for any residential or apartment complex. And over the years we've tried to make seats available and have met that goal. There's also in place concurrency, school concurrency which governs that. And in the event that we were unable to provide seats, we could exercise and slow down the process of development through the concurrency program. But that's really not the case here. We actually have some excess capacity. It would require rezonings. But we always try to meet the demand, and that's been our history. We monitor the developments very closely and don't want to stand in the way of progress or the development in the community. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And maybe I misunderstood something you were aiming toward or misunderstood what Mark said. But, Fred, correct me if I'm wrong. A PUD has an overall allowable maximum number of units, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if you don't use them in one part, you can use them in another, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. We look at gross density -- net density is certainly something that you can take a look at, but the way we measure it is gross density for the entire PUD limits. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that what you were asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, on this -- August 17, 2017 Page 29 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- or did I misunderstand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case, Stan, they cannot use the excess density that exists in Briarwood on this parcel because that -- the ownership of that is contested as far as who really owns it. So that's why they're asking for an additional on top of it even though all of the existing density has not been used. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the departments you referenced, solid waste and all that, they've reviewed this project. This project gets reviewed and gone through all departments in Collier County before it comes to us. So that part, as far as their addressing it, they have addressed it. And as far as the comprehensive planning, in essence, this comes under a rezoning reevaluation issue in which this was not consistent with the Growth Management Plan when it came into effect. The commercial actually is -- was an exception to that plan. That's why we encouraged the commercial to be redeveloped into a residential use by giving them additional density for doing that, because that makes it more consistent with the GMP. We have a comprehensive planning review that was provided that acknowledges that this was and is consistent with that particular plan. So all that stuff's been looked at, ma'am. And you may not have all the records because it's -- not all of it was quickly available. So I just wanted to make those points a little bit clearer. So thank you. MS. KIERNAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Kim Bennett followed by Liz Opalka. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Bennett? MS. BENNETT: I thank you for having me. I'm Kim Bennett. I live in Briarwood. I've been there for about 14 years, so I've seen a lot of change and a lot of growth in the area since I've been just in Briarwood. I was going to get up and speak a little bit about the number of units that are currently available in the Naples area, not even knowing about the 2,300 units that are under construction, so that concerns me even greater. But, currently, just on the MLS, which doesn't include apartments that are run by companies such as this that do their own apartment rental on site, there are 776 units open in Naples looking for renters. Right now there are 2,053 units for holiday rentals. So we're talking separating completely your vacationers that come here part time in the winter and annual renters that are full-time residents. In addition to that, there are many vacancies in those apartment buildings. Unfortunately, I didn't get to call everybody to get their vacancy ratios from them, but I did call quite a few of the local apartment managers to get those statistics. And Orchid Run, which is closest to Briarwood and the newest one, not only has 38 less units than what they're proposing building on a much larger parcel of land, but they're sitting with 20 units vacant, unoccupied at this moment looking for people to come and stay there. With that said, you speak to wanting to have housing available to our schoolteachers, our firefighters, our police officers. Most of those people have wives and children. Wives and children will not fit in a one-bedroom apartment, which is where their $1,400 starting rate is. So you have to jump up considerably to have a room for your kids to even go to our schools. That's just Orchid Run. LaCosta has 44 vacant units. Malibu Lakes has 36. Bermuda Palms has 33. That's a total of 133 more unfurnished, vacant, annual rentals in that same unaffordable price point that we have in Naples right now. Actual statistics; phone call made last night. So this is current as of yesterday. I didn't get to call places like River Reach or Granada or some of the other locations nearby that are still in Naples to get their statistics from them. But with over 900 units sitting unoccupied right now, if we add another 320 to them, the cause is going to be, yes, lower rents in our older rental communities because their prices are going to be driven down and maybe possibly made more effective for people to be able to go there because some people will move to the newer, fancier places to live, the people who could afford it, the young professionals who can afford it. August 17, 2017 Page 30 of 49 But how does that affect Collier County on the whole if we start forcing prices down in other properties that have been here for years? Is it going to make it so they can't maintain them effectively? Is it going to cause blight on the community because they go down and it affects other neighborhoods outside of Briarwood? In addition to that, as a Briarwood resident, we were promised something that benefited Briarwood residents. We went through this already on this. I don't know why we keep trying to change our PUD, but our PUD was intended to benefit us. Our density in Briarwood was made that way because we didn't want to pack in as many people as we could pack into that section of land. We wanted the space between the homes. We wanted the quality of life. We wanted the lakes to give beauty to our environment. And to think that everything we fought for to surround ourselves with a little bit more land is all going to be used to put tons of people on the point that doesn't benefit us at all -- in fact, it hurts us. And they talk about a shopping center being more traffic, but yet a shopping center would be utilized by the traffic that already exists there. We're not going to bring new traffic in to go to the shopping center. They're not going to come from Immokalee Road to use my strip mall. They're gong to come from Foxfire, they're going to come from Berkshire, they're going to come from the neighborhoods that are already going past our homes that are on their way home, on their way out. It's going to maybe alleviate traffic if a shopping center's there in other communities because we won't have to drive by them because we'll have it right outside our door. But bringing in these apartments brings in 500 more cars, and that's on the low side, of people that aren't here now. That impacts our traffic. That impacts our quality of life quite tremendously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. BENNETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Liz Opalka, followed by Robert MacKenzie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. OPALKA: Hello. My name is Liz Opalka. I live and own a condominium unit in Building 354 on Dover Place in Briarwood. I've been there for 12 years. And I'm a working professional. I work nine to five in North Naples. I generally leave home at 7:30 in the morning to get to my office at eight o'clock. And because of the traffic currently on Radio Road at that time of day, I generally cannot exit through the Radio Road entrance during the morning rush hour. And so I have to use the Livingston Road exit in order to get to work. It's not too much trouble for me, but I know it is trouble for other homeowners who are trying to exit during the morning rush hour. My primary concern with the development of this parcel of land into apartments that would be trying to attract working professionals like me is that there will be even more traffic on Radio Road in the morning. Currently, because of the traffic light at the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road, there is a backup of traffic right to our entrance on Radio Road. With another driveway and more people exiting this apartment development, there will be more traffic at that point. More people will be wanting to use Livingston Road because of that, and it's going to be more usage during the morning rush hour. I'm not aware of problems in the evening rush hour. Maybe someone else can talk about that. Another concern that I have is whether this community -- proposed community would be perceived as a part of Briarwood. It appears that the working title for the development is Briarwood Apartments. My preference is if this project does go through, it would have a different name so it would be clear to the general public that there -- that this is two separate communities. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Robert MacKenzie, followed by Diane Parillo. MR. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. August 17, 2017 Page 31 of 49 MR. MacKENZIE: Still is morning. My name is Robert MacKenzie. I'm a Briarwood owner living at 425 Dundee Court. Over 23 years ago I did a lot of research before buying my present home in Briarwood. Briarwood is a Planned Unit Development. Yes, planned. It's seen some changes, but its character has not been changed, nor should it be. It's a good plan that serves its intended purpose. I like the balance; the combination of single-family homes, condominiums or single-family homes. Reasonably sized multifamily area; I always assumed that was for apartments. We called it Cedarwood. I think that's been since separated but, essentially, it's part of the PUD. That's along Radio Road. And then the commercial block that we're talking about, that's also along Radio Road. Livingston Road had not been constructed at that time, but it was included in the plan. I like the character of Naples. I like the zoning factors. I like the PUD. I like the elevations and so forth. That means how much above sea level we were. I'm an engineer; a nerd. We look at those things. So everything looked good, so I went ahead and purchased my new home, but the proposed zoning change would drastically change key issues that I based my purchase decision on. And I say, why have zoning bylaws at all if we're willing to change them without compelling reasons that give significant advantage to the community at large? There are no substantial reasons why this property cannot be used as zoned. The staff answers Point 13 as to whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning saying basically nothing that I really could understand. My understanding is that you need to find substantial reasons why the property cannot be used as currently zoned. Will the site be used as currently zoned? Of course it will; that's the way I feel. There's been a significant increase in apartments and other dwellings in the area with more currently approved along -- coming along the way. This gives greater demand for a commercial purpose -- for a commercial property to service the needs of the community. When Wawa wanted to build across the street, which was zoned industrial, it needed a zoning change from industrial to commercial. They were granted the change because, as I understand, it was said there was enough commercial property available in the area. Why, then, do we want to decrease the amount of commercial property now when it's already found that we need more? It makes no sense to me. Did we let Wawa build on the wrong side of the street? I don't know. Point 15 in the staff report addresses whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The answer is an admission that there are followed by some unresponsive thing that I can't find any facts for. The facts I came up with that I have on a quick search found 12 sites that are currently listed as available and zoned multifamily. There are ample property zone sites for the apartment project. We should not lose our PUD's commercially zoned parcel to a proposed project that is not consistent with the needs and the character of the PUD's plan. Please do not support this change, then maybe I can get my hope for a Sunshine Ace Hardware store, a liquor store, a barbershop, a pharmacy, or maybe even a nice little Italian restaurant that I can walk to without driving all over town adding to our traffic problems. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Is Diane Parillo, followed by Elizabeth Davison. MS. PARILLO: Hi. I'm Diane Parillo. I live at 942 Tivoli Court. I've been here for seven years. And most of what I was going to say has already been covered by the people who have talked already. I guess my main question right now is you keep referring to Orchid Run. Anybody who's drove down Golden Gate to Livingston, you have already seen that Golden Gate has already been widened to accommodate the traffic that has occurred because of Orchid Run's apartments that are going up. There is no room for that kind of expansion on Radio Road or Livingston where this project is going to occur. August 17, 2017 Page 32 of 49 And I would like to know how you are going to deal with that traffic like the traffic that occurred because of the Orchid Run apartments going up at that -- and you're making a face. If you go there, if you see Golden Gate, they have widened that down towards -- I guess going west on the right-hand side, and that's already occurred. And there's no way that you're going to be able to accommodate more apartments -- more cars from those apartments that are going up at that point. And I guess my other question, which I don't know if we got an answer for, why do we have to keep coming up and defending a change to the PUD? The PUD was established, and with the carport that was going up, we had to come here and defend the change to that. Now you want to change it again, and we're here trying to defend the change to that. You people should be here defending us and standing for what we want, and they should have to prove that what they're going to do is a benefit to us and to our community, not the other way around. And I don't -- I don't see that happening. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: It's Elizabeth Davison followed by John Alcott. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone. MR. REISCHL: John Alcott's gone. It will be Scott Lepore. MS. DAVISON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. DAVISON: My name is Elizabeth Davison. I live in Briarwood. I've been here for 14 years. I've been a homeowner in Naples almost 35 years starting out at Naples Bath and Tennis Club, so I have seen the changes in Naples and the increased -- people decry the increased traffic and crowded restaurants and parking lots. And I understand the progress and desirability of Naples and why so many people want to move here, and I'm willing to share paradise with all the newcomers. What I'm not willing to do is to decrease the quality of life for those of us fortunate enough to live in a little hamlet called Briarwood. I'm, quite frankly, flabbergasted at the staff report from the zoning division, and no disrespect. On Page 5, under Section 1, it's stated that the staff has reviewed the proposed PUD amendment and believes that the addition of certain multifamily uses are compatible within the PUD. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. I don't know if any of your staff has actually visited the site or are relying on the traffic impact analysis which was provided, but I invite each of the planning board members to visit Briarwood between the hours of seven and nine a.m. and try to exit our community onto Radio Road. I know this topic has come up before. This morning I overheard one of our members saying he actually had to make a U-turn at Radio Road and go back through the complex to get out on Livingston Road. And that there will be exits onto Livingston Road from the parcel is also alarming. We currently experience traffic backup by those attempting to enter Briarwood through the guardhouse on Livingston. Am I talking too fast? Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's nodding her head yes. MS. DAVISON: Okay. There are times when cars are lined up, and the increase from this housing unit will also add to what is already an accident waiting to happen. The addition of 320 multifamily units on that corner is estimated to bring an extra 544 cars. That's using a supposition of 1.7 cars. But if we're talking, as discussed, mostly two family -- two people, working professionals, in a family, that's going to be at least two cars per family. And nowhere in this report -- or we discussed this morning that there's a 72 townhome unit going up just to the east of Briarwood on Radio Road between us and Maplewood. That's already approved and ready to go. The other traffic issue which has been discussed is the Wawa on the corner of Radio Road and Livingston. I'm from New Jersey; I don't know if you can tell. I've kind of gotten rid of most of that accent. August 17, 2017 Page 33 of 49 But if you know about Wawa, they have almost a cultlike following. There's great anticipation of their opening, and we are expecting a lot of traffic there. And I don't disparage that. I'm kind of looking forward to Wawa opening up. So even with these two new items, it's estimated by the traffic analysis that the net traffic external increase will be 2,063 cars on a weekday with this new development. Radio Road just can't handle that increase. And my understanding, and this was discussed, that the two lanes are at capacity, and there's no increased lanes to be added. They also estimate that the increase in traffic is less if the land is maintained for -- then if the land is maintained for commercial use. We disagree, and I respectfully request the planning board to consider the tremendous traffic that will be added to our complex on a 24-hour basis by making the change from commercial to residential. We believe that with the commercial use, which is currently approved, traffic would at least not be around the clock. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Does anybody know how many parking spaces are on that plan we were shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure the developer knows. After we get done with public speakers, do you want me -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I was just curious, because they keep talking, you know, and I'm wondering, you can't put more cars in there than the number of parking spaces, and I'm -- you know, I'm just wondering what that number was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, do you have somebody that can answer that question? MR. REISCHL: I can tell you the minimum -- the minimum for a one-bedroom would be one and a half spaces per unit, and for everything greater than that would be two per unit. That's the minimum. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But they had a drawing, and the drawing looked packed -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: -- with parking. And I'm wondering what that number came to, if anybody -- MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- did a total. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think there is a total on there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you can't find it real quick, we can go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you look for it, and when we get done with public speakers, there's going to be some questions of our transportation department as far as capacity goes, too, so... Mr. Lepore? MR. REISCHL: Scott Lepore followed by Ross (sic) Berghuis. MR. LEPORE: Good morning, Commissioners. And I want to thank you for being here. I know most of you are volunteers. Mark, even though you're paid by Collier County, I'm going to thank you, too. But I've served on a lot of boards -- I've served on a lot of boards, and I know that it's a lot of work. And we appreciate you hearing our concerns today. I'm here today to express my objection to any changes regarding the Briarwood PUD and, specifically, the 15.97-acre parcel at Radio Road and Livingston that is zoned for a shopping center. I am vehemently opposed to any changes to that PUD that would allow a nonconforming apartment complex with 320 units and 21 units an acre of density on that 15.97-acre parcel. In reviewing the Briarwood PUD, P-U-D, which I was given when I purchased in '96, I see nothing in there that would allow this apartment complex to be built. Given the number of apartment complexes August 17, 2017 Page 34 of 49 located within three miles of this area, all that have residences available to lease at this given time, this is a clear attempt by the developer to use the property for a use that is noncompliant and nonconcurrent. We are taking a step closer to becoming Fort Lauderdale, ladies and gentlemen. As an almost 30-year resident of Collier County, I will be fighting this project head on. Radio Road is ill-equipped to handle another major project of this density at this point, especially west of Santa Barbara. I want to go over some bullet points, because I was very surprised when Bob said that Radio Road was a three-lane road, and he compared Orchid Run at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston to this project, which would be at Livingston and Radio Road. Now, I realize that people make mistakes, but I think that was very telling, because Livingston Road meets Radio Road. It's the only section of Livingston Road in all of Collier County where you don't have three lanes meeting three lanes. In other words, if you go to Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Pine Ridge and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Immokalee Road or Vanderbilt, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. But on this parcel right here you have three lanes meeting two lanes. Again, the only major intersection in Collier County where Livingston Road intersects with a main feeder road that is only two lanes. And there is no way to expand Radio Road to three lanes. I think that's the most important point. Increasing Radio Road to three lanes is impossible, especially between Santa Barbara and Livingston. The property is not zoned for apartment complexes. We seem to be getting in a situation now where we have a quest to fill in everything between Livingston Road and the beach in that four-mile radius. And I know there's a lot of requests to change zoning, but this property is not zoned for apartment complexes. Two hundred seventy-five residential units were just constructed at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. If you call them, they have availability. Many people have mentioned the ample apartment complexes that are located within two miles of this project that all have availability. So there is no pressing need for this. It's not an affordable housing project. It's basically another luxury apartment complex where rents are going to be 1,400 to $2,000 a month. The PUD was designed in 1976 with a specific purpose for a shopping center or a big box store to complement the single-family homes and condominiums, not to be able to take the total density and divide that out to say that this project would be concurrent and compatible. That's not what the commissioners were doing in 1976, ladies and gentlemen. What the commissioners were doing was trying to make sure that we have harmony in our neighborhoods. We have five residences, single-family home, per acre. There's X amount of residences for multifamily condominium. This completely changes the PUD, and it will change the character of the neighborhood that I love and I've lived in for 21 years. This will create a traffic nightmare for the residents of Briarwood in addition to Wawa, which has a cult following similar to the Grateful Dead in music. If you're aware of places that have cult followings, I've never seen anything like -- the people that go to Wawa will drive five, 10 miles to go to Wawa. They have the best sandwiches you could imagine for $5. They're going to be lined up, then you're going to have people from this apartment complex trying to cross Livingston Road to get to Wawa. It wasn't three years ago that we had somebody who was a resident of Maplewood trying to cross Radio Road to go to Circle K, and she was hit and killed by a car. You're going to create a public safety issue if this passes. Today I tried to exit my neighborhood on Radio Road. I work in Parkshore, so usually I'll take Livingston Road to Golden Gate Parkway. I tried to exit Radio Road. Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen, I could not get out of the neighborhood. When I was able to get out on Livingston Road and I was able to go west on Radio Road, traffic was backed completely up. I was not aware that there is a charter school now at the intersection of Airport and Radio Road. So you have Wawa, Dunkin Donuts, a charter school. How much more traffic are we going to try to put on a two-lane road? Shopping centers, they operate specific hours, maybe eight a.m. to eight p.m. You're talking about a August 17, 2017 Page 35 of 49 project 365 days a year, 24/7. You don't have the traffic capacity. I don't care what the staff report says. Why don't you join me tomorrow at 7:45 a.m., and let's see if we can get out on that road. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please don't applaud. We've got to continue the meeting with other speakers as well, so... Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Ross (sic) Berghuis followed by Cheryl Dampier. MR. BERGHUIS: Good morning. Last October I met with the developer of this apartment complex, Brett Boyd, with two other members of the association, property management association. At that time the number was 280 apartments, no swimming pool, affordable, no lake, just apartments. Now it's up to 320. Subsequently, I have met with Chairman Strain and Commissioner Taylor about this project in opposition of it. I represent 585 families of Briarwood, and I think it's a mistake that you vote to let this through. Let me tell you why. Twenty to 25 percent of our annual operating income comes from rental income. Twenty-five units of 135 of the condos are rental -- annual rental units. Now, if they build this, those people are liable to go next door to the new apartment complex, which leaves a great financial strain on Briarwood which would lead to devaluating property values, investors who will probably bail out and sell for less to make the property values less, there's going to be more traffic and, financially, it's not a good idea for us, and it's going to increase our annual assessments. So, to me, I did some studying, and there's probably, within a half a mile radius of Briarwood -- and nobody's mentioning the fact that right outside of Briarwood gate -- well, one lady did. Bill Spinelli has already been approved for 72 multi-level condo units. That's going to create more traffic. Now, if the traffic from the Radio Road side goes over to the Livingston side on the exit route, there's only one lane out. That's going to back up traffic like you would not believe. Now, with the Wawa, with all -- like everybody else has said, there's probably, within that half-mile radius, 5-, 6,000 cars at least, which is going to cause a major traffic backup. Same thing with Berkshire Lakes. Berkshire Lakes PUD originally, where the shopping plaza was -- is right now, is the same what Briarwood was. That was part of the PUD to be a commercial plaza. Same thing what Briarwood's PUD is. Why can't we have that instead of the apartments, which it was intended to be? It worked for Berkshire Lakes. It started off slow, but look at it today. It's a growing concern. It makes a lot of money. And recently I did receive the letter from Mr. Yovanovich, and it was a stronghold type of letter. One day later I received a letter from Mr. Boyd detracting his statement, so why did he even send it in the first place? I mean, Briarwood's not going to be strongarmed by any developer or attorney. This is not the first time this has happened. Mr. Yovanovich's office sent me a letter way back when when Commissioner Taylor -- and Mark Strain was there at the same time -- asked me to do a survey of how many people wanted these apartments. So, you know, I don't appreciate that strongarm tactic by anybody. I mean, in closing, put yourself in our shoes. You know, if you lived there, would you want this apartment complex next to you devaluating your property values, increasing your yearly assessments and whatnot? I don't think so. And with the traffic -- and just take Foxfire right across the road. There's 600 apartments over there right close on the Radio Road side. Now you've got Maplewood, you've got Meadow Lakes, you've got all these other -- you know, you've got Orchid Run. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. And I just want you to feel our plate in this process of not accepting this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred. MR. REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Cheryl Dampier. MS. DAMPIER: Hello. My name is Cheryl Kraus Dampier. I've lived in Briarwood on Dundee Court for -- since December of 1993. I bought one of the first models on model row. I've been there, I love it, and can you blame me? Look at my neighbors. Look at the research they August 17, 2017 Page 36 of 49 did, how prepared they are and how they've really come in and said almost everything that I'm going to say. So I'm going to keep this really short. I -- you know, the density, the traffic, I agree with their comments on that. One of the things -- and I'm just -- the script is totally gone. One of the things that was said, even by Bob Muller (sic), he says, we want to do something that makes sense. And as Russ just finished, to us this doesn't make sense. We purchased into a community with a PUD. We knew that that parcel was going to be commercial, and we embraced it and we liked it, and we want to keep it that way. There's not a lot of commercial in that area. And as was stated by one of my neighbors, this -- presumably this same committee decided in the last few years that the industrial parcel where Wawa's going should be commercial. I'm assuming that the reason was that we needed more commercial. So now we want to take away the commercial that those of us in Briarwood have been sold and expecting and have wanted. Everyone has always said that they want to be able to walk up to the corner store, and we're still hoping that that is a possibility, and we're hoping that you'll see that this proposal that's being brought to you today just really doesn't makes sense, especially for those of us in Briarwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who have not already spoken that would like to speak today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, Mr. Boyd, you'll have a chance for rebuttal when we finish with all of the other information we need. I would like to have the traffic department, Transportation Department, come forward for a couple questions. Then, Mr. Bosi, I'd like to ask you a GMP question after that. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, I'd like some clarification on Radio Road. First of all, is there capacity available on Radio Road in this segment of it for this? MR. SAWYER: Actually, there is. Right now I can tell you that our current AUIR, annual inventory, is indicating that we've got a level of service of C on Radio Road basically from Livingston to Santa Barbara as well as Airport to Livingston. Basically, the peak capacity that we've got on both of those road segments are 1,800. Their p.m. peak direction is east. The capacity that we currently have, the remaining capacity on Livingston to Santa Barbara, is 690 trips, and from Airport to Livingston we're at 677 trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- is Radio Road constrained? MR. SAWYER: It still has an -- it's still at a level of service that we deem adequate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean constrained in the sense of improvements from an expansion. So can, for example -- the example was that for -- one gentleman said Radio Road can't be expanded. Is that a true statement or not? MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now it's not on any of our long-range plans to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I asked. MR. SAWYER: As far as doing improvements, there are methods that we can do to improve all road segments, basically, even down to making intersection improvements such as we're currently looking at for Pine Ridge which we already know has failed. What we're looking at there are more different types of ways of managing intersections, which is where we have the most conflict points. As far as being able to actually improve Radio, in a traditional manner of adding lanes, it's going to be very, very difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please. We've got to finish asking the questions we need to before we go into further discussion. The traffic that is proposed for this development, the applicant has done an analysis. It says it's less intense than a commercial shopping center. Now, they use different numbers. They used less numbers than the actual size that could be built. August 17, 2017 Page 37 of 49 Those less intensities, do you recall if it's peak times or generally throughout the day? MR. SAWYER: We actually look at both but principally for concurrency, which is what we're looking at for zoning, so that we're concurrent with the GMP, we look at p.m. peak. That's what the rules say we look at; that's what we use. In this particular case, we looked at the numbers that were prepared in the TIS and looked at it as being very conservative. They could easily put into the TIS a larger number of square footage than they did. They use 100,000 square feet. They could have actually gone, I believe, already, 139,000 square feet. So that in and of itself brought the number down. But we're already -- the multifamily that's being proposed has a much less -- a much lower trip count than you do for commercial, especially in the p.m. peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that part -- now, I know the GMP and the zoning reevaluation that applies to this particular project, it's been zoned commercial for 41 years, so it precedes our GMP. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that reason, when the GMP was created, they made exceptions for these odd pieces of commercial where we don't -- at that time the GMP said we don't want these like this. We want them concentrated on activity centers. This is not an activity center? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Fred, I know the answer, but let Mike answer it. I wanted to make sure everybody understands what we're dealing with. Okay. So because it's not an activity center and the GMP comes into play and says we're trying to discourage commercial in non-activity centers, but those that exist, we have to give them an exception to continue operating. But we do encourage them to convert to residential. Is that generally what's happening here as to how the residential came about in regards to its density and its allowance -- are you aware of? MR. SAWYER: I would believe that that would be correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the same question I want Mr. Bosi, as the head of Comp Planning, to acknowledge or discuss, at least, in a minute. MR. SAWYER: He would be a far better source than me for the Comp Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I'm looking at it from traffic through you. MR. SAWYER: Certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from your eyes the residential will have a less impact on the traffic if either residential or commercial was built on this property. Inevitably, one will be. Regardless, the residential, as proposed today, is less than the commercial that could be built there at its maximum value of 139,000? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's what I needed to know. And, with that, I'd like Mike to come up and address the comp planning issues. MR. BOSI: Good morning, again. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, you know, this project was originally zoned in the '70s, and it's been around for over 40 years. That commercial corner's been there for quite some time. There's been various attempts to have it utilized. The commercial component preceded the GMP, as you heard me say. As a result, it's there because of an exception. And I remember reading the Comprehensive Planning memo or one of the discussions that the exception provides incentivization to convert from commercial, which we don't generally encourage at a location like this in the current GMP, to something else, and I think in this case it encourages the residential. Is that all true? Can you shed some light on how all that came about? MR. BOSI: Yes. And when we adopted the current GMP was in 1989, and the current GMP concept for the location of commercial locations were our mixed-use activity centers, the location of the confluence of the intersections of our collector and arterial roads. But we did recognize that there was a lot of strip commercial zoning that was outside of the prescribed location, and we couldn't take those rights away. So they were allowed to stay, and they're deemed consistent by policy. Within the Growth Management Plan and the Future Land Use Element we have a density rating August 17, 2017 Page 38 of 49 system for how you gain the number of units that are available for any one portion of land. We recognized that those commercial -- strip commercial zoning, those outliers outside of those activity centers weren't consistent, but we couldn't take those rights away. But what we wanted to do was we wanted to encourage the transition of those non-consistent commercial locations to residential development. So we allocated the conversion of commercial density to residential density eligibility for 16 units per acre. That's the maximum number of units that our Future Land Use Element and our density rating system would allow for. So what we're saying is, the desire to locate the commercial at the activity centers were strong enough that we want to discourage those noncompliant, and we want to provide an incentivization to convert those commercial to residential, and we're utilizing that incentivization, meaning you're eligible to ask up to 16 units per acre for that conversion specifically to try to eliminate some of those non-consistent commercial locations, and that's the scheme that was adopted by our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell Patrick's going to ask you the question, and I can tell he's been turning his head, so he's probably thinking, well, you're saying 16 units per acre, but this project is being recommended for approval at 20. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. BOSI: Well, the way that we would look at this project is we look at the entire PUD. We look at the entire PUD, and there were two different methodologies towards how you can get to a total number of units that would be eligible for this -- for the amendment. One is looking at just the straight total acreages for the entire PUD, which I believe is about 209 acres. Because it has access to two arterial roadways, you could be -- you're eligible for five units per acre, and that five units per acre would put you over the above (sic) number of units that would be requested, or you could go with the existing -- the existing residentially designated area, which I believe is 189 units per acre, utilize that at five units per acre, but then the 16 units or the 15.99 is eligible for conversion of commercial as I had suggested at 16 units per acre, and that would get you even a higher number of units for eligibility. So we always look at the PUD as a whole, but the density allocations could be on a parcel or project-by-project basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, thank you. I always appreciate your in-depth knowledge. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of staff or the presenter or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, we'll go to rebuttal. Richard, I don't know who on your team wants to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to just address a couple points, and then Mr. Boyd wants to get back up here and address some of the market conditions points. And I don't normally -- I don't normally address comments from the public, but in this particular case I think we need to talk a little bit about the history. Two things were pointed out already by Mr. Bosi that I think are important. One, under the Comprehensive Plan today we're supposed to be residential, and there was -- Mike explained how we're supposed to convert that at 16 units per acre to entice us not to build commercial where commercial's not intended to go under our Comprehensive Plan. So we're consistent 100 percent with the Comprehensive Plan that is before you today. Regarding -- and I'll be honest with you, I forgot about the provision that you get an extra unit per acre by having access on two, basically, major roads. So the Comprehensive Plan even says that this specific piece of property is supposed to be -- instead of the four base, we can go to five. So from a density standpoint, it's intended to have a higher density on this property than other properties in Collier County. So your staff would not have found us consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if we weren't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. August 17, 2017 Page 39 of 49 Now, there was a comment about a letter I wrote to Mr. Berghuis early on, and I feel like I need to tell you why I wrote the letter. He went out to survey the residents of Briarwood with two options. Do you want the man cave back, which is the project that ultimately was killed by the residents of Briarwood, or do you want an affordable housing with no amenities to be built on this site? And what I simply said to him is, you are not telling your residents the accurate truth about the proposed project. The proposed project has always been a market-rate project with resort-style amenities to serve this community. And I said, you need to tell them the truth when you go out and do this survey. That's the letter I wrote. I'm happy to provide copies of that letter to him saying you need to do it. You need to do it right if you're going to ask your residents about a survey. I don't know what ultimately happened with the survey; never seen the results. Don't know if he ever went out and surveyed what we really are trying to do with the residents. That's what happened when I wrote him that previous letter. And I just wanted that to be clear on the record. We have always been willing to meet with the community. We did two voluntary open houses and a third NIM that was the official NIM to get input and have continually revised the project. We're 100 percent consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Boyd's going to explain to you about vacancies and how apartment complexes work. He's the person who knows the real data on the rental markets. I don't think anybody here has represented that they're an expert in rental communities and how apartment complexes run. Mr. Boyd is. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Boyd, and we can answer any other questions you may have. MR. BOYD: For the record, Brett Boyd. I understand the frustrations; I empathize. I just want to be able to tell the Board that there was some additional capacity there. We thought this site functioned -- or would function successfully at 320 units. There was more capacity out there for density. I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to put 500 units there or 400 units there because it's available. We're trying to make it a nice balance of what can work successfully at this location. There's 560 parking stalls. I just wanted to convey that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was a question earlier. MR. BOSI: Just a couple global things. Operationally, for apartments, the number of vacancies that you all called about, which are good phone calls to make -- I make those phone calls, too; my feasibility people do; my project managers make those phone calls. But the county just spent a lot of money with the Urban Land Institute, and their vacancy rate in Collier County is less than 2 percent. It's less than 2 percent. A lot of these vacancies you hear about or that you called about, those are typically the turnover. You're just going to get people that have a one-year lease, and you have a turnover, and there's a time period before you get it leased up. That's, operationally, what -- the numbers you're hearing. But overall, there's a reason why Mr. Strain had talked about a number of multifamily units here, because there's a big demand. There's just not enough supply in Collier County. There's not enough places for people to live here. So, globally -- I know it may not be of interest to you all to have multifamily right here, but for the community at large it is a benefit. There is a demand. There's a -- with vacancy less than 2 percent -- typically across the country we use a 6 percent vacancy factor. That's normal. Here it's less than 2 percent. The other issue is commercial development. Just -- it's just the factor of what's happening in today's time. They're saying -- you probably read recently that 20 or 30 percent of all the malls in the next five or 10 years are going to close. You know, you're seeing there's another shopping center in Naples right now, in Collier County, that's looking at a conversion. They're going to tear down the shopping center possibly and build apartments. I think those are for-sale product. But these are things that are happening. And this is what the Urban Land Institute study said. These are experts from around the country that you have to look to some of these tired shopping centers and, unfortunately, that's the way things are today. And I'm used to, like you are, going to a store and buying August 17, 2017 Page 40 of 49 things. And, you know, my college kids, they're ordering things on Amazon. It's just the way things work today. And we make our adjustments in this business. They've got these 24/7 receiving rooms where the FedEx and UPS trucks -- and they actually have a place where the residents can have storage for their packages that come in, and it's available to them in a climate-controlled room, and we even have air-conditioned rooms for perishable items that they order. And I don't understand that at all. But I -- you know, you go to the grocery store, you bring it back to the refrigerator, but that's the new generation. That's what they're doing. So, anyway, I just wanted to parlay a couple of things there at least with the vacancy factor in the county. This is a -- the Urban -- don't trust me. You can look at this, you know, expert report that was done by these people from around the country that did an analysis, and there's a need. That's kind of a global thing that is needed in this county, and as far as the commercial development. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if that wraps up the presenter's rebuttal -- I can see heads nodding yes -- I have one now additional question of Mr. Sawyer, if you don't mind coming up, Mike. It's a follow-up on one of the questions about the parking. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The site plan that was previously shown to us was about the -- I think he said 560. It actually was 573. I just found it. In that 573, there are 98 spaces that are in garages, so that brings it -- so if you take 100 off that, you're around 575, something like that -- or 475 for actual parking spaces outside a garage. The open parking space is shown on the plan for -- that was approved for Lowe's was 480 parking spaces. Does transportation -- and maybe Norm looked at it this way or not. Does transportation consider the duration of a need for a parking space in how it looks at the traffic flow? For example, a Lowe's will operate about 15, 16 hours a day. Traffic will come in during their peak hours, modulate during the day. And when I'm there, I go in and I stay in for a really long time. So mine will be like a residence. But residences would then certainly occupy their parking spaces for a different time frame. They wouldn't be coming and going as much, I would assume. Do you take that into consideration in your traffic studies and what you predict for peak times and other times for traffic for each one of these types of uses? MR. SAWYER: We do. The ITE basically gives different rates for different types of uses, and those uses are going to fluctuate depending on what that actual use is. In other words, you're correct, a Lowe's is going to have a lower a.m. peak but a higher p.m. peak; whereas, residential, you're going to be having possibly a more even distribution because people are generally going to work and then coming back again. Now, generally speaking, you're going to have a longer peak, if you will, in the morning because we tend to have people starting earlier and later when they're going to work; however, most people are more concentrated in the evening. That's why we look at the p.m. peak as being more critical when we're looking -- and that's -- and that's why, when we're looking for consistency with the GMP, that's what we look at is principally only p.m. peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally, the people that live in homes will work -- they work in -- some work in shifts. Not all shifts are daytime. So the idea that some of these units will have cars coming and going in off hours because of odd shifts would actually help distribute the parking -- the traffic more evenly on the road system as well? MR. SAWYER: Definitely, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. I -- thank you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anybody they want to ask before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point we'll close the public hearing, and we'll go in for discussion before entertaining a motion from the Planning Commission. So with that in mind, any of you got anything you want to talk about as far as what you've heard here August 17, 2017 Page 41 of 49 today before a motion is made? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like to say something. Last year, you're right, you did have a choice of the man cave, which you would have never known was there. You keep saying you want commercial; you want restaurants. We have strip malls that are absolutely vacant. And this is not a good corner for that, I mean, especially now with Wawa. You've got Peppers. I don't know what else -- no matter what seems to be going on in this property, there are certain people that do not want anything here except their restaurants and their little hardware store. It isn't going to happen. So I -- we don't know what to do to satisfy you, but this is -- I thought the man cave was perfect for your corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what motion will be made, so it can either be a motion for denial or a motion for recommendation for approval. If the approval is, I would suggest some stipulations, and I made notes as this discussion occurred today. We did ask for some textual changes to the PUD which normally comes back to us and we review it on consent. In addition, some of the bigger items we talked about was that there be no interconnection to the existing community; that there be at least an 8 -- there be an 8-foot masonry wall along the common PUD boundary between the lake tract to the east and Skelly Road. There will be a new exhibit added to the PUD that will show the cross-section. And, Richard, you're getting up for a reason? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said six feet. I don't know if you were changing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you said six feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I said eight. So if the motion's made, I'm suggesting, if it's motion for approval, it would be eight, not six, just in that piece that borders the residential. Okay. They're going to add a new PUD exhibit for, I think it was, A3 or something, show the cross-section of the other buffer to the residential. Both buffers will include, now, tables showing us what the enhancements are, because it's been a statement but not defined. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, before you get too far along, can I ask, on the wall you said adjacent to residential. Did you mean all the residential boundaries or just where residential currently exists? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said between the lake tract to the east, which is over there by -- to the east of the lower south side, and up to Skelly Road. MR. REISCHL: Up to Skelly. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's, like, Tract B1. We'll look at the plat, but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to show -- if this comes back -- if the recommendation is for approval, this will come back on consent, and we'll verify it then. MR. MULHERE: We'll show it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Access points will be gated. A complete PUD would be provided by the time of consent. The minimum principal setback to the Dover Parc parcel to the east and northeast would be 50 feet. There will be some language to indicate cost sharing of the lakes. The existing conditions that deal with Skelly Road and its cutoff will be confirmed as to whether you need some flexibility to deal with it or staff says it doesn't need to be deal (sic) with. There will be no access for this project to residents to the community facilities, in particular the recreational facility that you've said you're not going to be part of. The palette of plants that Mark Templeton has worked out with Bob Mulhere will be provided as part of the PUD. There will be -- the buildings themselves will be a masonry construction with tile roofs, and they'll have electric vehicle charging stations in the garages. The minimum size unit will be 750 square feet. The development will pay its proportional share of water management system. August 17, 2017 Page 42 of 49 There will be -- the fill taken off site will not exceed that allowed by the LDC. The garages that are shown on the plan will be enclosed. There's a paragraph in the PUD that needs to be modified concerning accessories particular to this site, and you will show the location of the dumpsters' enclosures at the time of consent. And I would suggest those be as far away from existing residential as they possibly can be. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may. I didn't hear you, and you may have said it. The 50-foot setback was for principal structures, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I did -- thought I said it. I read it, and it says -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't hear it, but I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is principal structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I think the offsite fill is no longer in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah. We did have it, and we moved it just so we can be confusing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that's the stipulations in case there's a motion of approval. So I'll turn now to the rest of this panel for any comments, and then -- MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, another one that I may have missed by writing down previous ones, you said garages enclosed. Does that mean garage doors also, or can three sides -- is that considered enclosed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about the sides facing the outside of the property. But, garage doors, are you intending garage doors? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Reischl, these are real garages, so they'll be garage doors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, is there a motion from this panel? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I move we approved the project with the stipulations that you put forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan, seconded by Karen. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-1. Thank you, all. We're going to take a recess for lunch and come back and deal with our LDC amendment, and we'll come -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're clearly coming back for consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're clearly coming back for consent, yes. Is there a motion made for the consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to come back on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. August 17, 2017 Page 43 of 49 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that reminder. Everybody, we'll be back at one o'clock. Fifty-five minutes for lunch, and we'll talk about LDC. (A lunch recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. You have a live mike. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present; here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're missing -- well, wait a minute. Here comes the County Attorney's representative. So as long as he's here, we're good to go. But we're also missing Stan and Tom Eastman, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And we're missing Nicole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have to hold off. Let's just wait five minutes. Because we left at 12:05. Maybe they think it's one hour. So we'll wait till 1:05 to resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, now that Stan's here, we can resume our meeting. We had a quorum, but it's not the same without you, Stan. So the next item up, and the only remaining item on today's agenda, is 9C, which is a continuation of the discussion of the Land Development Code standard for preservation and offsite preserves. And we will -- Jeremy had supplied a new version to us with our packet based on our direction from last meeting. And in reading that, something came to light that maybe we need to discuss a little further, and I'm hoping -- I asked Jeremy to be prepared to discuss it, and that's the fact that we have a GMP that says we will provide some means for off site, and by eliminating it at all, we're inconsistent, then, with the GMP and, as a result, we would have to modify the GMP. So in order to avoid that, maybe some minimal off site in cases where there's conditions or criteria that are met, we can accommodate it both as an administrative possibility and as a -- maybe a deviation or variance, depending on the need. And with that in mind, Jeremy, why don't we move ahead with what you've got in front of us today. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record, LDC Manager. I don't have a huge presentation, but -- and you kind of covered some of the things I was going to talk about. So, really, I think if you want to add to this amendment or maybe modify some of the things that we're removing, we can walk through that section by section. The version that we gave to you today is just removing that offsite vegetation. So I think what I'll do is use the packet from the July 20th meeting just so it's a little easier to see what we currently have, and we can modify it. We can talk about what kind of changes we need using that. I think for today -- you know, we won't be able to all write this amendment together and finish it today. So if we get some direction, some concepts that you want to add into this amendment, we can come back to your next meeting with a completed draft and hopefully finish up this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and my discussion or comments were just as a result of reading your analysis, and I want to tell you thank you. Your analysis was greatly appreciated. I'm also just opening it up for discussion in this panel because getting into the GMP on this matter probably isn't a good thing to do, especially if there are conditions that are justifiable. And we can limit it to 21,780 square feet; that might work, and I said that because that's half an acre. But I'd rather have it stated as 21,780 square feet. And the reason for that is it makes people realize just how big that is. That's five times the size of a normal house in Collier County or more. And if we provide criteria for that to happen both as an administrative deviation and then when the criteria's not met but there's still a request to do that, it could be a deviation or variance more formally, and then the monetary payment could be tied to purely a square-foot basis based on a per-acre basis of the AUIR, August 17, 2017 Page 44 of 49 and don't mess with all the endowment stuff just because it's too small to mess with. I think that would get us to a point where we're no further in conflict with the GMP, and we could then get this done without having to disrupt the GMP. And I'm throwing it out to all of you to consider and Jeremy to comment on to see if that seems like a viable option to go forward with. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. You know, I mentioned in our discussion earlier that as long as we meet those three elements that I outlined in the memo that are in the GMP, whatever the shape of this amendment, it works for us. So as long as we're meeting those requirements to have the native vegetation offsite program to allow for a deviation through a public process and an administrative deviation, that covers our bases from the GMP perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's probably -- I mean, other than that, that was the only thing I thought was problematic after that point was brought out. Does anybody else have any issues that -- or any disagreement with that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So no land donation; just monetary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just monetary. So if you have a -- say you've got a quarter of an acre, or let's say a half acre, 21,780 square feet, and we have a -- we know the per-acre basis. It's going to be in the AUIR. So we can back out the square-foot cost. So even if they come in with 10,000 square feet, we know what the cost would be. They make that donation to the Conservation Collier, or whatever program we differentiate, which will probably be Conservation Collier, then it's done. And we can look at it administratively for certain things that are almost, I should call them, non-problematic. And then if they don't meet those criteria but they still want it off site, they have to justify it through a deviation or a variance. Does that -- that sounds -- at least we're trying to -- we're keeping away from the GMP change and making it more consistent with what previously was done as far as the GMP requested. I mean -- that's what I'm suggesting. I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So we always have the ability to say not off site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's administrative and they meet the criteria. For example, essential services. Essential services would be able to come in, say, this is an essential service, here's why it's essential service; therefore, we're waiving the half acre, or 21,000, whatever percentage of what they need. And that's how I -- that's the suggestion to get around the GMP issue, because I don't think that's one we want to broach. And I appreciate you for pointing that out, Jeremy. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So I can put the provisions up on the overhead so we can just kind of quickly walk through that and make sure everyone's on the same page and then go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So what we're looking at here -- this is the draft that you all received for this week, so we had removed this section and included a prohibition just to -- you know, it kind of starts off on the same page. So what we'll do is add to this, not in terms of the applicability and some of the other sections that we had before, but more in terms of deviations and administrative deviations, and we'll add those provisions in separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can you still leave the word "prohibition" in in excess of a half acre? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. In order to -- in order to eliminate the ability to ask for a deviation above that, we would have to prohibit above that point. So that -- there will still be some form of a prohibition in that kind of a draft. So this is going back to our July 20th amendment. And just to kind of quickly scroll through this. You know, we had purpose and intent, the applicability, we laid out a couple of situations where the offsite preserves are allowed. This section would be modified not to think so much as applicability as when a deviation is allowed, and I think -- if I understand correctly, deviations would be allowed up to half an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. That sounds better. So that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is half an acre, but when we write it down that way, I think it's more recognizable as a large -- it's not a small piece of land; 21,000 square feet's big. MR. FRANTZ: And so that would become more of a deviation section. August 17, 2017 Page 45 of 49 The next section that currently exists is this exceptions section. And thinking of administrative deviations, this might be a good section to apply -- to allow for administrative deviations rather than thinking of it as exceptions. So as you said, if you have an essential service facility or maybe affordable housing project, those are the types of projects that we would allow for off site administratively. So we could use this as kind of a model for that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd prefer not to do administrative deviations, though. I'd rather have it be exemptions or exceptions, because if you're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- doesn't the GMP require three standards? That's why I was thinking -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, then, if there's administrative deviations, then there just has to be criteria -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- so that it's black and white. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the direction. MR. FRANTZ: What I had in mind was we also have -- for Immokalee we have an interim deviations sections, and it calls them interim deviations but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're permanent now. MR. FRANTZ: They're permanent, and they achieve those deviations just through the SDP. And so it's kind of a form of administrative deviations. And I think we'd kind of model -- model it off of that process, if that works for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. I think it does. MR. FRANTZ: Next we had the PUD deviations section. Again, we're looking at the July 20th packet. This would be modified to, as we said, prohibit deviations above the half acre; 21,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: After that we have prohibitions. I think these can stay. This was identifying, specifically, habitats that we want to remain on site. So, I mean, that would be my suggestion but, of course, it's up to you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think we're on the right track. MR. FRANTZ: Beyond that, it gets to the -- excuse me, the off-site alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you wouldn't need any of that. You'd simply have on a square-foot basis based on the last AUIR between urban and rural. MR. FRANTZ: Right. It would be kind of a modification of the first of the monetary payment alternative, so we'll just take out the additional elements of that payment. It would just be based on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice the current AUIR doesn't break it down for urban and rural. It breaks it down for community and regional. MR. FRANTZ: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a better way to look at a cost basis, then maybe you can suggest that. I was -- I forgot that we had -- in the past I believe we had two values, but sometime along the road it seems to have changed to community and regional and not gotten into different sectors of the area, so... MR. FRANTZ: Well, the way that we had it for this draft was we had looked at the costs of purchases for the Conservation Collier program and then used the same ratio of rural to urban lands but if that -- if we want to go a different direction, then we can discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the AUIR's asterisk defining where they used -- or got their numbers from for those values came from the impact fee study. I would rather use a study like that -- MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's more or less a consultant's analysis than an internal process that just uses added-up and divided numbers. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I'm not super familiar with that study off the top of my head, so I don't know exactly what kind of guidance that would give us, but we can look to that and -- August 17, 2017 Page 46 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know for sure either, but I'm suggesting that would have a better evaluation, at least probably a better way to go than internally. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We can go that route. The next part of that section was the land donation alternative. I think you've talked about, today, removing that section. And the last part of this section is just kind of a note for how this section is processed for PUDs. And just off the top of my head, I think that that section can stay, but we'll analyze that as we get through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: So if everyone's on the same page about those kinds of changes, I think, you know, probably staff should take some time to draft that up and circulate it amongst ourselves and make sure that we're covering all our bases, and we can bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something you feel comfortable with on the 7th of September, or do you want to do a different meeting? MR. FRANTZ: I think that we can do September 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it changes, just let us know; we can move it to the 21st. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah, I believe we'll have to readvertise just because of the length of time we're taking for this amendment. So probably try and, sooner rather than later, make sure that we can meet that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we may have someone who wants to speak on the matter. If we do, if you're here, please come on up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: She's been here since nine. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know there's not much happening in the environmental world if they can sit here all morning long waiting for this. MS. JOHNSON: I know. I know. Just wasting the time away. Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I -- you know, I really appreciated the suggestion at your last meeting to go ahead and just remove the ability to go off site but, you know, in talking about Jeremy, I think that getting into a Comp Plan change could be more difficult than worthwhile. So, like the direction that you're going. I think identifying the square footage and maybe identifying how many houses that would allow you to build in that -- what was it, 21,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah -- so that you have an idea of just what that allows you, I think that would be very important because, you're right, a half acre sounds really tiny, but when you look at the actual area, it's pretty expansive. So, like where you're going with the half acre and very much support making sure that deviations above that are prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think she's suggesting, though, that when you compare it to the size of a standard house, how many times, like, five standard homes or whatever, you do that in the staff report, not the LDC. MS. JOHNSON: Right, right. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah. I wanted to just clarify that typically the offsite process doesn't allow for, like, additional density or anything like that, so we can kind of describe that as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: -- I guess, depiction of, like, the size of the area that we're allowing. MS. JOHNSON: Right. Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or even this room. It would be good for people reading it to say, how big is 21 -- half acre. Well, it's 21,000 square -- how big is that? Well, I don't know how big this room is, but it's probably 20 times the size of this room or something like that. So all that helps put it in a context that you can understand it. You can see it better in your mind. And it's not as small as it sounds. It's a pretty good-sized piece of property, so... August 17, 2017 Page 47 of 49 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's a suggestion. Anything else, Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: No. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a lot happening in the environmental world. It's just that it happens so slowly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by the time it happens, we're all gone and the next people have got to deal with it, like climate change and sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going on a tangent here. Okay. Well, Jeremy, is that enough direction for you to finish up? MR. FRANTZ: I think so. And we'll come back on the 7th with those elements enumerated a little bit more and make sure that we've got all your concerns covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that date needs to be pushed a little bit, we're fine. We've got a meeting on the 21st anyway. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the -- that's the last advertised public hearing we have. We do have no new business. Old business; I just want to remind everybody, I haven't forgotten that we have to have an update. And, Mike, as a reminder for you, at some point we need to schedule a sea level rise report, as discussed last time, and we also have to get a report on feedback on the requested NIM change for Ned's request there. MR. BOSI: And we were waiting for the -- we knew that Mr. Fryer was not going to be at this, but we are most certainly prepared at the -- we can address it on the 7th, our discussion about -- with DSAC related to the NIM proposal and the suggestions that they provided. We can give an update to the Planning Commission. It was the discussion of whether we were going to -- first it was a proposal by -- Mr. Fryer had indicated that he had some trouble following the transcripts, and he wanted to propose an LDC amendment that was going to require the speakers to identify which party they were with when they're representing the developer to be able to clarify where commitments were made and to follow along the dialogue a little bit better. That conversation evolved into whether transcripts would be -- should or would be required of the meeting. And Jeremy and I spoke with DSAC at their August meeting on the idea; we got some feedback, and we'll be ready to discuss it with the Planning Commission on -- we can add it -- I can coordinate with Judy to add it to the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Mr. Fryer's here. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever you guys are ready. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I won't be here. MR. BOSI: We'll get you a full transcript of the meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us past the old business. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we can't discuss this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not without Ned here. Which -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. What you just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss anything at this point. We're still not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Being this is old, I have been to these NIM meetings, a lot of August 17, 2017 Page 48 of 49 them. It's the equipment that they bring with them. On a lot of these it's nothing more than, like, a little phone. And when you have a room this big, there is no way. And I did ask Mr. Yovanovich, I believe, because he has a lot of them, if they could bring some good equipment along, you know, and I think that can -- that can save a lot of the problems that we're having with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think at the same time, Ned's position was that unless the speakers got up and identified, even with the audio, there would be no way of knowing who they were compared to being the developer's team or the private team. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't necessarily disagree with him on that point, but I don't know how we make that happen unless we formalize the meeting more. And if we formalize the meeting more, we may be defeating the purpose of a NIM, which is supposed to be informal so they can have conversations with the neighborhood about what their project's about. But that's something we all need to consider when Ned gets back, and I'm sure that Mike's going over that with the DSAC folks and we'll get -- MR. BOSI: That was sort of -- that was part of the discussion point, that very point that you raised, Mark. So, yes, I'll be prepared -- we'll be prepared, and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll talk to you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you're making too many rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We do tend to overregulate. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Most likely these people probably won't talk at all when they want to if you're going to, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the concern. MR. BOSI: Another point that was raised by DSAC. So we're going to -- we'll be prepared to address all the different issues were that raised. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But rather than have a free-for-all, maybe if you made them just get up to a podium where there's a camera pointed at them and a speaker. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Geez. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, seriously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's just the opposite of where -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: What does it take to -- you know, a GoPro or something like that. I'm not talking about -- I'm talking about, you know, a little camera where you record the meeting, you record who talks, and that way you don't have people yelling things from the audience -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- because that's really where everything gets screwed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Stan, I understand. I just got to make sure we put it in the context of what the intension was of a NIM as a reach-out to the neighborhood and an informal basis so they can all talk around a roundtable format and get their ideas on the floor. We have people that come into these meetings, when you have to go up before a speaker and they know you're on camera who have a hard time addressing everybody. I think that's the opposite -- the opposite of what a NIM was supposed to be. It was supposed to be informal. So it's just a discussion we will have at our next meeting then, and we can kind of see where everybody's thoughts are on it, so... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, in talking with Mr. Fryer, my understanding is that he wanted the agents to identify themselves for the developer and not necessarily the public. He wasn't saying the public needed to identify themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my conversations with him, anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize there was a differentiation there between the two. So anybody that wouldn't identify themselves is then considered -- assumed to be the public? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He wanted the agents for the applicant, the experts, to say who was speaking before they spoke. August 17, 2017 Page 49 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because don't -- in reading the NIMs, you also bring up the fact a lot of times that this is what you committed to at the NIM. So that's important to have the agent's name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. We'll talk about it on the 7th then, if that's okay with everybody. And with that, any other public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here; 5-0. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:24 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 8-A TO: FROM: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNINC COMMISSION ZONING DIVISION - ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AUGUST 17,2017 PUDA-PL20170000007: BNARWOOD PUD PROPERTY OWNER.APPLICANT & AGENT: Applicant/Owner - Tract B & C): Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. 1000 Lowes Boulevard Mooresville, NC 281 l7 Contract Purchascr (Tract B & C): Boyd Land Development, LLC 2940 Bellflower Lane Naples, FL 34105 Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL20l 70000007 August 17,2017 CCPC Agents: fuchard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P,A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Hole Montes Inc. 950 Encorc Way Naples, FL 341l0 PLEASE NOTE: Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. owns undeveloped Tract B and C of the pUD as shown on the arrached aerial photo labeted "Subjcct Site". Other owners that are not participating in the PUD amendment include over 400 private owners. REOUESTED ACTIONI The Briarwood Planned Unit Development (Briarwood PUD) cunently permits residenrial and commercial uses (Ordinanc€ 95-33, attached). amending the Briarwood PUD document to add an altemative of 320 multi-family ermitted use on Tract B and c, the commercial use areas, and adding specifit GEOGRAPIilC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road. Within the Briarwood PUD, Tract B and C is 15.99 acres of the 209.17-acie pUD (see Location Map on the following page). Page I of l0 Location Map Petition Numbel' DL201 70000007 Zoning Map (( oEzoF(1,oz J PT LO F6/ Green BLVD '.,^Jl loJ CA ECT floN J!! x. iI ! tl,otr oz l D"vic Bl VD lT ! o North: East: PURPOSE A}ID DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Briarwood PLD was originally approved in 1976, as a residential and commercial project. It has been amended several times over the years. The proposed amendment would add multi-family residential uses as an option to the commercial tract. Ar amendment that proposed private clubs and private parking garages was denied by the Board in January 2016. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subiect:Briarwood PUD; density: current 2.87 DU/A; proposed: 4.40 DU/A Golden Gate Canal ROW, across which is property zoned Estates (E); I DIJ/2.25 Acre Properties zoned Residential [RSF- 4(3) and RSF - 2l; Estates (E), l DU/2.25 Acr,e; and Maplewood PUD, 4.0 DU/A Radio Road ROW, across which is Foxfire PUD; 2.43 DUIA Livingston Road ROW, across which are developed and undeveloped parcels; zoned Industrlal @ and commercial, zoned Lane Park CPUD (no residential component in either zoning district). Bri8rwood PUD, PUDA-PL20l 70000007 August 17,2017 CCPC South: West: Aeri.l Photo (CCPA) Page 3 of l0 Subject Site .;-i ,-:--41i r, r,l.l!*t ,.,r4;4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAIT (GMP) CONSISTENCT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Based upon analysis of the proposed uses, this petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. Per the Density Rating System, should all Tracts SF, A, B & C be developed as residential, the project would be eligible for 5 DU/A base density (4 DU/AC, plus I DU/AC for roadway access) x 209.174 acres = 1045.85 dwelling units = 1,046 DUs. 3.12 DU/A (600 DUs/A). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staffhas reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it consistent with the Transportation Element. Consenation snd Coastal M.nagement (CCME): The proposed amendment to the PfrD will have no effect on the requirements of the CCME. Briaryood PUD, PUDA-PL20l 70000007 AuSust 17,2017 CCPC Page 4 of 10 STAFF ANALYSIS: Staffhas completed a comprehensive evaluation ofthis land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 8.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendalion (commonly refened to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F ., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Repolr (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in tum use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below. In addition, staff offers the following analyses. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document for environmental sufficiency. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code ofLaws and Ordinances. Transportalion Review: The property is bounded on the south by Radio Road and on the west by Livingston Road. Transportation staffreviewed the PUDA and found that the Level ofService continues to be acceptable. Zoninq Review: The Applicant wishes to add residential uses as an option to the existing commercial tract of the PUD. The subject site does not lie within an Activity Center, and is compatible with surrounding, approved land use. The subject property is bordered to the west and south by four lane roads and by multi-family developments to the north and east. Additionally, there is industrial zoned land further to the west. Therefore, adding 320 multi-family residential within the approved uses ofthe Briarwood PUD is a similar use to surrounding properties and would not adversely affect neighboring properties or developments. FINDINGS OF FACT: This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b, "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Flndlnss: LDC Section 10.02.13.8.5 states that, "ln support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following cdteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08." 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utllities. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of certain multi-family uses are compatible within the PUD. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 2. Adequacy ofevidence of unilled control and suitability ofany proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to srrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operatlon and maintenrnce ofsuch arees and facllltles that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense, Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL2o170000007 August 17,2017 CCPC Page 5 of l0 Unified control was established at the time ofrezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3- Conformlty ofthe proposed Planned Unit Dev€lopment with the goals, objectives, and pollcies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendmenr to add multi-family residential uses does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screenlng requirements. The proposed change is to allow for the potential development of multi-family housing, where commercial development is cunently designated within the PUD, adjacent to existing multi-family development. Staff believes that the approval ofthis amendment will not cause any co.p"tibility issu"i. Additionally, the amendm€nt seeks a deviation to reduce the landscape buffer along Radio and Livingstone roads if multi-family is developed. Staff is in support of the request since the reduction in buffer width is adjacent to arterial roadways. 5, The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Applicant proposes to add uses. Required open space ofthe pUD will not be affected. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available lmprovements and fecilities, both public and private. It is stafPs opinion that the addition of new permitted uses will not affect public or private facilities beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion, The cunent PUD was found consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of the proposed permitted uses is compatible with the existing uses, as described on page 5 of this staff repod. 8. Conformity with PUD reguletions, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed amendment, with the deviation request, if approved, will be consistent with the pUD regulations. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following whan applicable." Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL201 70000007 August 17,2017 CCPC Page 6 of 10 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the uses in the Future Land Use Element. Staffrecommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existlng Iand use pattern. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the existing land use pattem. The addition of multi- family to the southwest comer of the Briarwood Community will provide additional transition to the abutting roadways and indusnial zoning to the west. 3. The posslble creation of an isolated dlstrict unrelated to adJacent and nearby districts, No isolated districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundariqs are illogically drawn in relation to exlsting conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. 5. whether changed or changing conditions make the passage ofthe proposed rezoning nec€ssary, Staff believes that this location is appropriate for multi-family residential uses in addition to the other residential uses. 6' Whether the pruposcd chunge will adversely lnfluence livlng conditions in the neighborhood. Multi-family and other residential uses are generally compatible with the uses in the pUD. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestlon or create types of trallic deemed incompatible with surroundlng land uses, because of peak volumes or proj;led types of vehlcular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the develop-men! or othenvise affect public safety. Transportation staffreviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem, The PUD is required to meet South Florida Water Management District standards and therefore, will not create a drainage issue. 9. whether the proposed change will serlously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The site planning process, PUD dimensional standards, and LDC requirements will ensure that light and air circulation are not seriously affected. 10. whether the proposed change will rdversely affect property vatues in the adjacent area. This is a subjective or extemal to the subject property. Pitseirmayormay" ffi:er' zoning bY Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL20 l70OO0OO7 August 17, 2017 CCPC Page 7 of l0 ll. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property ln accordance with existing regulations. Since the Briarwood PUD, as previously approved, includes residential uses, the proposed amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute e grant of special privilege to an indlvidual owner as contrasting wlth the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statemenr supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light ofthis fact, the proposed changi does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Co rsistency with the FIUE is further deiermined to bc a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13 Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The remainder ofthe PUD has been developed within the parameters ofthe existing allowable land uses; however, the addition ofmulti-family uses to the current pernitted uses wilt be cons]stent with the uses in the FLUE. 14. Whether the change suggested ls out ofscale with the needs ofthe neighborhood or the County. The subject PUD was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMp. The GMP is a policy stat€ment which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity ofland uses deemed to be acceptable tlroughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out ofscale with the needs of the community. 15. whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites ln the county for the proposed use ln districts already permittlng such use. There are other parcels in the County suitable for residential uses; however, an existing PIID, outside of an Activity Center, is deemed to be an appropriate place for multi-family residential uses. 16. The physical charrcteristics of the property and the degree of site alteratlon, whlch would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. However, since the site is partially developed, this process will be minimal. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate publlc facillties and services consistent with the levels of servlce adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Colller County Adequate Publlc Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County staff who is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL2ol 70000007 August 17,2017 CCPC Page 8 of l0 lE. Such other factors, standards, or criterla that the Board ofCounty Commissioners (Board) shall deem lmportant in the protection ofthe publlc health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEYIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly exhacted from PUD Exhibit A-2. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation #l: "A Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Types ofBuffers, which sets forth required buffer types and widths, to allow the required 2O-foot Type D buffer width along Livingston and Radio Roads to be reduced to l0 feet, with enhanced plantings consistent with exhibit A-2. This deviation is only applicabte in the event Tract B and C is developed as multi-family. Trees and tree canopies shall not overhang into the county's road easements and slope easements." Pairtoner's Rationale: A deviation Aom Section 4.06.02.C, of the Land Development Code, Types of Buffers, which allows the buffers along Radio Road and Livingston Road to be reduced in width while maintaining the same plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendalion: The subject reduced buffers are adjacent to arterial roads and the only affected parties will be the residents of the multi-family parcel; therefore, Plannine and Zoninq staff such regulations." ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does not require review by the EAC since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORI}IATION MEETING (NIM): A NIM was held on May 16,2017 at 5:30 PM at st. Paul's Episcopal church, 390t Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104. The NIM summary is attached as part ofthe back-up. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFT'ICE REVIEW: The County Attomey's oflice reviewed this StaffReport on July 19,ZOl7. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20170000007 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL20 I 70000007 August I7,2017 CCPC Page 9 of l0 PREPARED BY: AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEWED BY: 7-/e- /7 7.i2./7 DATE DATE DATE . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the September 12,2017 BCC Meeting. Briarwood PUD, PUDA-PL20 I 70000007 August 17,2017 CCPC FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Pagc l0 of l0 BRIARWOOD PUD STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 209.17 acres ofproperty in Collier County, as a Planned Unit Development known as Briarwood, is in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The commercial, residential, recreational, and other development authorized herein will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprchensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of approval by the Collier County Board of Cormty Commissioners for the following reasons: Residential Project 1. The subject property is within the Urban Residential land use desigration as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Objective 1, Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. J. 4. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. Future improvements are planned to be in compliance with all cunent and applicable land development regulations as set forth in the Growth Management Plan and amendments thereto. The project development results in an efEcient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3 . I H and L of the Future Land Use Element. The project development incorporates natural system for water ma[agement in accordance with their natwal functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. The maximum density is less+han-+ss 4.40 dwelling units per acre if developed and is in compliance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The project includes extensive open space and incorporates natural features to provide a high quality oflife for its residents. Page I of32 Words Eh€k++sugh erE deleted; words utdeditrql ar€ adde.d. HlUol6u0l6l06\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PUDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).docx 5. 7. 8. Commercial Project l. The commercial portion of the project has been determined to be consistent with Policy 5.10 of the Future Land Use Element by virhre of the fact ttrat an exemption was approved by tle Collier County Board of Commissioners pursuant to the Zoning Re- Evaluation Program. Short Title This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Briarwood Plamed Unit Development Ordinance. Page 2 of 32 Words sfir€16+r€ugh ar€ deletEd; words !ader!i!q! orE added" H:\2016U016106\P{rDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PllD (PIJDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).docx INDEX STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE LIST OF DGIIBITS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TRACT SF: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRACT A: MULTI.FAMILY RESIDENTTAL DEVELOPMENT TRACTS D & E: RECREATION AND CONSERVATION TRACTS B & C: COMMIINITY COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT TRACTB & C: MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL SECTIONVII SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTIONIV SECTION V SECTIONVI SECTIONVIII SECTIONVIII Ix EXHIBITA LIST OF EXHIBITS BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT PIJD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT A-1 TRACT B AND C MULTI-FAMILY MASTER PLAN EXHIBITA-2 ENHANCED TYPE "D" BUFFER FOR RADIO AND LIVINGSTON ROADS FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON TRACTB AND C EXHIBITA-3 ENHANCED TYPE "A" BUFFER ADJACENT TO PLATTED TRACT B-I MULTIFAMILY Page 3 of32 Words Ehsk*rssgh all dcleted; wordr lEfElliDgl arc added. H:Uol 6\2016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PIJD (PIJDA-PI2ol 7000007) (8-24-2017).docx 1.1 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate the location and ownership of the Subject Property and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Briarwood. LEGAI DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is described as: The West Y, of the West %; and tle Southeast % of the Northwest %; and the Soutileast % of the Southwest %, less that portion conveyed by Deed dated August 17,l97I aad recorded September 2, l97l in O.R. Book 413, Page 212, Prtblic Records of Collier County, Florida; and less that portion deeded for State and Road Right-of-Way, with parcels being situate and lyhg in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of209.17 acres, more ot less, being subject to restrictions and reservations of record. The Briarwood PUD no longer includes the following parcel: A parcel of land located in the Southwest % of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Begin at the Northeast comer of Tract D-2 of Briarwood Unit One according to the Plat tlereof recorded in Plat Book 18, at Pages 40 lhrouS.42 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence run North 88'07'03" East, along the South line of the Northeast V+ of the Southwest % of Section 3 1, Townstrip 49 South, Range 26 East, for a distance of 999.79 feet to a point on the East line of the West % of said Section 3 1 ; thence run South 00'08'22" West along the East lir:e of the West % of said Section 31 for a distance of 51.66 feet; thence rua South 87"47'50" West for a distance of 1,000.00 feet to a point on the Easterly boundary of said Briarwood Unit One; thence run North 00'08'22" East along the Easterly boundary of said Briarwood Unit One, for a distance of 57 .25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 1.249 acres more or 1ess. Subject to easements, reservations or restrictions ofrecord. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The Subject Property is eepuUtie Bevetepm io platted and subdivided and Lowe's Home Centers. Inc. Page 4 of 32 Words Bh€k+rough arc deleted; words underlined are added. H:U016U016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PllD (PllDA-PI2o1?000007) (8-24-2017).docx t.2 1.3 t.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The general location of the Subject Property, the cureDt zoning classifications of the surrounding properties and nearby land developments are illustated by Exhibit "B". B. The project site contains +209.17 acres and is located in the West % of Section 31, Towrship 49 South, Range 26 East, which is approximately one (l) mile east of Airport Road and is situated between Radio Road and Golden Gate canal. While it is bounded by Radio Road on the South and Golden Gate canal on the North, the Eastem boundary is provided by a high voltage transmission line belonging to Florida Power and Light Company and the Western boundary is the proposed Livingston Road righlof-way. C. The current zoning classification of the Subject Property is Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The property is within the Collier Comty Water-Sewer District and Collier County Water Management District 1. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project is located within Water Management Distict No. 1 and most of the area is within the drainage basin of the Golden Gate Canal. Water management for the proposed project is planned to be ofthe lake retention type. Elevations within the project site are approximately nine (9) feet above sea level. The soil t]?es on the site are approximately ninety-five percent (95%) Arzell Fine Sand and five percent (5%) Broward Fine Sand. The depth to bedrock in the area varies from five (5) feet to fifteen (15) feet beiow natural ground surface. Soil characteristics were derived from the soil survey of Collier County, Florid4 issued by the U.S. Deparknent of Agriculhre in March 1954. The site is a typical pine-cypress woodland with the following existing vegetation: Slash Pine (Pinus elliotti); Pond Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) scattered; Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) often growing in large defined masses; Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) scattered; Cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) scattered; Wax Myrtle (Mgica cerifera) scattered; Melaleuca(Lalaleuca leucandendra) mature hees with isolated dense to scattered strands of second generation grou'th. In addition, there exists an Oak-palm harnmock (defined on Exhibit II) of predominantly Quercus species and cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto). Page 5 of32 Word6 Eh.drrhrough arc deleted; words lEde[llEq! arc addcd. H:UO l6\20161o5\PlrDA\Post CCIqBTAR\ryOOD PUD (PIIDA-P[2o17000007) (E-Z-2017) docx 1.5 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as the project criteria for Briarwood. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of Briarwood shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and any other applicable sections and parts of the Collier Cormty Land Development Code in effect at the time of Building Permit application. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code. 2,3 PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A. The project plot plan, including layout of sheets and land use ofthe various tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit A-1 Tract B and C Multi- Family Master Plan@. There shall be ten (10) Iand uses, the configuration ofwhich is also illustated by Exhibit "A". 1. Tract SF: Single-Family Residential 89.70 acres 2. Tract A: Multi-Family Residential 18.30 acres 3. Tract B & C: Community Commercial 15.99 acres or Multi-Familv Residential 4. Tract D: Recreation Area 3.00 acres 5. Tract E: Conservation Areas 7.00 acres 6. Lake Area 31.00 acres 7 . Right-of-Way 27.00 aqes 8. Fuh.ue Livingston Road Right-of-Way i 1.80 acres 9. FPL Easement 2.80 acres 10. Open Space/Buffer 2.58 acres Total 209.17 acres B. Areas illushated as lales by Exhibit "A' shall be constructed lakes, or upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be designed for rain stoms of twenty-five (25) year ftequency and shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general Page 6 of32 Words sh€k+reugh arc delctod; words undorlined aro added. H:\2016\2016106\PLTDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PIJD (PUDA-P12017000007) (8-24-2017).docx 2.4 2.5 acreage as shown on Exhibit "A". The lakes and interconnecting drainage swales shall be dedicated to Collier County to ensure their continued availability, prior to final development order approval. The maintenance of the lakes and interconnecting drainage swales wirhin Tract E shall be the responsibility of the owner of Tract E, prior to final development order approval. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown il Exhibit "A", such easements (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary or deemed desirable for the service, firnction or convenience of the project's inhabitants. D. Fill material from the project may be sold for off-site uses. MAXMUM PROJECT DENSITY No more than a maximum of 600 920 residential dwelling units, single and multi-family, shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project au.ea is 209.17 acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 2# 4.40 ttnits per acre. PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQTIIREMENTS The anticipated development schedule for the entire Briarwood project is set forth by Exhibit "F" of this document. Exhibit 'A" @riarwood Development Plan) constitutes the PUD Development Plan and the Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Subdivision Master Plan, provided that supplement information required by subdivision regulations, not indicated on the PUD Master Plan, shall be submitted to Project Review Services for administrative review and approval prior to the submission of detailed construction plans for building permits . A. The developer of any tact must submit a Conceptual Site Plan for the entire tract prior to final Site Development Plan submittal for any portion of the hact. The developer may choose not to submit a Conceptual Site Plan if a Site Development Plan is submitted and approved for the entire tract. B. The developer of any tract must submit, prior to or at the sarre time of application for a building permit, a detailed Site Development PIan for his tract or parcel in conformance with the Division 3.3 - Site Development Plans of the Collier County Land Development Code. This plan shall also show the location and size of access to any tract that does not abut a public sheet. C. ln the event that any established tract as identified on the approved PUD Master Plan is proposed to be further divided in a man:rer that does not affect the approved infrastructure, increase the number of dwelling units, increase density, change the dwelling type or change pemritted uses within the tact, the developer shall submit a revised PUD Master Plan indicating the division of the established Page 7 of32 Words rh€l€lhrough arE deleted; words uqd!4iled arc added H:U0l6vo16I05\Pt DA\Post CCPCIBRIARWOOD PllD (PUDA-P12017000007) (8-24-20I7) docx I I 2.7 tmct prior to the submittal of a Site Development Plan for tle development of such a ftact. The revised PUD Master Plan shall be submitted to the Plarming-Zontng Director for review and approval. D. Final Site Development Plan approval shall follow the procedure as required by Division 3.3 - Site Development Plans of the Collier Cormty Development Code. E. Model homes shall be permitted in conformance with the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4.1of the Collier County Land Development Code. LAKE SITING As depicted on the Master Land Plan (Exhibit A), lakes and natuml retention areas have been sited adjacent to existing and planned roadways and throughout the project. The goals of this are to achieve an overall aesthetic character for project, to peflnit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water management network. Accordingly, the setback requirements described in Division 3.5 - Excavation, of the Collier County Land Development Code, may be reduced with the approval of the County Engineer. Fill material from the lakes is planned to be utilized within the project, however, excess fill material may be utilized offsite, subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time pemrits are sought. Final lake area determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria. Page 8 of 32 Words 6H€&*rough arc deleted; words und€rliped arc addcd. H:Uol6U0l6l06\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PUDA-PI2ol 7000007) (8-U-20 l7).docx SECTION III TRACT SF _PARCELS 1 THROUGH 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to indicate the development plan and regulations for the area designated on Exhibit "A" as Tract SF, Single f'amily Residential, which has been designed specifically for the placement of homes for residential occupancy upon lots which are owned by the residence thereon. 3.2 MA)OMUMDWELLINGUMTS A maximum number of 395 single family units may be constructed in this tract. 3.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: Single Family Residences. B. Accessory Uses: (1) Accessory uses and structues customarily associated with homes development, such as recreation facilities, service buildings, utilities and private garages. (2) Sips as permiued by Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 3,4 REGULATIONS 3.4.1 General: A11 yards, set-backs, etc. shall be in relation to the individual parcel bormdaries. 3.4.2 Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 square feet. 3.4.3 Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet average between front and rear lot lines. 3.4.4 MinimumYmds; A. Front Yard - 25 feet. B. Side Yard - 5 feet. C. Rear Yard - 25 feet. Page 9 of32 Words ffi€k+rq€h lle delcEd; words underlircd arc added. H:\2016U015I05\Pt DA\Post CCPOBRIARWOOD PUD eIJDA-PI2017000007) (8-24-20U).docx D. Ail yards abutting a street shall be front yards. Four-sided comer lots shall have two front and two side yards. Five-sided comer lots shall have two \-r front, two side and one rear yard, with the rear yard being farthest from the abutting streets. 3.4.5 Minimum Floor Area: 1,000 square feet of living area exclusive of patio and garage. 3.4.6 Off-Street Pmking Requirements: Two parking spaces shall be required for each dwelling unit, both of which shall be located within the permitted building area. 3.4.7 Maximum Height: Thirty (30) feet above finished grade of lot. Accessory buildings are limited to twenty (20) feet above finished grade oflot. Page 10 of32 words ltFr6lHkosgh Ere deleted; words !!de![!g! are added H:Uol6U0I6l06\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PtlD (PUDA-P12017000007) (8-24-2017).docx SECTION IV TRACT A: MI]LTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARCELS 1 AND 2 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to indicate the development plan and regulations for the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as Tract A, Mttlti-Family Residential. Prior to the issuance of any buildiag perrnit, detailed architectural plans shall be submitted to the proper County agencies for review and approval as to confomrity with the Development Plan and PUD document. 4,2 MAXIMUMDWELLINGUNITS A maximum number of 205 dwelling units may be constructed on this tact. 4,3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in par! for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Multi-FamilyResidences. B. Accessory Uses: (1) Accessory uses and structr:res, including private garages. Q) Recreational uses and facilities such as swinming pools, children's playground areas, etc. such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities. Such facilities shall not restrict the visual and firnctional enjoyment of the non-participating residences. (3) Sims as permitted by Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4,4 REGULATIONS 4.4.1 Minimum Yards: A. Radio Road Frontage - Seventy (70) feet measured ftom the North boundary of Radio Road right-of-way as existing on January 1, 1975. Such yards may be used Page I 1 of32 Word! okdc*teu€h &€ delcted; words !Bdq!i!g[ 8re added H:Uo t 6UOl6l05\PUDA\.Post CCPqBTARWOOD PIJD (PUDA-PL2o17000007) (8-24 -2017).docx for parking, carports, and landscaping, except that in no instance may land be devoted to vehicular use within fifteen (15) feet of the future planned righFof-way for Radio Road. B. Dedicated Street Boundaries (other than Radio Road) - Thirry-five (35) feet. C. Tract Boundaries that are not Dedicated Street Boundaries - Twenty-Five (25) feet; however, pool or any screened enclosure shall be reduced to fifteen (15) feet. 4.4.2 Distarce Between Structures: There shall be a minimum separation between structues of thirty (30) feet, or one-half (112) the sum of the adjoining building heights, whichever is greater. ln instances where there shall be structues on opposite sides of the same multi-family tract, and these structures are separated by a tlrough accessway, a minimum oftwenty (20) feet plus one- half (ll2) the height ofthe structure. 4.4.3 Minimum Floor Area: Each residential unit shall have a minimum floor area of 750 square feet. 4.4.4 Maximum Height: Four (4) floors of living area, with the option of having one (1) floor of parking beneath the living area. PARKING AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS 4.5.1 General Requirements and Specifications: Each off-sheet parking space shall be at least nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length and shall be so a:ranged that no automobile shall have to back into any dedicated street. Each space shall be accessible ftom an access drive wbich interconnects to a public right-of-way. A1I off-street parking facilities, including aisles, driveways and maneuvering areas, shall be surfaced with a hard, dustless material. All off-street parking facilities shall be suitably sloped and &ained so as not to cause any nuisance to adjacent or public property. Access drives shall have a minimum pavement width of twenty-four (24) feet wherever there is parking along their edge. Otherwise, the minimum pavement wide of access drives shall be twenty (20) feet. Page 12 of 32 Words €hi€k$iglrgh arc deleted; words underliaed are added. H:Uo16U016106\Pt DA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PIJDA-PI2O1?O00OO7) (B-2r'-21ti).docx 4.5 4.6 4.5.2 Location: Parking spaces required for buildings within a tract shall be located within a tract and shall be located on the same side of the access drive as the building being served. 4.5.3 Requirements: Parking Spaces - Two (2) parking spaces per residential unit. Twenty-five percent QSYo) of the required spaces may be preserved as green space and improved as parking as future demand requires. ACCESS TO RADIO ROAD One access drive shall be permitted to connect Tracts A and SF to Radio Road, and another access drive shall be permitted to connect Tracts A and SF to future Livingston Road. One access drive shall be permitted to comect Tracts B and C to Radio Road and another access drive shall be permitted to connect Tracts B and C to future Livingston Road. Page 13 of32 Words *..&u€i fr dclctcd; wor& undcrlilcd E! sddcd. H:Uo16\2016106\Pt DA\Posl CCPOBRIARWOOD PUD (PlrDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).doct. SECTION V TRACTS D AND E RECREATION AND CONSERVATION 5,1 PURPOSE The pqpose of this Section is to indicate the Development Plan and regulations for the area designated on Exhibit "A" as Tracts D and E. Tract E, Parcels 1-3 shall remain as natural open space. Tract D, Parcels 1 and 2 shall be a recreational area. Applicant has dedicated one hundred (100) feet of righlof-way for the extension of Livingston Road and twenty-five (25) feet for the widening of Radio Road along its west and south boundaries, respectively, at no cost to the County. 5.2 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Tract E, Parcels I - 3, shall remain as a conseryation area. If Tract D remains as natrual open space, the following regulations shall apply. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: (1) Natural Open Space. @ Water management facilities such as lakes, swales, control structwes and pumping stations. (3) Central water treatuent facilities in accordance with all applicable State and County regulations. (4) Recreational facilities (Tract D, Parcel 1 of2 only). B. MaximumHeight Twenty (20) feet above the finished grade ofthe sunounding land. Page 14 of 32 words rhr€**iough ate delcted; words u[(hlligeIl 8rc added. H:Uo16\201 6l 05\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PIJDA-PI2ol 7000007) (8-24-20 t 7).docx 6.1 SECTIONVI TRACT B & C: COMMUMTY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the plan atrd regulations for the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as Tract B & C. if developed as com residential uses.:€emmulrit5.{)emmereitl. Tract B & C shall either be developed as multi-family residential prusuant to Section VII and Exhibit A- I and A-2 or as commercial pursuant to Section VI. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or lard or water used, in whole or in par! for other than the following: A. Principal Uses if Tract B & C are developed solelv as commercial: (1) Restaurants -No drive-ins. (2) Cocktail lounges and retail package sales of liquors and other beverages, no drive-ins, subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. Retail shops, shopping centers and stores. Retail shops, shopping centers and stores may include incidental processing and repair activities, provided they me accessory and subordinate to the retail sales use, and provided that a1l stomge, processing and repair of merchandise occurs within the principal building except that such uses as garden shops may be outside but within a totally fenced area connected to the principal building. Financial institutions. Golf driving ranges. Professional, business, financial, utilities ofEces and seryices. Medical offices and clinics - for humens. Barber and beauty shops. Shoe repair shops. Laundry and dry slsaning pickup establishments and self-service laundry. Retail bakeries. Tailoring, millinery, garment alteration and repair. Museums. Page 15 of32 Words eh€lc$rough arE deleted; words !4lhlilgl 8re addcd. H:UO16\2015106\PUDA\Poit CCPC1BRIARWOOD PUD (PlJDA-PI2017000007\ (824-2017).docx 6.2 (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) (8) (e) (10) (11) (r2) (13) B. ACCESSORYUSES: (1) Accessory uses and structues, customarily associates with the uses permitted in this district. (2) Signs as perrnitted by County Ordinance. C. CONDITIONAL USES if Tract B & C are developed solely as commercial: The property may be used for the following conditional uses subject b ry Conditional Use Procedures ofthe Collier County Land Development Code: (1) Transient lodging facilities with a minimum of twenty (20) dwelling units. @ Schools and Colleges. (3) Private Clubs, subject to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. (4) Motion picture theaters and live theaters - no drive-irs. (5) Commercial and private parking lots and parking garages. (6) Service Station, subject to the provisions ofthe Collier County Land Development Code. 6.3 REGULATIONS .- 6.3.1 Minimum Lot Area: None 6.3.2 Minimum Lot Width: None 6.3.3 Minimum Yards: A. Radio Road Frontage - Twenty-five Q5) feet measured from the North bormdary of Radio Road right-of-way which shall be the Radio Road right-of-way as of January l, 1975, long with twenty-five (25) feet set aside in this Ordinance. Such yard shall not be used for permanent struchres and ttre fust fifteen (15) feet norfi of the new right-of-way shall be landscaped green belt. B. Tract boundary lines and dedioated roads other than Radio Road - twenty- five (25) feet, (no parking shall be allowed nor any merchandise stored or displayed in the outer fifteen (15) feet). C. Separation between structures - One-hatf (1/2) of the sum of the heights of the structures. 6.3.4 Minimum Floor Area: 1,000 square feet per building on the ground floor. 6.3.5 Maximum Height: 30 feet above finished grade. \v. Page 16 of32 words 6hC($r€ugh are deleted; words !o(bl!Iq! are added, H:Uo16U016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWooD PllD (PIJDA-PI2ol 7000007) (8-2+20t7).docx 6.3.6 Maximum Floor Area: Twenty percent (20%) of Commercial laad area. 6.4 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF.STREET LOADING Off-street parking and off-street loading shall confomr to the requirements ofthe Collier County Land Development Code. 6.5 FUTURERIGHT-OF-WAYREQUIREMENTS A parcel of land parallel to Radio Road - twenty-five (25) feet in width shall remain as an unused part of Tracts B and C so that it may become a part of any future expansion of Radio Road. The additional right-of-way (twenty-five (25) feet along Radio Road) will be dedicated to the appropriate govemmental agency at the time ofthe expansion of Radio Road. 6.6 ACCESS TO RADIO ROAD AND FUTI'RE LIVINGSTON ROAD One access drive may be permitted ftom Tract B and Tract C connecting with Radio Road in that event such connections shall be at least five hundred (500) feet from the centerline of Briarwood Boulevard. Tracts B and C shelluqay also have one connection to future Livingston Road. 6.7 ACCESS TO BRIARWOOD BOULEVARD Except as provided in Section 7.5. Agccess from Tracts B and C to Briarwood Boulevard, shall be limited to one (1) driveway. temperary servage treatment plant is remeved frorn site' Access ftom Tract A - Parcel 2 of 2 to Briarwood Boulevard shall be limited to one (1) driveway. 6.8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GOLF DRTVING RANGE A. The hours of operation for the golf driving range shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B. A 100-foot setback shall be provided along the northwest property line for which no structures shall be placed or play area conducted. C. Safety netting or fencing shall be required along the Radio Road frontage to protect this roadway as necessary to ensure public safety. D, If the golf driving range use is still in existence at the time of corstruction of Livingston Road along the westerly edge of the parcel, then the ball netting shall be extended to protect the entire Livingston Road frontage as necessary to ensure public safety. E. Adequate protective netting shall be installed along the Radio Road frontage of the chipping green. Page 17 of32 Words s$€k$rough EE dclcted; words !!fE!i!gd arE added. H:\2015\2016 I 06\PUDA\Post CCPC1BRIARWOOD PUD (PIJDA-PI2017000007) (8-24-2017).docx . F. Landscaping, including hedging, shali be provided along the perimeter of any required safety netting. Trees adjacent to the required safety netting shall be v placed on 20 foot centers and shall reach a height of 15 feet in 2 years ftom the time of installation. G. Landscaping shall only be required to exceed the current provisions Div.2. 4 of the Collier County Land Development Code, adjacent to the required safety netting. H. Landscaping required in excess of the requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code for the safety netting will only be required to be maintained as long as the driving range is in operation. Page 18 of 32 Words shr€k+redgh arc deleted; words udgtljlQd 8re added. H:\2016\2016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PIJD (PUDA-PL2o17000007) (8-24-2017).docx SECTION YII TRACT B & C: MTJLTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.I PURPOSE Section VII or as commercial pursuant to Section VL 7.2 USES PERMITTED if Tract B & C are developed solelv residential. A. Principal Uses Multi-family residential uses, up to 320 dwelline units. B. Accessorv Uses such as swimming pools. tennis courts, bocce ball. vollevball courts. walkine paths, picnic areas, dog parks. plavsrounds. fitness centers. and recreation/amenitv buildinss. 2. Customarv accessory uses and structures to residential units. including carports^ earages. utilitv buildines. hand carwash€s area. €nd-€elid=+vafte and+eeyeline&€ili+ies and earbaee and recvcline receptacles. 3. Tempoiarv sales trailers and model units. 4. Entrv eates and gatehouses. such as berms. swales, and outfall structures. 7.3 DEVELOPMENTSTAITDARDS clubhouse/recreation buildine on Tract B & C as shown on the Master Plan. Standards not Subdivision olat. Page 19 of32 Wo.ds er€l({h+s h arE deleEd; rords undcrlhcd arE addcd. H:\201 6\20 t 6 t 06\PLJDA\Post CCPC1BRIARWOOD Pt D (PLJDA.PI2ol 7000007) (8-24-201 7).docx +TABLE 1 TE : Not to Exceed: S.F. : Square Feet I 2 Except for one-story garaees and carpofts which shall be setback a minimum of l5 feet Dover Park Development. Page2D of32 Words shrek*reugh are deleted; words underlined are addcd. H:9016\2016106\PIJDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PUDA-PI2017000007) (8-24-2017).docx Develonment Standards Multi-Familv Clubhouse/ Recreation Buildins Min. Lot Area 10.000 SF per buildine N/A N/A Min. Lot Width 90 feet N/A N/A Min. Floor Area 750 SF per unit N/A N/A Min. Yards - External. Measured from Tract Boundaries From Radio Road 30 feet 30 feetSPS2 30 feetSPS From Livingston Road 35 feet 35 feetSPS2 35 feetSFS From Preserve3 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet From Tract D-l - Recreation'30 feet I 0 feet 30 feetSPS From Tract B-l - Multi-family'503e feet 15 feet 50 feetSPS From Tract L-1 - Lake'30 feet 20 feet 30 feetSPS Min. Yards-Internal to Tracts B&C Min. Yards adjacent to internal paved vehicular use areas 0 feet for vehicular access. otherwise l0 feet 0 feet for vehicular access. otherwise 10 feetSPS 20 feet Min. Side Yard I 0 feet l0 feetS'PS l0 feetSPS Min. {*ate+bedyLake Setback 20 feet 20 feetSPS Min. Distance between Shuctures 10 feet l0 feetSPS l0 feetSPS Max. Buildine Height - Zoned 4 stories/55 feet 25 feet 2 stories/35 feet Max, Buildine Heisht - Actual 62 feet 35 feet 42 feet 7.4 DEVIATIONS be located and/or maintained so as not to overhanq into the Coun8's road easements. 7.5 DEVELOPMENTCOMMITMENTS A. Vehicular interconnection between Tract B & C and the overall Briarwood PUD is Owner of Tract B & C shall construct a vehicular terrninus of Skelly Road with Tract B & C shall simplv terminate Skellv Road with end of road markers at the Tract B & C propertv line. B. Residents of the multifamilv development on Tract B & C will not have access to existinq recreational facilities within other areas of the Briarwood PUD outside of Tract B & C. Amenities and recreational facilities will be provided within Tract B & C for residentsofTractB&C. C. The Enhanced Tvpe A and D Landscape Buffers as shown on the Master Plan will Plan. l. Access points will be sated. concrete construction and sfucco. prohibited). 4. Garaqes shall be fully enclosed saraees. 5. Charsins stations for electric cars will be available on-site to residents. Page21 of 32 Words eEl€kgh arc dclcted; words undcrlincd are added. H:Uo16\2016106\PUDA\.Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD PIJDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).docx Page 22 of 32 WondJ ehc(+rough ar€ delcted; words underlined are 8dded. H:\2016\20161o5\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWoOD PUD (PUDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).docx SECTIONVIII DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 78.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 18.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Briarwood Development Plan and all applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of approval of the record plat shall apply to this project. +8.3 BRIARWOODDEVELOPMENTPLAN A. Exhibit "A", Briarwood Development Plan, illustrates the proposed development, and the location of the temporary sewage teatment facilities as pemritted by Sections III and V ofthis document. B. Except for such definitive facilities and demarcations as street locations, tact bormdaries, etc., the design criteria and system design illustated on Exhibit "A" and stated herein shall be understood as flexible so that the filal design may best satisff the project, the neighborhood and the general local environment. C. AII necessary easements, dedications, or. other inshuments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in the Project. +E.4 PROJECTDEVELOPMENT The proposed development is illushated by Exhibit "A". The proposed construction shall comply with the staadards set forth and the resulting complete project shall adequately serve its occupants and members and will not cause a general public problem. Such measures as the construction of cul-de-sac at street ends, screens, signs, landscaping, erosion control and other similar-in-fimction facilities shall be taken to accomplish the above set forth objective. +85 CLEARING, GRADING, EART}IWORK, AND SITE DRAINAGE All clearing, grading, earthworlg and site drainage work shall be perfomred in accordance with all applicable State and local codes. The three (3) designated conservation areas in the project will be protected during construction with fencing and posting. The haul roads will be identified, and the contractor will adhere to these roads, which will be stabilized if sand traps occur. Page23 of32 words 6tu€&*re€h ar€ d€let€d; words uod€rli!€d arE 8dded. H:Uo15\2015106\PtJDA\Post CCPOBRIARWOOD PUD (PIJDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-2017).doox I +8.6 STREETCONSTRUCTION All public street design and construction shall meet the Collier County standards that are in effect at the time of approval of the record plat. Briarwood Boulevard shali be constructed as a four lane dived section from Radio Road along the length of Tract A - Parcel 2 of 2 with a transition to a two lane section within three (300) feet north of the property line of Tract A - Parcel 2 of 2. T\e remainder of Briarwood Boulevard and al1 other streets shall be constructed as two lane sections. A bicycle path shall be constructed along Briarwood Boulevard from Radio Road to the intersection of Briarwood Boulevard with Progress Avenue and future Livingston Road. +8.7 EASEMENTS FOR LTNDERGROT]ND UTILITIES Easements for underground utilities such as power, telephone, TV, cable, wastewater collection and hansport, water distribution lines aad other similar utilities necessary for the service of the project shall be located as required and granted for those purposes. Clearing of tle easements for installation of underground utilities shall be selective so as to protect the maximum number of trees and natural vegetation. 78.8 UTTLTTYDTVISION A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage teatmetrt facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B, +tU sust€mers e ies te be eenstrueted ,'vill be eustomers ef the eeuntF ond will be billed by the eeunty in eeeerdanee rvith the eerxrty's established rates, Sheuld this €eunE net be in a position te previde rvater eri#er se'rver sen'iees te the prqieet; the rvat€r ard/er selver eustemers shall be eustemers ef the intorirn util:ty established te sen'e the prqieet txrtil the eetlrrty's effsite rvater an#er selver faeilities are @ e, It is antieipated that the eeunty Utilities Divisien'will ultimatsly st'Fply petable water te meet the eensurnptive demand and/er reeeive and treat the servage keatment and dispesal feeilities adequete te meet dl requirements ef the is-assigns-€r-sueeessers regarding any interim trea legdly srffi€ient t6 the eo Page24 of 32 Words sh€l€+reugh ar€ d€leted; words underlitrcd are ldded. H:Uo16\2016106\PUDA\Post CCPOBRIARWOOD PIJD (P1JDA-PI2017000007) (8-24-20I7).docx fer the prejeets$d be i LaaCD€+etopment#e n, lf an interim ensi i€ @ E. Th€ oxisting etrsit ie €€peeib te seffe this prejeet hydreu iealty previ nisEiet's t$vetYe € by tlre Util;ties Divisien; eensistent with the findings ef Item E abeve, During ais*iU*iea-system+ 1, Dead end mains shall be elirninated by leeping the intemal pipeli*e ----nes#erkr preYided ateng the e @ 3, If oversizing of the prqieet's weter distributien faeilities te meet the needs ef the Gerxrty \Yater Master Plan is required prrsuant te Items E & F; the neYelepel shatt ent f€r+€+roieet-br{h€€€unb-' G, The utility oonstruetien deerrnents fer the prqieet's onsite selverage system shell be prepared te eentain the design and eenstruetien ef the en'ite and effsite fereemafoi whieh rvill ultimately eerreet the prqieet te the foture eentral setverege faeilities ef the Distriet at Pump Statien 3'10; te be leeated en Traet 10 ef the Fexfire Subdivisien, The feree rnain must be extended frem tlre mein ensito pump stetien to a peint eutside the prqieet's seutherr bourdary es speeifieally required by the Utilities Divisien and eapped; ur ess the eetrnty's eentral server faeiiities are available fer eennoetion et tlre tirne of eor^truetion, It rnust be intereenneeted te the ensite main purnp statien ryith a-prepriately teeated valves te permit the simple redireetien ef the prqieet's se'wege rvhen eerreetien te the eer#lty's eentral server faeilities beeomes availeble, Ultirnate eenneetien te the eeunty's seterege faeilities rvill be the respensibility ef the Develeper pursuant te the PaEeZS of 32 Words ss€k$rslrgh ere dclcicd; words undorlined art added. H:uo 16\4016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PIJDA-PI2o17000007) (8-2+2017).docx required rlgreement regarding. the use of en interirn servage treatment feeility as ---------speeifi€din+# H, The utility €ens be prepared so that all sewage ultimately flerving te the Diskiet's Master Pump ner.,eleper's engine ing 19j SOLrD WASTE DISPOSAL Arrangements and agreements shall be made with an approved solid waste disposal service to provide for waste collection service to all areas ofthe project. 78.10 OTHERUTILITIES Telephone, power and TV cable service shall be made available to all residential areas. All such utility lines shall be installed underground. +8.I1 TRANSPORTATION A. The main entrance to the residential portion ofthe project (designated Briarwood Boulevard on the site plan) shall be in alignment with the main entrance to Foxfire Subdivision). B. The developer shall provide a fair share contribution to the capital cost of a trafEc signal on Radio Road at the main entrance to the project when deemed walranted by the Transportation Administrator. The sigrral shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. + ing efRadie-Rsa+ eD. The-eemmerei++raet- Tracts B and C shall be limited to one access to Radio Road and one access to the-ftfr+e-Livingston Road, Afpr€+el€++es€-E€€ st this tirre dees net imply that medim o-enings will be permitted rvhen thebe reads are{eu+aane+ utrprepf ate tumlarc DB. The developer has dedicated twenty-five (25) feet of additional right-of-way throughout the project's Radio Road frontage and one hundred (100) feet of right- of-way along the section line at the proj ect' s westem boundary. EF. These improvements are considered "site related" as defined in Ordinance 92-22 as amended and shall not be applied as credits toward any impact fees required by that ordinance. Page26 of32 words sh€lerhresgh are deleted; Ivords und€rlined 6re added. H:\2015\2016106\PUDA\Po6t CCPC1BRIARWOOD PUD (PIIDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-20lA.docx ?8.12 ARC}IITECTURAL REVIEW All buildings constructed within Briarwood must comply with the architectural review standards which shall be specified by the recorded covenants and deed restrictions that go with the properties. 7E.13 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structues must be constructed simultaneously with or following construction of the principal structure and shall conform with the setbacks of principal structure. 78.14 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 7E.15 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARzuNG AREAS All landscaping for offstreet parking areas, shall be in accordance with Seetie+?4ef the Collier County Land Development Code. 7E. 16 PARKING, STORAGE, OR USE OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT Major recreational equipment is hereby defined as ir:cluding boats and boat trailers, horse trailers, travel trailers, pickup camper or coaches (designed to be mounted or motorized vehicles), motorized dwellings or motor homes, tent trailers, popout campers, houseboats, and the like, and cases or boxes used for transporting recreational equipment, whether containilg such equipment or not. No major recreational equipment shall be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored on a residentially zoned lot or in aay location not approved for such use. Major recreational equipment may be parked or stored only in a completely screened area and cannot be seen from the exterior of the lot; provided, however, that such equipment may be parked anywhere on residential premises for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours during loading and unloading. 78.17 PARKING COMMERCIAL VEIIICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS A. It shall be unlawfi:I to park a commercial vehicle on any lot in a residential zoned district unless one of the following conditions exisb: (l) The vehicle is engaged in a construction service operation on the site where it is parked. The vehicle must be removed as soon as the construction or service activity has been completed. (2) The vehicle is parked in a garage, carpofi, or firlly screened area and cannot be seen from the exterior ofthe lot. (3) Automobiles, vans, pick-up trucks having a rated load capacity of less than one ton, shall be exempted from this Section. Page 27 of32 Words 6dr$lr+s{Eh .rE dclctcd; words utrdcrlil.d d! addcd. H:\2015U016106\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PIJD (PUDA-PI20l?O0OOOA (E-2+2017).docx the the +8.18 WATERMANAGEMENT - A. The project shall be designed and constructed so as to direct the surface runoff fiom all areas of tle project through the project water management system. B. A dry season pool may be maintained in the lakes portions of the project by pumping from the Golden Gate Canal. All required pemrits shall be obtained prior to pumping. C, Detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the Project Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued rmless aad until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Proj ect Review Services. D. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Di+isie+45-ef the Collier County Land Deveiopment Code and South Florida Water Management District rules. E. Copies of the approval from South Florida V/ater Management District for the conceptual plan and construction/operations permit for each phase of construction sites be provided. F. A revised Master Plan reflecting the relocations of Lakes l, 2 atd 7 to meet the re$ii{€men+s-€f$€€+i€fii_ef the Collier County Land Development Code shall be submitted. The typical lake section shall also be planned to meet the requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code. G. AII lakes will be "developer type" excavations unless commercial uses are intended and identified in the PUD document. 78.19 EXTERNAL ANTENNAS Antemas, including but not limited to T.V., C.B., F.M. and ham radio antennas, shall not be pennitted to be located extemal to the principal or accessory shuchres in residential diskicts. 78,20 ENGINEERING A. No development activity shall begin prior to approval of final details plans, plats or Final SDPs. Excavation work may begin only upon specific agreements between the County and the applicant relating to quantity, location, clearing, submission of final plans, bondirg, etc. B. All required Right-of-Way for Livingston Road and Radio Road shall be dedicated to the County prior to approval of construction plans for any tract. However, the dedication may be part of the first plat. Page28 of 32 Words h€k+hrou€h arc deleted; words glllgililgl arE added. H:Uol 6U0l 6106\PUDA\Post ccPc\BRIARwoOD PUD (Pt DA'P12017000007) (8-24-2017) docx C. Progtess Avenue shall not be connected to the intemal roadway system until Livingston Road is built. D. A Preliminary Subdivision Plan submission shall be required, in accordance with @ the Collier County Land Development Code as amended or superseded, on all tracts as they are individually developed. The submission will be adminishatively reviewed by staff prior to construction plan submission by the applicant. If ttre tract is not intended to be subdivided, the applicant will submit an SDP application. E. No variances to the subdivision regulations are requested, none given. F. Conservation areas shall be placed under conservation easements by separate easement or tract. Setbacks set forth in See+ien-31*.aJ3- the Collier Countv Land Development Code shall be maintained from Conservation areas. 78.21 ENVIRONMENTAL STIPULATIONS A. The PUD shall be in compliance with the environmental sections of the Collier Corufy Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element at the time of final development order approval. B. In conjunction with Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (FGFWFC), Petitioner shall tansfer the gopher tortoises to the conservation areas and/or leave the tortoises where they are presently located. This is also in accordance with Pelieies-++.+-an++ ef the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Zone Management Element. C. Petitioner shall designate the tlree (3) areas along the westem border of the site (the cypress wetland, xeric habitat, and cabbage palm [a666"L; as conservation areas. These areas shall be so designated on all subsequent site plans. Buffer zones, at least ten (10) feet wide (twenty (20) feet wide for Parcel I of 3 in Tract E), shall also be established around each conservation area and shall be designated on all future site plans. D. Development shall be in compliance with the provisions of Seetien-3i5,53-ef the Collier County Land Development Code. Should any areas be required to be set aside for preservation to implement this provision, they shall not result in the reduction of density, or preclude the development of any shgle family uses identified on the PUD Master Plan and set forth in Exhibit A. Areas required to be set aside for preseryation areas shall be platted as preserye areas. 8.22 PERMITTING Page29 of32 Words 6h$lF{hrsugh alr deletcd; words !!(bli!ed aro added. H:\20 t 6U016105\.PUDA\Post CCPC1BRIARWOOD PUD CUDA-P1201?000007) (8-24-2017).docx imposed by a state or federal agencv or undertakes actions that result in a violation ofstate or federal law. \/ commencement of the development. Page 30 of32 Words rh$&ugh ote deleted; words Elqlhgl at! added. H:Uol6U016106\PUDA\Post CCPCIBR1ARWOOD Pt D (PIJDA-PI2ol7000007) (8-24-2017).do(l/. SECTIONV{IUD( I,ANDSCAPE DEVEI,OPMENT 89,1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to establish guidelines for the preservation of certain natural resources. 89..2 OBJECTTVE To enlance the quality of ttre environment for future residents of this development and the community as a whole by: A. Establishing guidelines for maximum utilization of existing natural vegetation within the development plan. B. Preservation of Tract E - t}ree (3) conservation areas, in a natural unaltered condition. C. Establishing guidelines for re-vegetation of cleared areas. 89.3 LANDSCAPEDEVELOPMENT 8!.3.1 Single Family Dwelling Sites: With the exception of platted portions of Unit One and Unit Two, all future single family development areas shall be in compliance with Divisie++4ef the Collier County Land Development Code. 89.3.2 Multi-Family, Streets and Right-of-Way and Cornmercial: (to include Tracts d B and C) AII landscaping for multi-family, and commercial tracts and streets and rights-of-ways shall be in accordance with Di+isien-2-4-+f ttre Collier County Land Development Code. 8!.3.3 Tract E - Conservation Areas: A. Function: Preservation of an invaluable natural resource community, Provide an opportunity for shrdy and enjoyment ofthe community. B. Treatrnent: Total protection of flora and fauna, Prohibit vehicle and construction equipment access. Removal of obnoxious exotics. Prevent removal of valuable plant life. Pa4e 31 of 32 Words €h€k$rsugh arc del€M; words uddcrtipcd arc addcd. H:\2016U0161 06\PUDA\Post CCPCIBRIARWOOD PUD (PllDA-pI20l 700000A (8.2+2017).docx I 8!,3.4 Florida Power & Light fught-of-Way: This area has been totally cieared and has been stabilized with Bahia grass. This area may be used in part as open space and shall be vegetated with appropriate grasses. 8!,3.5 Lakes: A. Function: Provide water retention, recreations and visual quality for the community. B. Treatrnent: On completion of construction, lake banks will be re-vegetated with durable grasses to conhol erosion. Page 32 of 32 words okr€k+touth are deleted; words gllbding! 3r€ addcd. H:Uol6U016lO6\PUDA\Post CCPC\BRIARWOOD PUD (PUDA-PI2o17000007) (8-24-201?) docx TRACT PRESERVE PR"ESERVE P AREA ACRFS ENIIANCED TYPE "A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WWALL PER D(IIIBIT A-3 IO'TYPE "A" LANDSCAh BIJFFER PLATTED TRACT C-1 LAKE LEGEND ,TRACT BOUNDARY INGRESS \ EGRESS 25I} ROAO. I'ITIUTY AI.{O InAMGE EA:iBIENT oii.imzpCisssez - - - _-ax-T56_B4PIq -Ro4q--E ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE 'A" LANDSCAPE BUFFER -DJ.17+€';24-- - :==f SO'1OW A.1 - TRACT B & C MULTI-FAMILY MASTER PLAN C0 60 120 --l SCALE: l'= 60' SITE SUMMARY. MULN.FAMILY ONTY LAND USE AREA (AC}PERCENTAGE MULTI-FAMITY 14.o7 47.w" CI.UBHOUSE/RECREATION 0.90 5-6!/6 LAKE o.92 5.ts% PRESERVE 0.10 o.63% TOTAL =15.9 1@.0096 dio.s sEF-g. rz PGI zr !0.o wDE slopE rmuryaM) MULTI-FAMILY - 320 LJNTTS ,neMNce sAsE EMr 14.07 ACRES ts.o cuEROAD,SIDEWAI,( pr. t7 pG.21 p RCEL sO2oT [rnUTY oRAIMGE N0 -VACATED pER RESOUmOfl 2Oi$49fF [rAfMrEMNcr EASETTENT / p. o.*stupe.zmirl o.R.zlsPc.3l?5 / rl!irl r o.R26o2 PG. rm ,/ Il!itt \ rmcer. rozr ,/ tllU irl \ ,/ tll tO 'rapE "D,rorYPE"D' iil \ ,/ iir i,i.*ii.-.,i\ ./ lll qNH{lcED gUFFEpr--]-----------F--------j------ll pERE)cmnA-2-f - ----- - -- -----rtL... LAKE 0.92 ACRES UST OF DEVIATIONS DEVIATION l: FROM LDC SECTION 4.M.AC,TYPES OF BUFFERS, WHICH SETS FORTH REQUIRED BUFFER TYPES AND WIDTIIS, TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED 20' TYPE D BUFFER WIDTH ALONC LIVINGSTON AND RADIO ROADS TO BE REDUCED TO IO" WrIH ENIIANCED PLANTINGS CONSISTENT WTTTI E)<IIIBIT A.2, THIS DEVIATION IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN THE EVENT TRACT B & C IS DEVELOPED AS MT]LTI-FAMILY. TREE CANOPIES SHALL SE LOCATED AND/OR MAINTANED SO AS NOT TO OVERHANG INTO THE COUI.ITYS ROAD EASEMENTS. BRIARWOOD PUD MASTERPLAN lffi# FOR MULTI-FAMILY ONLY I E)GIIBIT A.I K - HOLE MONTES 1-'- l:'", (I( IO'TYPE "A" IO'TYPE'D" PLATTED TRACT B_1 MULTI-FAMILY I I I I I I I I I I o Prcpo€€d mix or bE€ and medum slzed nativE canopytunde.story tr66s end p€lms to b€ ptanGd on avs-ag€ ol25',dl c€nler. Csropy lre€s to b€ a mhimum .{ X .3lp€r and 10 lt &ld undsrstory tEos io b€ E minlmlm ol 2' calpcf and 8 hL at lim6 of planung. s.g LNE Oak Tr€€a: Modlum to S.narr e.g. Oahoon Holt, sebal Pdm, Sir|Pson Stopp€r o o dlmblng vh6s dant€d E on cant6r, A coo0nuouE untubtng doubb hsdgErow 6pa.€d 3 on enter Planlings shdl b.3 g€llm and sl laal24'ln h€lgf at dnE of plantrrg lU flrli row hedges (cios€d to th€ dght f{ay) and 4 gallon End sr lersl z' h hdgm at tn6 dme ot phntng lbrlhg s€cond fErv of h€dge€, Remahing bufisr ar€s to conrisl of m€dum ltatve NOTES: BUFFER IS ENHANCEO FROIt.t TYPICAL TYPE 'O' REOUIREMEMTS AS FO[Oti6: 1. CANOPYIREES SPAC€D 2' ON CENTER (VERSUS 3{, PER LDC) 2 MIDSTORY IREES INCLUDED TO ENSIJRE OPACITY. 3. qANOPY IREE SEE AT TIME OF PI,ANNNG LARGER TMN I..DC REOUIRES. 4- DECORATWE METAL FENCE ls AEING PROVIDED. 5. HEDGEROW IS LARGER IN SIZE AT IIME OF PLANNNG TI{AN IS REQUIRED BY CODE. =zzE TYPE'D' WTH NO IN PORTION OF IN SLOPE EASEMENT SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXHIBIT A-2: ENHANCED TYPE "D" BUFFER FOR RADIO AND LIVINGSTON RD. FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT B & C ( ENHANCED TYPE 'O' BUFFER PLAN SCALE: N.T.S. 10' COUNTY RD. EASEMENT 8 ld ,na8mry urd $tn tands.ape (m rp{tn€rn dd. o( ry.O. Vln€6 covErYal m toth 6td€3. NOIES: EUFFER VARIES lN t/ltOIH 8UT NOT IESS mAN ENMNCET'ENTS EEYOND TYPICAL TYPE 'tr BUFFER INCLI',OE: 1. 6' MASONRY WAT.L ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTLFAMILY OOVER PARK DEVELOPMENT. 2 CANOPY TREES ON BOTH SIOES OF WAII3q ON CENIER. 3, MIDSTORT PIANNNGS 3q ON CENIER 4 GROTTNO COVER. ,iil .,.e , rr Edsring 8' to 1 2' Ftors z E od L_ro*", o u,*. ,1, , ro ,o EXHIBIT A-3: WPICAL CROSS SECTTON FOR ENHANCE TypE "A" BUFFER ADJACENT TO EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY IN DOVER PARK DEVELOPMENT ,, \-,o$ ''ti.: Y'ris, aoo YJ,, , -.l u\jr \if r )N BETIA/EEN EXISTING FICUS HEDGE OF WAL FOR MANTENANCE ', n,.tj,r- !r . SCALE: N.T.S. ((( ... r[[ j :$'"l, ''"--/ flHBlr A: PUD MASIER PUN ..il,l ,[r.n ,l,ac' ,,,O B It AC I ,, ?R6ECI NttRca*ECt (fiP) tNE-W&t .E.lrq[t5tB I Il A PtAcA N 5fj6,,/0 J', I Q q R '!t s, cdtEfi Ntfi tLffiA RE-SIrBltfiTTAL PDI-lllBill-{061 PBOJf,CT f 19990137 DAII,IlnilE I(AYDf,SII,ITiI Nqlr r Ar nodlltad by D(bfbtl A-1 l! Eo mlltlfdnlly drv.lQr.Dt on Tnlot E & C, W@@D PAD E['?O.EBL-rns noathE, bto, nAofBac Ann P. Jennejohn From: FrantzJeremy <JeremyFrantz@colliergov.net> Sent: Thursday,August 31, 2017 11:46 AM To: FrantzJeremy Subject: 2017 LDC Amendments Update Coitler County Growth Management Depertment 2017 LDC Amendments Update Meeting Current Collier LDC News Releases Schedule Amendments Planning Commission Meeting To Review LDC Amendment ; Date Thursday Sept. 7, 2017 Review 9:00 a.m. Meeting Agenda See agenda item 9B Location 3289 Tamiami Trl. E. LDC Section 3.05.07 Collier County A Land Development Code Government Center amendment relating to off-site 3rd Floor - Building F preservation requirements and land BCC Meeting Room donation alternatives. We welcome your attendance and feedback. AGENDA ITEM 9-B Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Growth Management Department Staff AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2016 LDC Amendment Cycle (Carry-Over) LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: This amendment modifies the requirements fo °ite native vegetation retention. The amendment updates and revises the applicability se or=provides for off-site preservation through deviations or variances,modifies the calculation ", : -tart'payments,and removes the land donation alternative for off-site native vegetation re �ntion. REASON: Amendment History Currently LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f establishe ' ,following options fo F pliance with the County's native vegetation retention quirements - 1) On-site preservation; or 2) Off-site preservation through one oft-. owing m ods: a. Monetary en.t with a- otics »i tenance �o �wment, or b. Land d• ,_ . an exot _ � paint,, ' dow" m t. On July 7, 2015, Con _ ation Miler staff - " several preliminary recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners rd)for guidance prior to establishing more detailed changes to the program T®- Board w of e recommendations with the Conservation Collier - „Ty s Ad "Co -� (CCLAC) and Development Services Advisory Co -. (DSAC)to' ide r. ' endations to: • Inc the monetary I. en :-.that land management endowments last beyond seven years: • Consider* ving the land donation alternative. The following narrati ' « c , ssome of the history of the County's preserve requirements, the changes included in this a1 dment, and the recommendations suggested by the advisory boards and the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC). Background regarding on-site preserves The purpose of the on-site preserve requirement is to retain, maintain, and protect existing native vegetation on site as provided for in the CCME.Accordingly,the purpose of LDC section 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal, Protection, and Preservation states: "The purpose of this section is the protection of vegetation within the County by regulating its removal; to assist in the control of flooding, soil erosion, dust, heat, air pollution, and noise;and to maintain property, aesthetic, and health values within the County;to limit the use of irrigation water 1 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term in open space areas by promoting the preservation of existing plant communities; to limit the removal of existing viable vegetation in advance of the approval of land development plans; and to limit the removal of existing viable vegetation when no landscape plan has been prepared for the site." It is important to note that while this section allows for off-site preservation,preserves in the urban area still provide benefits to the community. Beyond native habitat, preserves also provide green space consisting of naturally existing vegetation in urban areas. The Nature Conservancy's "Planting Healthy Air" (2016) confirms that trees and other vegetation provide many benefits to people including: "aesthetic beauty, enhancement of property values, erosion prevention, stormwater management, and noise reduction."1 The study also reiterates that trees sequester carbon which helps to alleviate the effects of climate change. Trees help to make the air healthier as "Dozens of studies now show that tree leaves filttout particulate matter from the atmosphere, along with many other air pollutants."2 Preserves retained on site are an amenity for residlA' . The LDC allows for 6_.;; dwalks,pathways, benches, educational signs, and viewing platforms; staff eiages these uses so that residents can enjoy preserve areas. In addition, the Nature Concy's Tree Study indicates that urban trees have been shown to have economic value, stating, "in general, the total economic value of a tree is frequently more than 20 times the value specificAy for air quality, with stormwater mitigation and aesthetic value for property owners being especially important."3 Background regarding off-site preserves Off-site native vegetation retention was added to the LDC in 2010 to allow for the purchase or donation of land off site in lieu of preserving native vegetation on site. The criteria for determining when this alternative is allowed is based on the provisions identified in Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME),of the Growth Management Plan(GMP),Policy 6.1.1 (10),which states: "The County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount, type, rarity and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; c. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed, such as, but not limited to, affordable housing; 1 McDonald, R., Kroeger, K., Boucher,T.,Wang, L.,Salem, R. (2016). Planting Healthy Air. Retrieved from https://global.nature.org/content/healthyair?src=r.global.healthyair. Pg.2 2 Ibid, Pg.2. 3 Ibid, Pg.22. 2 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional; and f Right-of-Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, land donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site." Generally speaking, preserves which are smaller in size, or those located adjacent to more intense land uses, have a greater potential to become less viable over time due to habitat fragmentation and sensitivity of native vegetation to changes in the environment. Depending on the type of development and uses on adjoining properties, plants, such as slash pine, often die after a few years. It is in these instances where the off-site preservation is recommended in lieu of preservation of native vegetation on site. Changes to LDC sections 3.05.07 H.I.fi-ii Purpose section This amendment adds a purpose section to clarify the original intent and guide the administration of the off-site preserve program. This section iderOes it is intended to ap 'to projects with a preserve requirement of 21,780 square feet(one-half acre)or less. Additionally,this section is not applicable to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) districts, since there are separate off-site preservation provisions specific to each district. Applicability This amendment removes the existing applicability in its entirety and replaces it with a provision limiting the applicability of off-site preservation-te projects where the preserve requirement is 21,780 square feet(one-half acre) or less, and where the preserves have not been identified on an approved development order by the County. This section also limits the applicability of off-site preservation with several prohibitions that modify or add to the provisions previously identified as "restrictions." Identifying these standards as prohibitions makes it clear that no deviations can be requested or allowed when any of the prohibitions are found on site. Additionally, the following clarifications and additions have been made to the list of prohibitions: • The prohibi on remonative vegetation adjacent to flowways is clarified to indicate that it also applies to native vegetation within flowways. ., Preserves in Industrial Districts: • Currently, remain]. a i ortions of on-site preserves LDC section 3.05.07 B.2.h must be a minimum of one acre,unless high quality establishes that industrial zoned habitat is present. This provision is removed as parcels which have a native applicants will not be able to leave any required vegetation retention requirement preserves on site when off-site preservation is of two acres or less are exempt requested. from the preserve requirement. • A standard is added prohibiting off-site preserves if the on-site native vegetation requirement is greater For this reason, industrial zoned than 21,780 square feet(one-half acre). parcels are not incorporated in the applicability section. 3 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term • A standard is added prohibiting deviations or variances from the off-site preservation standards. Approval methods CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) requires two potential methods for obtaining approval when developments meet the applicability to provide on-site preserves off site. The policy states: "The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of subsections 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of this Policy, and shall adopt land development regulations to set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The regulations shall allow for the •ranting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after a public hearing, and , e granting of a deviation administratively..." Therefore, the following approval processes have bee _ 1) Administrative approval: The County manager or designee may jt 'ove deviations for o preserves in only the following four situations: a. Essential service facilities; b. Affordable housing trojects that have -bit approved by the o:=Collier County Community and Hu .des Division_: c. Projects where on-site 'ye •tion is ented; or d. Projects where on-site na v veg- e is not c+ w ', ous to off-site preserve areas. 2) Approval through • 'c hearing: For other pro-: t isfy the ilio a, "•ff--site preservation may be approved througha PUD iation ore, as ap ale. Finally, a provision is aj e- w ~tl • es that the purposes of this section, the required preserves �» d on t 'ac r the - D or development order, and not based on an individualphase : . 'ases develop - A-ditionally, if the on-site native vegetation retention;requirement is fled o •te,then al the required preserve will be satisfied off site. x Changes to ite Alterna L Delwction 3.05.0 H.1 f iii. This section c` ly identifie ,feat the native vegetation retention requirements may be satisfied by one of two of Vie:alternativ either monetary payments orland donations. This amendment removes the land donation alternative and modifies the calculation of the monetary payment. Currently, the monetary Pi nt amount is based on the location of the land to be impacted and must be equal to 125 percent of the average cost of land purchased by Conservation Collier in the urban designated area or of the average cost of all other designations, as applicable. This amendment states that the monetary payment amount shall be established in the Growth Management Department Development Services Fee Schedule. The proposed per acre fee for the monetary payment alternative is based on the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Community and Regional Park Land Summary unit cost per acre, as updated annually. Using the AUIR to establish the cost to purchase land will ensure that this fee is consistent with the County's other land purchasing estimates and that the fee is updated regularly. 4 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Following the Board's direction, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) has reviewed recommendations from CCLAAC and DSAC over the course of several meetings. During their review of this amendment,the CCPC noted the following: • The retention of native vegetation, even small areas,is valued by Collier County residents. • The native vegetation retention requirements should be designed to promote on-site retention. • The program should place more emphasis on encouraging incorporation of the natural environment within urban developments. Furthermore, the CCPC expressed concern over the abifi •r developers to satisfy native vegetation retention requirements off site,the methodolo ed by the CCLAAC and DSAC to revise the fees associated with the off-site preservatio a a es, and the County's ability to manage exotics in the rural areas of the County.As esult,this ndment reflects the following CCPC recommendations made during the August 017, meeting 1. Off-site preservation should only be . wed through a devia a ,where the preserve requirement is one-half acre or less. a. The CCPC explaine• at the limifVo,•• %21. ,+ne-half acre issignificant when compared to minim, izes for si amily homes. For instance, 21,780 square feet compares • i an 3 mini-1 -g•s sized lots within RMF-6 zonign districts. 2. An administrative • 'ation shou � - avail :• proje oat meet identified criteria. 3. The only meth _ - ding of - pre !,141 b- ''rough a monetary payment and the am• t-ghoul• : based o o - I' nity and Regional Park Land Summary per unit cos CCLAAC C REC! !N5: ite preservation was used infrequently after its addi ' ! . 2010 d seve" . isi��s have proved problematic when staff has applie+ :s section to"• -cts in. nt years.Y refore, in addition to addressing the Board's directio! m recommen•to arifyi ertain portions of this provision to CCLAAC and DSAC. Both the ter AC and D prov similar recommendations regarding changes to the purpose and is t, applicabilt PUD deviations, and prohibitions sections. While the CCPC recommendation gg, hides the AAC and DSAC recommended language in the purpose and intent section, sevej.0 tither sec• . were modified during the CCPC hearings described generally as follows: . • Both CCLAAC and I SAC recommended to allow for off-site preservation to apply to preserve requirements of up to one acre and to allow for up to two acres through a PUD deviation. However, the CCPC modified these provisions to apply only to preserve requirements of one-half acre or less. • Both CCLAAC and DSAC recommended clarifications to the restrictions section, including renaming the section to "prohibitions." While some of these clarifications are included in the CCPC recommendation, the CCPC has made additional modifications and additions as described above. 5 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term • Both CCLAAC and DSAC recommended changes to the off-site preservation alternatives as directed by the Board. While, these recommendations differed between committees, each committee included endowments for estimated land management costs, and proposed fees for the monetary payment and land donation alternatives. Each Committee's proposal for changes to the off-site preservation alternatives are summarized in the next section. CCLAAC recommendations for off-site preservation alternatives: 1) Land Management Costs: CCLAAC recommended using an annual estimated cost of$558 per acre to manage lands donated to Conservation Collier. This yearly management estimate was used to establish an endowment amount that ensures suffic' t management funds for at least 20 years while accounting for inflation and intere Ilk resulting land management endowment amount of $32,500 was incorporated in • • C's recommended fees for the monetary payment and land donation alternatives. 2) Monetary Payment Alternative: CCLAAC r ended that" monetary payment should be equivalent to 125% of the "post dev, : ent appraised va :7"--;_' of the on-site preserve acreage. The following example was gi ,a- If a development vXth a one acre preserve requirement received a post development app .1 value of 300,000. total fee associated with the monetary payment alternative would eu, tS375.000. 3) Land Donation Alternative:CCL -''''4, mended —., e land donation fee incorporate the .frland management endowment an Mi " otic vegetation removal cost. Additionally, CCLAAC recommend • a 4:1 ratio fond doto o the land being developed. The following table it e land dation -".a profit with a native vegetation requirement of• A a- e. Si 4:1 rati• 0 . 1 <�s ply • ,,.1.-, donation, four acres would need to be donated, the w re, the fe % re multi;''''.',„'- by four in t e following table: JP Elena Land D " Cost Per Donation L.g� "� . ! - endo nt($3 , . 4) $130,000 o' exotic veg . n re• 1 costs C.- i II x 4) $16,000 Ti � $146,000 DSAC recommendations for ofttsite preiervation alternatives: 1) Land Manage Costs:DSAC recommended using the following estimates to manage lands donated to Cons ;=ion C. `cr: • Years 1-5 = Scre • Year 6 and on: '* f=$141 per acre These yearly management estimates were used to establish an endowment amount that ensures sufficient management funds for at least 20 years while also accounting for inflation and interest. The resulting land management endowment amount of$13,200 was incorporated in DSAC's recommended fees for the monetary payment and land donation alternatives. 2) Monetary Payment Alternative: DSAC recommended that the monetary payment incorporate the cost for Conservation Collier to purchase land, the land management endowment, and an initial exotic vegetation removal cost as shown in the following table: 6 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term Elements of Monetary Payment Alternative Per Acre Cost Average cost to purchase land for Conservation Collier $32,800 Land management endowment $13,200 Initial exotic vegetation removal costs $4,000 Total $50,000 3) Land Donation Alternative: DSAC recommended that the land donation fee incorporate the land management endowment and an initial exotic vegetation removal cost as shown in the following table: Elements of Land Donation Fee Per Acre Cost Land management endowment $13,200 Initial exotic vegetation removal costs $4,000 Total $17,200 FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS are no anticipated 1 or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLS PACT: Th , '`o anticipated Groai Management Plan impacts associated with this ameI 4-0 Amend the LDC as follows: 1 3.05.07 Preservatio r 'i a .„ , 4 - ' * 2 * * * I * 0 . , * * * * , 3 H. Preserve stand � . 4 1. Design st Lards 5 * * * * �i * * * * * 4 6 ff-site -tation rr� . 7 14,, Pu:.:.' - and Inten he purpose of this subsection f is to identify 8 . =-the c KK - to satisfy on-site preserve requirements off site. The 9 ntent of:' .n-site preserve requirement is to retain, maintain, 10 prese - -xistinq native vegetation on site as provided for in 11 4 t Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 12 is H ver, in limited situations on-site preserve may be considered 13 ~ viable as a functional preserve if it is 21,780 square feet(one- 14 - acre) or less and isolated. Therefore, in limited situations, 15 - •rrovidinq for a preserve off site can achieve the goals and 16 objectives of the GMP. This section shall not apply to lands 17 located within the RLSA or RFMU districts. 18 i. Applicability.A property owner may request that all or a portion of 19 the Collier County on site native vegetation preservation retention 20 :e .' --•-• -= - - - - _ _ - - - 21 - - - - -- -- - - -- - 22 a) Properties zoncd commercial where the on site preserve 23 requirement is less than 2 acres in size. 24 b) Park sites where the on cite preserve requirement is lees 25 than one acre in size. 7 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 c) Essential service facilities other than parks, for any size 2 preserves. 3 d) Preserves less than on acre in size 4 c) Affordable housing projects. The maximum percent 5 - - - -• - e -- e - ...•.. -- 6 7 limitation as to size of the preserve. 8 f) Existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more 9 10 _ - . -- - - - - -11 • 12 - --- _•- •• e. + : - - - e e - 13 g) Created preserves whichdo not meet the success criteria 14 in 3.05.07 H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been 15 - - -- • . -- - - - - 16 Gomm-unity. 17 18 19 f) Portions of preserves located within platted single family 20 lots. 21 j) Right of Way acquisitions to be conveyed or in the process 22 •- •- .. = •AL-- - ---• • ... . - 23 - e - -- ---- - - -- • • • 24 _e -- -•, - - - - - -- - - -, -25 _ . . . :. _ 26 k) All criteria listed for crgated preserves. 27 ii . . tt. -- '- 28 Applicability and prohibitions. Except where it is prohibited, 29applicants may request that the on-site native vegetation 30retention requirement be satisfied in full off-site where the native 31rr vegetation reqquirement is 21,780 square feet (one-half acre) or 32 less, and the preserves have not been identified on an approved 33 development order by the County. Off-site preserves are 34 rohibited if one or more of the following is found on-site: 35 ) Xeric.scrub and hardwood hammocks which are one acre 36 or more in size, mangrove (excluding mangrove fringes 37 less than 40 feet in width on artificially created 38 _ shorelines), coastal dune and strand environments, and 39 listed species habitat or corridors per the requirements or 40 recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS are found on 41 site: - •e e: - - e •. - •: - - 42 - e - - - -- - e• - -• -• :e -• - - e e:e 43 offsite. 44 b) Preserves shall remain on site if are located within or 45 contiguous to natural flowways required to be retained per 46 the requirements of the SFWMD, natural water bodies, 47 estuaries, government required preserves (not meeting the 48 off-site preservation criteria herein), NRPAs, or contiguous 49 to property designated for purchase by Conservation 50 Collier or purchased by Conservation Collier, or contiguous 51 to properties containing listed species nests, buffers, 8 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 corridors and foraging habitat per the requirements or 2 recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS. For the 3 purpose of this section, natural flowways shall also 4 include those identified during wetland permitting with 5 applicable State and Federal agencies, regional drainage 6 studies, or surface water management permits..-i 7 c) Remaining portions of on site preserves must be a 89 • _ e - - - e -.1 .e. —. . ... - - - --- 10 - • - . - _ . - -- 11 12 c) If the on-site native vegetation retention requirement is 13 greater than 21,780 square feet (one-half acre), then no 14 required preserves are allowed to go off site; or 15 d) Deviations or variances from this section are prohibited. 16 iii. Off-site preserves approved administratively. Except as limited in 17 LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.ii, the County Manager or designee 18 may approve deviations to meet the on-site preserve requirements 19 off site in only the following four situations: 20 a) Essential services facilities; 21 b) Affordable housing approved by the Collier County 22 Community and Human Services Division; 23 c) Projects where on-site native vegetation is fragmented; or 24 d) Projects where on-site native vegetation is not contiguous 25 to off-site preserve areas. 26 iv. Off-site preserves approved through a public hearing. Except as 27 limited in LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f.ii., applicants may request a 28 PUD deviation or variance, as applicable, to meet the on-site 29 preserve requirement off site. 30 a) PUD deviations shall be processed in accordance with the 31 procedures in LDC section 10.02.13. 32 ,, b) Variances shall be processed in accordance with the 33 d././ procedures in LDC section 10.09.00. 34 v. For the purposes this section, the preserve requirement shall be 35 '` based on the total acreage for the PUD or development order, as 36 applicable, and not based on an individual phase or phases of a 37 development, consistent with LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.a. If the 38 ort-site native vegetation retention requirement is satisfied off 39 site,`then all of the required preserve will be satisfied off site. 40 iil 1 - ' o •_ ' e_ •• - ' - . . • '. . o .. 41 :e -• - - -- ••- e - -• e- =• - - - - 42 donation. If a development qualifies for off-site preservation, only 43 a monetary payment will satisfy the off-site retention requirement. 44 a) Applicants shall make the monetary payment to Collier 45 County. Such funds will shall be used by the County for the 46 purchase and management of off-site conservation lands 47 within the county. The monetary payment amount shall be 48 established by resolution in the Collier County Growth 49 Management Department Development Services Fee 50 Schedule. The monetary payment amount shall be 51 calculated based on the on-site preserve requirement for 9 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 the land that is proposed to be developed and shall be the 2 current AUIR Community and Regional Park Land 3 Summary per acre unitcost, as amended annually. based 4 -• • --- -• e • - - - - mn- - - - --- - 5 125 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban 6 Designation or 125 percent of the average cost for all other 7 `- - - - - - -- --- - - - - - 8 purchased by Collier County, through the Conservation 9 Collier program. This monetary payment shall be made 10 prior to the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final 11 plat construction plans. • -. - - = - - _e- - 12 - - - - -- - 14 e - - •- ee - �- - - -- - - - 15 16 - - - - ;q - ' - _ - - --- -- - 17 18 - 19 - -- - -- •- - - -- - . .. -- - . 20 - - - - - - - 21 e"- - -- - -22 -- .. -- -- - - - - - -- 23 - - -- ' •' - - - - -24 m e -• -• ---- - - -- - • 25 - - - - -- - -•- - - 26 - - - - - - _ • - 27 -_ _ - - - - - - 28 within-Collier County Donations of land for preservation 30 =- - - - - -- - --- - - 31 -- - - ---.. . - - - -- 32 33 - - - - -- - -- - -- -- _ - --- - 34 Bash payment for management of the land. The amount of 35 this payment shall be equal to 25 percent of the average 36 - - - - - - - - 37 - - -- •-- • - - -- •- - - - - - - -- - 38 defined by-the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through 39 the Conservation Collier program. 40 - - - -- - - - - - - - - - •- 41 - e - - - - - e 42 been accepted by and donated to the entity stated above, 43 - .. - --- - - - '• - -'' - 44 final plat construction plans. Exotics shall be removed in 45 accordance with the time frames provided in 3.05.07 H.2. 46 State and Federal agency requirements for mitigation, 47 remediation and monitoring for the donated land shall be 48 - -- - • e •- - 49i vii. PUD zoning. Where the off-site native vegetation retention 50 alternative is used for portions of preserves not identified on a 51 PUD master plan, a PUD amendment is not required. 10 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx Text underlined is new text to be added Bold text indicates a defined term 1 Preserves or portions of preserves identified on a PUD master 2 plan shall require an amendment to the PUD master plan to 3 use the native vegetation retention alternative, subject to 4 LDC section 10.02.13 E, unless the option to use the off-site 5 native vegetation retention litternative is included in the PUD. 6 # # # # # # # # # # # # Al ,iiu _,.'„::'4,- tw fin.: I It ' ' '1 , '4.,,, '4. - ti. '''''.- 11: 14 u. 11 L:\LDC Amendments\2016 LDC Amendment Cycle\Amendments\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements-Conservation Collier\Draft LDCA\3.05.07 Preservation Requirements 8-29-17(for 9-7-7-17 CCPC).docx