The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/13/2015 Item # 9A10/13/2015 9.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an amendment to ordinance number 92 -23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), as amended, to add a 120 -foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communications tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, amend one environmental commitment, and revise the Master Plan, for the PUD property located at the southwest corner of Airport - Pulling Road and Bailey Lane in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date [PUDA- PL201200011281. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Planned Unit Development Amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the current Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district for the purpose of adding a monopole communication tower (camouflaged as a pine tree "monopine ") for mobile phone and data coverage to the existing permitted principal uses. Other changes include adding dimensional standards for the tower and its related facilities, a deviation for preserve setbacks from existing buildings, adding setbacks and buffer requirements for the tower and its related facilities, amending an environmental condition to reflect existing conditions, and revising the Master Plan to include the tower. The existing uses include office and medical office. The PUD is located in the southwest corner of Airport- Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. The Applicant originally requested a maximum height for the tower of 150 feet, but has reduced the requested height to 120 feet following the Planning Commission hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed PUD Amendment application. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and the FLUM designation is a portion of the overall finding that is required. and staff believes the petition is consistent with the Packet Page -16- 10/13/2015 9.A. Collier County GMP as discussed in the attached CCPC Staff Report. Staff believes that the proposed Amendment may also be found -consistent with the Future Land Use Element, GMP Transportation Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on July 16, 2015. The CCPC heard testimony from the Applicant's agent and expert witnesses, and the public — including a letter of opposition from the Poinciana Civic Association, and county staff. During the discussion, the CCPC developed some additional conditions: 1) the antennae shall be hidden by the "branches ", 2) no part of the antennae shall protrude outside the "branches ", 3) the tower shall be painted brown and green, 4) the "branches" shall begin at a height of 30 feet from ground level, and 5) for consistency, the Environmental and Stormwater development commitments of the PUD that were removed for being redundant with the LDC shall be reinstated. A motion was made by Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski to recommend approval with the conditions listed above at a maximum height of 150 feet. The motion failed by a vote of 3-4. A motion was made by Commissioner Homiak, seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski to recommend approval with the conditions listed above at a maximum height of 120 feet. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 -3; therefore, the CCPC recommends that the BCC approves the PUD Amendment with a maximum tower height of 120 feet. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a PUD Amendment. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Packet Page -17- 10/13/2015 9.A. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 1 l . Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as corrtrACtPri lVith the public welfare. Packet Page -18- 10/13/2015 9.A. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the n written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality. An affirmative vote of four is required for Board approval. (SAS) ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The purpose of this rezone is to place a 120 foot cell tower within the PUD. The following considerations are limited to certain material issues that the County Attorney has identified created by this proposed use. 1, The LDC generally limits cell towers at 75 feet, with higher towers being authorized as part of a Conditional Use process in C -4, Industrial, and Ag zoning. The PUD in question was created in 1987. The Board's 1987 discussion of this PUD indicates a great concern that it be compatible with Poinciana Village, and the PUD was limited to a low intensity office park, similar to C -1 zoning. The applicant is thus requesting a C -4 use as a principle use in a PUD created as essentially C -1 zoning. The issue before the Board is whether the disguised use of this tower as a "tree" sufficiently reduces the impact of the use, thus making it compatible with the surrounding area. A copy of the Board's 1987 transcript is included in the back -up. 2. LDC Sec. 5.05.09.G.2.a requires a separation distance of two and a half times the height of the tower between the tower's base and residential property, with towers not meeting this requirement having to go through a variance process per LDC Sec. 9.04. The proposed placement of this tower is less than this requirement, and requires a variance as part of this application. In lieu of applying for a separate variance, the applicant has addressed the variance criteria as part its PUD application. One of the criteria for the granting of a variance is "There are special conditions and circa nstances existing which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre - existing conditionq rAptiva to the property which is the subject of the Packet Page -19- 10/13/2015 9.A. variance request." The applicant here has chosen to site the proposed cell tower within the prohibited fall radius, rather than choose a site within the PUD outside the fall radius. This could be viewed as a self - created hardship, and if the Board were so inclined it could require that the location be changed. A GIS depiction of this issue is included in the back -up. An additionally issue with respect to the fall radius is applicant's assertion that this is a self collapsing tower, which eliminates the need for this distance requirement. A copy of applicant's engineer's letter dated April 9, 2015 on this issue is included in back -up for the Board for its detennination on whether this provides sufficient assurance. 3. The United States Supreme Court ruled in T- Mobile South v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808 (2015), that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local governments to provide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting applications. In keeping with this decision, should the Board not approve this application, I will be asking the dissenting Commissioners to state their reasons for the denial on the record. I will then create a formal Resolution of Denial, attaching and referring to the relevant portion of the transcript, and will administratively forward the Resolution of Denial to the applicant. (JAK) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the BCC approves the request at a maximum height of 120 feet, subject to the attached PUD Amendment Ordinance. Prepared By: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Ordinance 3) Correspondence 4) Revised 120 -foot exhibits 5) Poinciana Civic Report http• /!w�Nnv collieraov net/ ftp/ 2015BCCMeetinLysiAQendaOct1315 /Grow,rthM<_>mt/ Poinciana Civic Report.pdf 6) Application: http• / /yYwZ'V collierL)ov net /ftp /2015BCCMeetin�-,,s /AL,endaOetl 315 /GrovAhMamt/ Application.hdf 7) NEPA Report: http:/ /N .xr%vw collieraov net/ ftp/ 2015BCCMectin «sOAaendaOct1315 /GroavthM2tnt/ NEPA Report.pdf 8) Legal Ad 9) BCC Minutes 10) GIS Depiction 11) Engineer Letter 4 -9 -15 Packet Page -20- 10/13/2015 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an amendment to ordinance number 92 -23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), as amended, to add a 120 -foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communications tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, amend one environmental commitment, and revise the Master Plan, for the PUD property located at the southwest corner of Airport- Pulling Road and Bailey Lane in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date [PUDA- PL20120001128). Meeting Date: 10/13/2015 Prepared By Name: ReischlFred Title: Planner, Principal, Growth Management Department 9/14/2015 10:16:28 AM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Growth Management Department Date: 9/15/2015 5:38:53 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Growth Management Department Date: 9/18/2015 4:48:50 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Growth Management Department Date: 9/18/2015 4:52:56 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning, Growth Management Department Packet Page -21- 10/13/2015 9.A. Date: 9/22/2015 8:23:37 AM /"'N Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Growth Management Department Date: 9/23/2015 8:33:28 AM Name: StoneScott Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 9/30/2015 4:54:24 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Division Director - Corp Fin & Mgmt Svc, Office of Management & Budget Date: 10/1 /2015 9:48:00 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 10 /1 /2015 3:10:22 PM Name: Casa] anguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 10/2/2015 10:22:41 AM Packet Page -22- 10/13/2015 9.A. C;0*, ;ir '9tYEt STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FRONT: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2015 SUBJECT: PUDA- PL20120001128: WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD Owner: South Florida Growers Association, Inc. 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33126 Applicant: SBA Towers III, LLC 5900 Broken Sound Parkway NW Boca Raton, FL 33487 out Agent: Lauralee G. `ddestine, Esq. Law Office of Lauralee G. Westine, P.A. 800 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, Suite E - .l Palm Harbor, FL 34685 The Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits office and medical office uses. The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to add a 150 -foot monopine (monopole support structure, designed to resemble a pine tree) communication tower as a permitted principal use. The subject property is 8.29± acres in size and is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. The site is currently developed with offices. The proposed communication tower would have a maximum height of 150 feet and be a monopole structure to support communication antennae with added camouflage structures designed to resemble a pine tree. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -23- Page 1 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. 3P7DS QI lON / ..._..__ 1 -0- - . y 10/13/2015 9.A. SURROUNDING La USE AND ZONING: North: Bailey Lane ROW, across which are medical offices zoned C -1 and undeveloped land, zoned A. East: Airport- Pulling Road ROW and canal ROW, across which are a golf course and homes, zoned MPUD (Grey Oaks). South: Homes in the Poinciana Village subdivision, zoned RMr -6 West: A church, zoned A Aerial Photo (CoogleMaps) Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -25- Page 3 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. Photoillustration supplied by the Applicant s + ! The Wilson Professional Center PUD was detennined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed amendment will not affect that consistency determination; therefore, Staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals; objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: The applicant wishes to add the use of communication tower to the permitted principal uses in the CPUD along with four supporting deviations and new development standards. It should be noted that LDC Section 5.05.09 permits telecommunication towers in all commercial zoning districts up to specific heights. The applicant states that the tower is required to cope with heavy phone and data demand in the area. Staff analyzed the application, including effects on wildlife, distance from residential areas and visual impact. Staff considers visual impact to be the greatest concern. Cellular service, which works with mobile phones and other devices, is generally regarded by the public as a utility. However, unlike more traditional utilities which operate as monopolies within franchise areas, cellular service providers compete in the free market. Traditional utilities such as electric power and landline telephone service are permitted to utilize utility easements and ROWs for their lines. The poles and lines have a visual impact on neighborhoods, albeit, one that most Americans have grown accustomed to seeing in residential neighborhoods. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL201 20001 1 28 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -26- Page 4 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. The United States Supreme Court has determined that "any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record" (see T- Mobile v. Roswell, attached). The applicant has requested a "monopine" tower, a monopole structure, designed to collapse on itself, limited to 150 feet in height. The "pine" feature of the "monopine" includes branch -like structures which will hide the antennae and create the illusion of being a tall pine tree. The applicant has provided photos (attached) including "before" photos and "after" photos — with the monopine digitally edited into the photo. Staff believes the monopine structure will ameliorate the visual impact to the greatest extent possible. This PUDA also adds dimensional standards for a communications tower and accessory structures: Setbacks: Monopine, measured from the flange South: 229.5 feet West: 32 feet Accessory Structures: South: 190.5 feet West: 10 feet Maximum Height: 150 feet Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review Staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. A preserve requirement did exist in the CCME during the time of the original PUD document (92 -23). The preserve requirement has been in the GMP since 1989 and in the LDC since 1991. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan included a requirement for a preserve. However there was no specific percentage for the preserve requirement for other than residential development. All other types of new development were required to "preserve an appropriate portion of native vegetation on the site as determined through the County development review process" (1989 Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.4.7) Therefore, it is consistent with the GMP for this site to retain a preserve requirement as originally indicated within the PUD document. Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The Environmental Considerations section and PUD Master Plan have been revised to reflect the Preserve that was retained in accordance with the original PUD document section 5.7.e. The site plan depicts the proposed impact to the existing Preserve area. The existing preserve has been on the developed site since the property was developed in the early 1990s. The monopine will be placed within an existing preserve area. However, this will not bring the PUD below the minimum preserve acreage required. The minimum required preserve acreage is 0.51 acres; 1.69 acres is being provided. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -27- Page 5 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2 -1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, a deviation is being requested related to separation from preserves. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of four deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest .... Please see attached Deviation Justifications provided by the applicant. Deviation 1 — A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3 Required Setbacks to Preserves. Justification —This deviation memorializes that the PUD was not originally subject to the � preserve setback requirement. If the preserve setback were to be applied, existing buildings may become nonconforming. Deviation 2 — A Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a separation distance of a communication tower from residentially zoned property. Justification — Since the LDC Communication Tower language was written, technology has improved so that a monopole tower collapses upon itself. In addition, the tower, as well as the "branches" are subject to building code wind -load requirements. Staff believes this justifies the deviation from the 2.5 times the tower - height requirement (150ft. x 2.5 = 375ft.). The closest residential property is 229.5 feet from the proposed tower. A letter sealed by Robert E. Beacom, P.E. of Sabre Industries (attached) states that the pole is designed to withstand a wind speed of 163 MPH. At wind speeds of greater velocity "...the monopole will buckle at the Iocation of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself." Deviation 3 — A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1 Buffer Requirements Justification — The requested deviation would reduce the internal landscape buffer from the required 10 -foot Type "A" to 0 -feet, utilizing existing vegetation to buffer the tower Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -28- Page 6 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. n from the rest of the PUD. Since the buffer is internal, requested by the applicant, Staff does not object to the deviation. Deviation 4 — A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05.B.2.c General Landscaping Requirements Justification — This deviation, coupled with Deviation 3, will ensure that landscaping shall be installed, even if the width is less than the LDC requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT: This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of a monopine communication tower will be visually conspicuous since, although the site is currently vegetated with pines, the monopine will be significantly taller than the natural canopy. Staff also believes that the visual impact will be somewhat ameliorated by the "camouflage" effect of the monopine. The tower will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add a communication tower does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The only proposed change is the addition of a communication tower and Staff believes that Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -29- Page 7 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. the approval of this amendment will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area, subject to the existing development standards and project deviations. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUD requires 30 percent usable open space. The applicant states that this requirement is met and will provide calculations at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. b. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staffs opinion that the addition of a communication tower as a permitted use 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 applicant states that a tower is required in this location due to high data usage. Staff understands that with changes in technology, including smart phones, additional towers and antennae will be required in the area. Since the subject PUD has existing pines, this expansion appears to be reasonable. Since the existing PUD is for professional office uses, a telecommunication tower is a necessary infrastructure required to further facilitate communication within the professional office setting. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed amendment is consistent with PUD regulations, with the four proposed deviations, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of serving the surrounding community with phone and data service. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Y%liether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The addition of a communication tower does not affect the previous determination of consistency. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. n Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -30- Page 8 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; No new districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The petitioner states, and Staff agrees, that changes in technology make the proposed amendment necessary to provide phone and data service to the area. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, There will be visual impact to the neighborhood. Phone and data service is also desired by many in the neighborhood. As a result, Staff believes that the monopine features of the tower will lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of'traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affectpublic safety. A communication tower is typically unmanned, visited routinely for maintenance, and will not affect the level of service on Airport - Pulling Road. 8. ifrhether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The PUD has existing buildings and an existing water management system. 9. O nether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Due to the nature of a communication tower, it will not reduce the circulation of light and air. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; 11 Since the Wilson Professional Center PUD is existing, the proposed amendment should not Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -31- Page 9 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land -uses; however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a communication tower to the currently permitted uses will support the surrounding community with expanded phone and data service. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the subject property is already developed; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Communication towers are, by nature, area - specific. In order to provide service to the community, antennae must be located at certain specific intervals. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -32- Page 10 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. 9.04.03 - Criteria for Variances Section 5.05.09.G.2.a, Communications Towers, of the LDC requires that towers which do not meet the required setback from residential zoning districts be reviewed under Section 9.04.03, Criteria for Variances. Although it will be added as a deviation, it must meet the standards for a variance. Findings. Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the BCC, the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination: A. There are special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. The structure, the tower, must be located within a certain area in order to provide cellular service. In addition, as stated previously, the tower has been designed to collapse on itself if winds exceed 163 MPH. The "fall zone" is estimated to be 32 feet, not the required 375 feet. B. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre - existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. The tower must be placed within a certain effective radius, however, this particular site was chosen through the actions of the applicant. C. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. The applicant states that practical difficulties in service will result if the tower is not located in this area. In addition, current tower engineering permits a tower to be located closer than 2.5 times the height to residential. D. The variance, if granted, will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, or welfare. The applicant states that this is the minimum variance required. As stated previously, modern engineering has lessened the "fall zone ". This is the minimum variance needed to allow the tower in the proposed location. E. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -33- Page 11 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. Granting of a variance will permit a tower to be closer to residential zoning than permitted by the LDC, however, the LDC provides this process to permit the Planning Commission and BCC to consider a lesser setback. A monopole tower "collapses on itself' if damaged, resulting in a "fall zone" of 32 feet, according to the applicant. F. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. At the time of this writing, three objections have been received, including the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples, Inc. Objections are to the visual impact of the tower on their neighborhood. It is up to the CCPC and eventually the BCC, to determine if the visual impact is injurious enough to the neighborhood to warrant denial of this PUDA. G. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. The applicant has chosen to specify a "monopine" tower in order to attempt to blend in with surrounding slash pine trees. The tower will be substantially taller, but the "tree - effect" may soften the visual impact. H. Granting the variance will be consistent with the GMP. This PUD has been deemed consistent with the GMP. The requested amendment is to add a communications tower as a permitted use. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: The CCPC sitting as the EAC is required to hear this petition because of the requested deviation to the preserve setback requirement. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Two NIMs were held for this petition. On May 9, 2013, a meeting was held at the Wilson Professional Center. No members of the public were present. Because of a "hold" status requested by the petitioner, and additional staff review, another NIM was held on January 16, 2015 at the Fleischmann Park Community Center. Three members of the public attended. A NIM summary and sign -in sheet are attached. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was submitted to the County Attorney Office on June 26, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA- PL20120001128 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA- PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -34- Page 12 of 13 PREPARF-,D BY: FREDREISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION I 1 RAYMOI Do V. 13MLLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ' U ZONIN VISION MIKE BOST, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION e--°- -J-A'- MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NICK'CASALAN( GROWTH MANA COUNTY MANAGER DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the September 8, 2015 BCC Meeting Attaclu-nents: Draft Ordinance Correspondence Application & Support Material Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL20120001128 July 16, 2015 CCPC Packet Page -35- "�� 4 4r 7 f 0 - ro M-Ij - ( - t G--- DATE I> 7 /-7 DATE ro M1 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 13 of 13 10/13/2015 9.A. �1 ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92 -23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, TO ADD A 150- FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES, ADD DEVIATIONS RELATING TO PRESERVE SETBACKS, COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, REMOVE WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on April 28, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 92 -23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (the "PUD "); and WHEREAS, the Wilson Professional Center PUD was amended by Ordinance Numbers 94 -24 and 98 -21; and WHEREAS, Lauraiee G. Westin, Esquire representing SSA Towers III, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD to add a 150 -foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communication tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, remove water management and environmental development commitments, and revise the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [12-CPS-01 192/1180563/1 ]Words d kAn_derlined are added; Words su%ok -ttlr are deleted [12- CPS - 01192/1 150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001128 -- 5/18/15 Packet Page -36- The Cover Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Amendment to Section 1, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended Section 1, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: The purpose of this section is to express the intent of Wilson, �vfiller-, BaFten & Peek, ine; 32 ".aples. L, 800 '1 aWjn.Wo( nt� -:1 n-LL1LizboL—F1q[i q�,-L69�3, hereinafter referred to as L - PaU -d- — applicant or sponsor, to develop property located in part of section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson Professional Center. The development of this Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable documents for the following reasons: SECTION THREE: Amendment to Subsection 2.1 of Section 11, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended Subsection 2.1 of Section 11, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: The subject property is currently owned by 'k.4:11 --WF7 BaFten , Peek, Lne; 3200 RoaJ, 's"Idples. Pk)!-kda 71(11" �S( wb I-tut d tion wers Associat' SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document of Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended [ 12- CPS - 0 1 1 92/1 1 80563/1 ]Words double underlined are added, Words s#u6k-4hF9ugh are deleted [l2- CPS - 01192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128 — 5/18/15 Packet Page -37- 10/13/20159.A. �Elll 'It Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STItL."C'11-I'RES 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: Permitted Principal Uses and structuree, s: a) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of 72,000 sq. ft. limited to two buildings, and subject to the following limitations: I. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. 2. Medical office uses are limited to a maximum occupancy of 17,396 sq, ft, 1-L1- {Inctl 1-50* L11 It ic,, ti Tovv r tekti= C41 =M"014— J- kic" 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Maximum Number of Parcels: Two building parcels, 2) Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Structures: a) Internal road easement or front yard - 25 feet. b) Side Yard - 15 feet. c) Rear Yard - 25 feet. d) PUD Property Line - 50 feet in which no parking is permitted. e) Preserve zero feet principal and accassory,.structures. 0 - qe- Allwamilie cop0 I lj�,tlion 1"i and.. Relat(��F cy kQpqycn aW. 1 he pi tie -Q a---lqJ() r 1.< I j� es q,11 k e NN' Mn _alq1140tU -vvyll and j I n — wh L -L OTlpwcr tact. ] qN l oll xhi klon('W e Co — To li;� [12-CPS•01 192/1180563/1 )Words are added; Words svw� are deleted (12- CPS - 01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001 t28 -- 5118/15 /'ZN Packet Page -38- 10/13/2015 9.A. j s (-,e set in uwdl-L7 0 Emil --wk frp jhy-Liw p i ne s, a lb 610'3"• West 42'1'-'. All related facilities, other than the MgnQp:ine Communication Tower shall be set back from the property lines as follm-yK. North 402'9"• South 190'7"; East 570'8"; West 20'l " 14) Deviations for Monopine Communication Tower i ion uiring,a sclbmk �fo*i al �tuctu�Tesand�l 0 feet for accessory structures to allow a zero [cet set -)y i,ngi aland-A= s, Aj,Qn ofIk-1hiz-n jy: -11-11-1 and agolen't-plian....nu m-ej i, t;tkqu vt�at ton-EqWen"ho jm� ,i the time the original IUD was approved which did not require a preserve setback. Deviation #2 seeks relief from the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2,a, which b requires a perv� gqd at the height of 375* setNuI--f(ir-dwJq MiALM -R-- the tower Kin ed by -2,5,Ao-allow a 222!6!L setback from residential property to the South. 4 ((LCj2 MALlims a,.Ty ix p S than gljuffer -n _the N _LLI)L(L ficated oa as t-er-1111,1qu,"'. 4(flacent to the conu Deviation #4 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05 B.2.c., —"General ---------- L . a n. . d s 11 cani - ng Requirements." which requires .sites without native vegetation to have a bL,&[_AN, zcItreo)ca ted feet 3--b-o I __ jai -3 allwx 111C -Q&Mjqr and foljowii land,_ pp , flfe—rxv d L s g , ' I L around the tower compound: 1; (![CL ror Up to of the landscape buffer b) Along the southeast side: a minimum 4 -foot wide —buf�ferfor �ulo 50% of the landscape buffer — C) Along the southwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide for up to 50% of the I.andscape bu&,r- d) Along the northwest side• a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 25N-of the landscape bu er. U {:-(Xlt --e tr!jg JIQAti -X-,jd _J u 100% of the landscape [12- CPS- 0 1192/118056311 ]Words double underlined are added; Words are deleted [12- CPS - 01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128 — 5/18/15 4- Packet Page -39- 10/13/2015 9.A. SECTION FIVE: Amendment to Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.4 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. The PUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorpgrated herein as Exhibit "A" (VAlsen, Miller-, BaAepq Sell & Peek, hie., Dr-awing File NO. M 164A) is an illustrative preliminary development plan. 5.6 WATER MA T AcrsGEMEt c r _ e}l Ile zz.7 —". i-7fTLT:9TC.T'Yt'2':.Li' F•i r 'Pi[2 { 3_'8�i[CTS'Ci1747 :. •a ,. v � Zi8 }� plans. •iii, 4 i. to t° Co Y erz , . L ,..- t t13I if ?f? (iH l T zci# E +v artii� c} t6t�3#�7i i'EI-'l- lii�i —' ' g1=d i47 d' -Ia * Lilllam4 i:`7TfCC7 Y iEiC1C lus iY !r NN"ith Y! L,ni 6IC � - ,vrrrc `^nc- r�c� °r•crrv,'c- cnc`Z;r eL 13PC -�� ' tit aata aN h+t- #�l- I "..1sr�� ttn� ° Pr'iu .. irdie s ocu neeessa-, by the Ge,- r 1 itrah [12 -CPS -0 1192/1180563/1 ]Words double underlined are added; Words stm&- thffRig t are deleted [12 -CPS - 0 1192/1150329/1 ] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001 128 — 5118115 Packet Page -40- . e-. --pr+41pa a! shall d. Pr-oeedaFes fe- A-11 1". Heee)!-daf3ee Willi seelian 22.25 GoijHIN, kand Deve4opffiem C-etk- eT &As portrayed in the revised preliminary site plans dated Ady 7, i007-March 1, 1989, as may kaMf, -ed,-d-Q=ry retention/buffer areas surrounding the parcel will be an average of at least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry retention/buffer areas should incorporate retention of the maximum amount of native vegetation possible, and final designs will be subject to the review and approval of the -Qgunly Project Review Services Environmental staff. concl,Rtion is eorz�e to ,qo-as 1.1es N Awa, on h- P Jj hall a,s if ' 1 n 41 _:wi Q , --L-S - 1.� I- - - - b-.Petitioner should investigate using rock or paver bricks for road-ways and parking lots in lieu of traditional use of asphalt paving, SECTION SIX: Amendment to Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92- 23, as amended, is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by Exhibit "A", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVEN: Addition of Exhibit 'IB," the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended [I 2-CPS-01 192/1180563/ 1 ]Words double un are added; Words &Waek4hFough are deleted [12-CPS-01 1 92/1 1 50329/1) Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128 - 5/18/15 Packet Page -41- 10/13/2015 9.A. Exhibit "B ", the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended. SECTION EIGHT: Effective Bate This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of __, 2015. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK 0 , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: 1, Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Tim Nance, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Cover Page Exhibit B — Exhibit "A" PUD Master Plan Exhibit C -- Exhibit `B" Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit CPA 2 -CPS -011 9213 [12- CPS - 01192/1180553/1 ]words double underlined are added; Words seek thfaugh are deleted [ 12- CPS -01 192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001 128 — 5/18/15 Packet Page -42- 10/13/2015 9.Jl.— WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Q Acres Located |n Section 23' Township 49 South, Range 2SEast, Collier County, Florida REVISED: AMD-LL as, 1992- PREPARED BY: Mattanjah S. Jahn, Esq. 80Q Tarpon Woods Blvd.. Suile E-1 Palm Harbor,--Fl- 34685 Date Reviewed byCCPC__'4�� Date Approved byBCC Ordinance Number Amendments and Repea �� Packet Page -43- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. m EXHIBIT B BAILEY LANE ICS NATURAL URAL VEGrTA TION BUFFER L NATIVE VEGETATION PRFSFRVATION l' - U NATIVE VEGETATION (VARIED WIDTH) (0 17 AC) NLTjv �- lii P* "ERVATION PRE HRvA I 1, 0111) WIDTH) (0 04 AC) U.3E AC. NATIVE VEGETATION SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.13 AC ES U'� PRESERVE REQUIRED (3 4 X 15): C.S2 AC PRESERVE PROVIDED: 1.31 AC NOTE: 1 PRESERVES AREA ARE CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED AND ARE GOVERNED By SECTION 5 6(a) I L Z li PRESERVATION )-'y (VARIED WIDTH) PHONE: (239, '405-9 NAPLES 1st CHURCH i (0.06 AC) 12 NAZARENE IN' Ln ON COLLIER COUNT" SCIF with 5' Natural FAX, (239) 288-21537 WWWJRCVAk�SLfiCt'JrrRING.COM FL COAS 29226 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT A SEC, 3, TOWN, 49S, R. 2SE SCALE: I', = 100' Vegetation Buffer —7 - -------- o BOIL DING PARCEL A ... ...... ... DAVID F Y k vr MARTA '!lws THOMPSON L 10 COLLIER PROPOSED I COLLIER , iUNTY 150"-0" SBA j MONOPINE OR 4759 ` t, 10, 1640 P: 457 UD SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.13 AC ES U'� PRESERVE REQUIRED (3 4 X 15): C.S2 AC PRESERVE PROVIDED: 1.31 AC NOTE: 1 PRESERVES AREA ARE CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED AND ARE GOVERNED By SECTION 5 6(a) I L Z li PROFESSIONAL ROJECT SIONAL A ATE- CENTER FILE C )-'y PHONE: (239, '405-9 DESIGN BY: 3, 5: Ln Extsfing 6' Fence SCIF with 5' Natural FAX, (239) 288-21537 WWWJRCVAk�SLfiCt'JrrRING.COM FL COAS 29226 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT A SEC, 3, TOWN, 49S, R. 2SE SCALE: I', = 100' Vegetation Buffer —7 - -------- o ... ...... ... DAVID F Y k vr MARTA '!lws THOMPSON L 10 COLLIER .!y' c-, I COLLIER , iUNTY ZONING 0 I ZONING:Ml, 10 OR OR 4759 ` t, 10, 1640 P: 457 SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.13 AC ES U'� PRESERVE REQUIRED (3 4 X 15): C.S2 AC PRESERVE PROVIDED: 1.31 AC NOTE: 1 PRESERVES AREA ARE CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED AND ARE GOVERNED By SECTION 5 6(a) I L Z C) 0 O I.R. EVANS ENGINEERING P A 2,3150 FASKON DRIVE, UITE 2,42' )HIDA IS ESTETIO, L( 392B li PROFESSIONAL ROJECT SIONAL A ATE- CENTER FILE C )-'y PHONE: (239, '405-9 DESIGN BY: 3, 5: C) 0 O I.R. EVANS ENGINEERING P A 2,3150 FASKON DRIVE, UITE 2,42' )HIDA IS ESTETIO, L( 392B WILSON PROFESSIONAL ROJECT SIONAL A ATE- CENTER FILE C 13414-1 7/2014 -- PHONE: (239, '405-9 DESIGN BY: 0 SCIF 50' 100, FAX, (239) 288-21537 WWWJRCVAk�SLfiCt'JrrRING.COM FL COAS 29226 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT A SEC, 3, TOWN, 49S, R. 2SE SCALE: I', = 100' SCALE: 1 100' - -------- Packet Page -44- NAPLES 1st CHURCH NAZARENEINC COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING ZONING: PARCEL INSTITUTIONAL-CHURCHES OR 975 FIG 656 PROPOSED 150'-0" SBA MONOPINE 10/13/2015 9.A. - PUD Boundary Deviation 44 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05.6.2.c., "General Landscaping Re quirements," which requires sites without native vegetation to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size trees located 25 feet on center and a 3-foot high hedge planted 3 feet on center, to allow the following landscape buffer widths, graphically depicted hereto on Exhibit %," around the tower base: A. Along the northeast side: a minimum 5-foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. B, Along the southeast side: a minimum 4-foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. PRESERVE C. Along the southwest side: a minimum 0-foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. D. Along the northwest side: a minimum 0-foot wide buffer for up to 25% of the landscape buffer. E. Along the west side: a minimum 10-foot wide buffer for up to 100% of the landscape buffer. M wl I.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. I PROJECT ft: 13414-1, WILSON PROFESSIONALi 23150 FASHION DRIVE, SUITE 242 FILE DATE: 4/2015 ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928 CENTER i- PHONE: (239) 405-9148 DESIGN BY SCF 0 25' 50' FAX: (239) 2E6 -2537 WWW.JREVARSENGINEERING COM EXHIBIT 6 SEC, 23, TOWN, 49S, R.,25E; SCALE: 1 = 50' FL. COA 9 29226 'I SCALE: v = 50, 1 Packet Page -45- 10/13/2015 9.A. Mr. Reischl, The Collier Mosquito Control District (CMCD) identifies the locations of all towers, within Collier County, to prepare for aerial treatment missions. Recently, we learned of a new tower on Bailey Ln. which will be constructed in the near future. CMCD has no safety concerns with the Bailey Ln. tower at this time. Regards, Director of Operations Collier Mosquito Control District 600 North Road Naples, FL 34104 -3464 239- 436 -1000 main # 239- 436 -1005 fax iohn!9,.cmcd.org Board of Commissioners: David Farmer, Chair Jackie D. Fresenius, Secretary Bob D, Geroy, Treasurer John F. Johnson Linda McDaniels Executive Director: Frank Van Essen, Ph.D. Packet Page -46- Spray Schedule: 239 -436 -1010 Immokalee Substation: 195 Airpark Blvd Immokalee, FL 34142 239 -867 -3200 111 ReischlFred srom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Westine, Lauralee, Rlchard Eddy [richardteddy @gmail.coml Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:19 PM lauralee @westinelaw.com ReischlFred Proposed Bailey Lane Tower 10/13/2015 9.A. Thanks for your open and friendly presentation at Fleischmann Community Center on this proposal. Confirming my request, please send me by surface mail, ASAP, the CD (or DVD) of the Environmental Impact study about the existing wild life and flora in the vicinity of this proposed Cellular Tower. You said it was lengthy and would be best sent by mail for me to see on my computer. I use a macbook. As I mentioned I am not convinced this is the best place to put such an obtrusive tower in this neighborhood. As my family has owned this home for 45 years in beautiful Naples, I am sorry to see such a totally unacceptable tower being put in my back yard adjacent to an area where NOTHING would interfere with the environment. At the meeting I asked about how the building of the tower would affect nesting and migration patterns in the area. My home is on the canal directly behind the church's preserve bordering on the tower site (probably less than one city block!). While you discussed various aspects of how long these things take, I do not recall your answering my question. I would hope that the actual building of the tower, if approved, would be sensitive to these natural factors, but I did nor receive any assurances of that being done. Just that there was a 500 -odd page study, that would take several weeks to read. Of course, if and when the Proposed Tower is approved, the actual timing of construction could be done to MINIMIZE any nesting or migration patterns. However, it seemed that the firms wanting to use the tower did not have this on their agenda. How will the builder respect nesting and migration patterns at time of construction? I look forward to hearing more about how this important money- making communications tower can enhance (or at least blend with, and NOT detract from) the natural beauty and wildlife of Naples, Florida where we are so fortunate to live. Richard Eddy 3019 Poinciana Drive Naples, FL 34105 PS I doubt that Mr. Fleischmann Nebo was a strong promoter of Naples (promoting the Zoo, and giving land on which the meeting was held, and selling the neighboring Freedom park area to the community) would have been in agreement with putting such a tower in our midst. Packet Page -47- 10/13/2015 9.A. ReischlFred Fromm: B Sent Tuesday, February 03.2016716AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re PUDA-PL20120001128 Thank you, Fred. You have been very helpful. Please do send the staff report when it is ready. Brad Estes In a message dated 2/2/ZO156:O3:5G P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vvhbsa I will send several emails because the info is very graphics-intensive and 1 think one email may be too large. From: Sent 02 2015 12:09PM To: Refsch|Frad Subject: Re: PU[A-PL2O13ODO11I8 Sure. Please send. Thank you, Brad Estes |no message dated 2/2/2O15(l072GA`yN. Eastern Standard Time, Fred Reisch.12coHieroov.net writes: From: Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:28AM To: Qaisch|Fned Subject: PUDA-PL20120001123 Good morning Fred, I Packet Page -48- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. I am a property owner near the proposed cellular telephone tower in the Wilson Professional Center Planned Development. I would like to see the file for the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Please advise how I can accomplish that. Thank you, Brad Estes Under qcrida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mat to this entity, instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -49- 10/13/2015 9.A. F"'o-inciana, �-ivj-c Associati,on N , Tapless, 3372 Poinciana Street Naples, FL 34105 239 961-8843 April 3, 2015 Chairman Mark Strain Commissioners Planning Commission Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Wilson PrViessional. Center PUDA-FL201200011200 Collier County, Florida /00"111 Dear Chairman Strain and Conwaissioners: The Board of Directors of the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples, Inc. objects to the application by SBA Towers III LLC for a 150-foot communications tower at Wilson Professional Center. The Board voted unanimously to oppose this project at our meeting on March 26, 2015. In addition, the application is inconsistent with the intent of the 1992 planned unit developed (PUD) that the Wilson Professional Center be aesthetically compatible with adjacent properties, including Poinciana Village. Our association worked closely with Collier County to assure compatibility at that time. 10-111 Packet Page -50- 1*0"N. 10/13/2015 9.A. Page Two The intent is evident by the many restrictions the PUD ordinance contains to assure aesthetic compatibility. Those include large setbacks, open space requirements, retention of natural vegetation, a privacy fence between the PUD and our neighborhood, restricted building heights, building design and use requirements, and signage restrictions. The PUD even requires that underground utilities and electrical transformers be located and screened so as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property. In closing, the Wilson center tower would be the third communications tower in less than one half of a mile of Poinciana Village if this application is approved. We understand a tower is approved but not yet erected at Capital Center, Coach douse Lane and Airport Road. Poinciana Elementary School has an existing tower. Thank you for consideration of our viewpoint. Cc: fry Reischl, Senior Planner Packet Page -51- Sincerely, Kathryn M. Sickels President 10/13/2015 9.A. PUDA— PL20120001128 TRANSCRIPT OF NIM HELD ON 1 -16 -15 AT 6:OOPM REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT: LAURALEE G. WESTINE, ESQ. LAND OWNER: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. COUNTY: FRED REISCHL MS. WESTINE INTRODUCED HERSELF, STATED THE PURPOSE WAS FOR THE BAILEY LANE COMMUNICATION TOWER, STATED THE DATE AS FRIDAY JANUARY 16, 2015, TIME AS 6:02, AND THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE APPLICANT, SBA COMMUNICATIONS. SHE DESCRIBED THE TOWER AS A 150' MONOPINE TOWER. SHE HANDED OUT EXAMPLES MONOPINE TOWERS IN HILLSBOROUGH AND PINELLAS COUNTIES ALONG WITH 100,*N PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. SHE EXPLAINED THE BALLOON FLIGHT PROCESS FOR MAKING PHOTOS IMULATIONS. SHE EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION AS AN AMENDEMNT TO THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD. SHE THEN GAVE THE ATTENDEES COPIES OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR THE PUD, THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE PLAN, AND A PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE TOWER. SHE STATED THAT THE ANTENNAS WILL BE HIDDEN BY THE TOWER'S BRANCHES. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 4 SETS OF ANTENNAS. SHE STATED THAT AT &T WILL BE FIRST TENANT AND THAT THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN THE TOWER FROM OTHER CARRIERS. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHO SHE REPRESENTED AND SHE RESTATED THAT SHE REPRESENTS THE APPLICANT, SBA TOWERS. SHE EXPLAINED THE TOWER'S COLLOCATION CAPABILITY AS A `VERTICAL APARTMENT." SHE STATED THAT THE Page 1 of 4 Packet Page -52- 10/13/2015 9.A. TOWER AND ITS BRANCHES WILL MEET THE COUNTY'S WIND SPEED REQUIREMENTS. n SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE PAINTED BROWN AND GREEN BY SBA, THAT SBA WILL MAINETAIN THE TOWER AND LANDSCAPING, AND THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THE TOWER IF IT WERE TO EVER BECOME NON COMPLIANT. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THE PUD IS THE "WILSON CENTER" AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUTH FLORIDA GROWERS ASSOCIATION. SHE THEN DESCRIBED THE USES OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS GENERALLY AND SHOWED THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE'S OFTEN ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT RF EMISSIONS, GUIDED THE ATTENDEES TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND THE FAA's WEBSITE, AND OFFERED TO PRINT THE INFORMATION FOR ATTENDEES WHO COULD NOT ACCESS THE INTERNET. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, CELL TOWERS EMIT ROUGHLY 1 /100TH THE ENERGY ALLOWABLE BY THE FCC. MS. WESTINE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE HOW MUCH OF THE TOWER'S SUPPORT POLE WILL BE COVERED BY BRANCHES. MS WESTINE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE A "MEDIUM DENSITY BRANCH" AND DISCUSSED VARIOUS QUALITIES OF BRANCH DESIGNS GENERALLY. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHY THE TOWER HAD TO BE LOCATED WHERE IT WAS. MS. WESTINE DESCRIBED THE CELLULAR GRID AS A "HONEYCOMB" WHERE THE TOWERS HAVE TO BE LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH TO "TALK" TO EACH OTHER. SHE ALSO STATED THAT AS DATA REQUIREMENTS OF CELLULAR USERS INCREAS, THE COVERAGE AREA OF CELL TOWERS GENERALLY DECREASE. AN ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER WOULD BE LIGHTED AFTER DARK. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAA TO ILLUMINATE THE TOWER AND THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN TO UNLESS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. MR. REISCHL STATED THAT SINCE THE TOWER WAS NOT IN AN APIRPORT ZONE, IT WOULD Page 2 of 4 Packet Page -53- 10/13/2015 9.A. NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED. SHE STATED THAT THE COMPIOUND WILL HAVE SECURITY LIGHTING. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD PROMOTE THE LOCATION OF RED WINGED HAWKS TO THE AREA. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE TOWER WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR A PARTICULAR BIRD IN THE AREA BUT SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL COMPLY WITH THE FCC AND THE FLA. DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TOWER RULES FOR BIRD SAFETY ALONG WITH THEIR PROCEDURES FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER IF BIRDS CHOOSE TO NEST ON THE PROPOSED TOWER. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER'S CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE DURING BIRD MIGRATION SEASON. MS. WESTINE LAID OUT A ROUGH TIMELINE FOR THE PROCESSES THAT FOLLOW THE MEETING AS 4 TO 6 MONTHS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. SHE STATED THAT FULL CONSTRUCTION TAKES 3 MONTHS BUT TOWER ERECTION TAKES 6 WEEKS. SHE GAVE A PROJECTED "ON AIR" DATE AS FIRST QUARTER OF 2016. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT A "NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT" OR "NEPA" ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE AND THAT SHE COULD MAIL A COPY TO HIM IF HE WANTED. THE ATTENDEE REQUESTED A COPY AND MS. WESTINE TOOK DOWN HIS ADDRESS. ANOTHER ATTENDEE STATED THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE DESIGN. SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE REASONS THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DESIGN. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF ANY PART OF THE ANTENNAS WOULD PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE BRANCHES. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT IT WOULDN'T. THE ATTENDEE THEN STATED THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE INDUSTRY AND THAT THE DESIGN WAS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SBA ATTEMPTS TO FIT THE DESIGN TO THE AREA AND Page 3 of 4 Packet Page -54- 10/13/2015 9.A. DESCRIBED THAT THE MONOPINE DESIGN WAS SUPERIOR TO A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE THE FLAG WOULD GIVE THE TOWER A MUCH LARGER PROFILE THAN THE MONOPINE DESIGN. MS. WESTINE THEN OFFERED HER CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE ATTENDEES AGAIN IN CASE THEY HAD ANY FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS AFTER THE MEETING. MS. WESTINE RE- ITERATED THAT SBA WILL BE BOUND TO THE DESIGN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. MS. WESTINE STATED THE TIME AS 6:35 AND ASKED IF SHE COULD CLOSE THE MEETING. HAVING NO OBJECTION, SHE DID SUCH. Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -55- Ec-J 4 C- I Packet Page -56- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. ramolk, 10/13/2015 9.A. jar gA;4 A A VkF"Q; rn - H nilHI-11, MINI 0 R&H H w I' "I "11" !1 Huni j 1 1 HI'l HIM" I OPIUM, —7 OWN 1 E30W- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. WASM 191, sm Packet Page -58- lk �E RIDGE R9- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. WASM 191, sm Packet Page -58- 10/13/2015 9.A. cc LU Co 2 +! d ri N m -Cr Ln lD n W 01 O r, �..� N r•i M �..I CY Ln e-i ua r-I r� ri w r-i m H O N ri N N N M N -t N Ln N �� N N W N M N O M -4 m N M m M z r, 0 F- C I- OW \ a F off 06 U Z a o cc >- Ln z a N Z IL can U w Ln to Q O ° m ~ Ln CL a F- Q w a w ~ J F- ® C„) W Z cW J W a~ U We G en Z -.1 0 w z O w ` z U O oii � m C J N z w O 0 CL Z 0 w O F w w N —Co J o N� z � z 2 Z H Ln CL W w z a O w w O U w a W a Z O N F- X~ N U z a z- F- �� w Ln � �> af W z z> a o o Z o a w o Co w rl F- �. C C N N F" z N U O U `� Zr—) w U U Q; W U W� Ln Q U C a U rr w z z d w 2 CL a w a W Z o. o. Z d n LLJ Z J G. `� z a J oo��F- _ o= 'F- J��F -0E— 0 U��o Co WZ�ozFina,� N C Co F- Z C CO z m z z z N z F- Iv F- O F- F- O O 22 O 06 w O O rr rL rr o2S ,� df � w w 06 0� w a w a w F- a a a a a w o �-- IX z Q a Z Ln a > cn a F- F- a > 2 F- a cn F- Ln F- � cn > cn a a z a > F- cn w � � z z � � > > to an a ' �7 W F- _ O' d tY Q_0 �J z 'a3 '6 m "CS "6 m m C L W o 5 a ro M) ai CC m CO CO cm m .� .m pp > IA N a> a� Q i m ti M 0 m N d N aJ N d N +T+ W 4'' N ? Lm 0) 0) 01 N 01 N N L O O LO W W W 1 O S pp L 7 ._ a .- —- O —' . E O 0 IA 9 O Q S 4- N N C rY rX to 4. Q L O '' S L> d1 zS —° v v c QI L O S— U o O U O U p U U 0 U 0 U E o 0 L to N L +S+ 00 LI) C Cr_ N N Ln M Q <[ a s m m m Co m Co o u vi Ln � o o U U u- ® M .1 r'+ cn Ln ri v Ln m m Ln m Ln r-i Ln Co Co Co Ln Lf1 0 -i Z vi Ln v1 m^ U U { o Ln m o Ln o M N o to o r-I Ln a, N m m z r-i o 0 0 r-I kD o 0 o O m rn M r r"I 0) op o cD C rn O) m t\ O N Lli o0 01 Ln Ln N o0 O N M O N N Ln O O o0 O M O N Ln O rI c-i r-i lD N Ob tT N to d' M e-i �' I� N Ln '-i ri ri Ln N N cD Ln * I-, r` M rl rl r1 Ln Packet Page -59- 10/13/2015 9.A. Ct m Ln m Lo M I� m w m M m O � rl d N v M - It Ln 1.0 -:T 1" v w v M ,-t O Ln " Ln N Ln m Lo ct Ln Ln Ln %0 Ln ti Ln M Ln M Ln O rt to N �o M Lo ¢t tZ Ln co to Zo r- 6 V) V C. f- Z N U Z C- C_ 0 to F- NN R w 5: Q > 0 z Q U tn Q N O a a N d 2 Q O O w J � LO W \ W > O w a O Ln Ln N> X W �j U C. U Z a U a z U w � F- z z z F- F z m ~ a w a R L ¢ Q w p 0 uj w C� w N a 06 Z m Z m W ° j Z O a v F- O � J O Co O w O w }- R �- J a Z w w Z w F- F- Co a w ~ N F- w w z CC F- O F- F- F- j X Ln N w 4 -- Z, z w p — ` a 0 CC w w F- F- w U d > cn U cn U �� > d N V N V Ln a W z ~ X Q ¢ Lam" a a z o a �~ a Z Lu J Lu J -- Z a a z W Q w z I- Co O H O m F- w w W O F- �- O w J z 0 0 0 F- O Z Z Z N O Z F z F- F- N N �0 ~ N z F- F- Z N F- F- w F- w F- h O w w 2 as w CL w w 0� w a a. w w w w F w MM F- 2 2 F- 0 cn > ¢ �- cn Z Ln Z Q > F- F- Z > cn d ¢ cn > ¢ z z z d H z Q o: >> o a d or n U> Q O?? O D O z z 3 m o v m a > c d N 47 N Of Q m > O �-+ N 47 Co N -0 {p f6 fC fO (p OL Co N 41 4J fIJ d fl z L O V O M W Q a 3 V L7 L7 L7 W N L) O O L Ol OJ QJ N (6 N J x N G! p L CD > Z I- C C C != C O s In s VI O s O .s tp x f6 x (6 x c9 x x O x O p O R O to O t O L s (� O d O ''' to v UJ N N 41 O n to O O O O >s L 4+ OD 00 V u L w N N A N -p Cu C i w— i S i N v= +s- = Q +O O O O O O O U C? O O E E c0 [4 O ;' 2 p 4J v ca c s" O L9 Cr! CC) C7 (7 l7 U O C7 (� — — — — O L J J m a) Ln Z a a a 'L a 0 Ln N � N ri Ql O O Ol " O M e-I ri O oo O O GT l0 O N 0 J J O O Ln Cn I, C- (N ITT O" N M 01 d Ln O O d rn t\ O t\ N O O r-I Qt N �D n O O r I N .1 Ln 00 [t O N O t11 O t` N I` Ln rn r-I oo ao O H r-I Ct t` O O O ro 0) m co W O N O w O op �n o) w 0 0 to Ln e-I d' to Ln r-I to Ql rl ri N d' t!1 (, dl r-i r-1 N ci N OQ M Lit N l0 00 m ri M a-I ei Ln Ln c-I Packet Page -60- 10/13/2015 9.A. IWO) � cD 0 n n n n n n n n m n m n o o0 c-t 00 N 00 m 00 d 00 of 00 w 00 n 00 00 00 Cti 00 O rn ri rn N rn m � eY m °' °� n °' U a Z a � U U � z a O O LU F- O m u � a a Z F- 0 o Q a a O N J --j J In J > N W I"" (� z m Co Z a Co LU w d N p 1. o w 0 0 0 0 Z Z Co Z 0 a \ k o Z � o o� m F 06 a o z 2 o N U U Ln LU > LU 2 Ln w w� O Q J LA a� F- a F- w a > z > Q` -� z z in nm m w Z Z > o-6 Z� Z Z w F- -- w 66 F- w w O O I- w F- m> F- a F- a F- Q CO O a J m 06 J m N w w N oc N s O o � 06 a� N �� ao� F- azzw uja�ar�F- w a tnV) w U w v, z m 1no z z a g Z= Z Z a 1 J z¢ `� z z F O O z 0 z 0 z 0 w W<, O w O o w w m O w O o O N O N ~,; Z 0 N 0 N F- F- N CG �- w N N 1V m ,�,, N >> N N r X O= N X W O a aC X cL oiS oZi m df w °tS w w w w w o w O w w u,a w w w a w w w F- F- w F- z w ~ w > w > z z F- > z F- > > v) z > > a a > a a Z > > > z F- > e-i O m m O O LM 0 cc z Z w W W Of U m m L � QS J 1=� `" O y N m m 4, L m Q '3 w w F- ? vi L ~ F- •� F- ,� F- •� C 0 m +� a CO ±-� o QO w o m m 0 N .Q C z Z W J V) a W ri C m cn LO o oc w p m J� D L s a o O U-) Q �_ Ln n O v~i E !L FL N m 1T0 L `L° c�a c�0 > 01 `° 'S � FZ- o p _ Z o ri m O #- F F- F- O ~~ O F- n r0 > > > O f tT (7 O �y O O m Ln w LO Ln n N N O �' O O O O Ln m m N> n O �t m �o r-I O-1 r-1 4m O 00 r-1 �-'� O O u f Ln N 1D O m r•i m Ln Ln N r-I O N m LD M w Ln O 1-4 O O 00 N 00 M 0) M 00 M O O O ri O w m M kD N M e� M M t!1 in M N M ro ri r i N r,41 m r-I r I N eq * M N r-I N r-I r1 r-I 00 Packet Page -61- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. jCSTM Saa re Ire du str Towers and Poles April 9, 2015 Mr. Mauricio Agredo SBA Network Services, Inc. 5900 Broken Sound Parkway Northwest Boca Raton, FL 33487 RE: Proposed 145' Sabre Monopole for Bailey Lane, FL Dear Mr. Agredo, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 126 mph with no ice, Structure Class 11, Exposure Category C and Topographic Category 1 in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA-222-G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas" and an Ultimate Wind Speed of 163 mph (Risk Category 11), in accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code. When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25%. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built-in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles, In the unlikely event of total separation, this would result in the portion above collapsing within a radius of 32 feet. Sincerely, Robert E. Beacom, P.E. Design Engineer 11 Packet Page -62- LexisNexis" T- MOBILE SOUTH, LLC, PETITIONER v. CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA No. 1.3 -975. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 135 S. Ct. 808; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 31; 61 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1336 November 10, 2014, Argued January 14, 2015, Decided NOTICE: This preliminary Lexis version is unedited and sub- ject to revision. PRIOR HISTORY: [ * * *]] ON WRIT OF CER- TIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT T- Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 731 F.3d 1213, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20027 (1 Ith Cir. Ga., 2013) DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded COUNSEL: Jeffrey L. Fisher argued the cause for pe- titioner. Ann O'Connell argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae. Richard A. Carothers argued the cause for respondent JUDGES: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion in which GINSBURG, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part 1. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. OPINION BY: SOTOMAYOR OPINION JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 1 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides, in relevant [ * * *5] part, that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 110 Stat. 151, 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The question presented is whether, and in what form, localities must provide reasons when they deny telecommunication companies' applications to construct cell phone towers. We hold that localities must provide or make available their reasons, but that those reasons need not appear in the written denial letter or notice provided by the locality. Instead, the locality's reasons [ *812] may appear in some other written record so long as the reasons are suf- ficiently clear and are provided or made accessible to the applicant essentially [* *686] contemporaneously with the written denial letter or notice. In February 2010, petitioner T- Mobile South, LLC, applied to build a new, 108- foot -tall cell phone tower on 18 acres of vacant residential property in the city of Roswell, Georgia (City). Roswell's city ordinances re- quire that any cell phone tower proposed for a residential zoning district must take the form of an "alternative tower structure " - -an [ * * *6] artificial tree, clock tower, steeple, or light pole- -that, in the opinion of the city council (City Council or Council), is "compatible with the natural set- ting and surrounding structures" and that effectively camouflages the tower. Code of Ordinances § §21.2.2, 21.15(a); see App. 68, 75. In accordance with these pro- visions, petitioner's application proposed a structure in the shape of an artificial tree or "monopine." Id., at 42. Packet Page -63- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 The City's Planning and Zoning Division reviewed peti- tioner's application, along with a substantial number of letters and petitions opposing it, and ultimately issued a memorandum to the City Council concluding that the application met all of the requirements set out in the City's ordinances. It recommended that the City Council ap- prove the application on three conditions to which peti- tioner was prepared to agree. The City Council then held a 2 -hour -long public hearing on April 12, 2010, to consider petitioner's appli- cation. Petitioner arranged privately to have the hearing transcribed, and, as discussed below, the City subse- quently issued detailed minutes summarizing the pro- ceedings_ At the hearing, after the Planning and Zoning Division presented its recommendation and after peti- tioner's [ * * *7] representatives made a presentation in support of the application, a number of residents raised concerns. Among these were concerns that the tower would lack aesthetic compatibility, that the technology was outdated and unnecessary, and that the tower would be too tall. Petitioner's representatives responded by reit- erating that it had met all of the ordinance's requirements and by providing testimony from a property appraiser that placement of cell phone towers does not reduce property values. Members of the City Council then commented on the application. One member of the six- person Council was recused, see id., at 111 (hearing transcript); id, at 322 (meeting minutes), leaving five voting members. Member Iglebeart said that other carriers had sufficient coverage in the area and that the City did not need to level the playing field for petitioner. Id., at 173 -174 (hearing transcript). He also stated that his "[b]ottom line" was that he did not think it was "appropriate for residentially zoned properties to have the cell towers in their location." Id, at 174 (hearing transcript); id., at 338 (meeting minutes). Mernber Di_ppolito found it difficult to believe that the tower would not negatively impact the area and doubted that it would be compatible [ * * *8] with the natural set- ting. Id., at 175 -176 (hearing transcript); id., at 339 (meeting minutes). Member Wynn expressed concerns about the lack of a backup generator for emergency ser- vices, id., at 172 (hearing transcript), and did not think the tower would be "compatible with this area," id., at 176 (hearing transcript); id., at 339 (meeting minutes). Member Orlans [* *6871 said only that he was im- pressed with the information put together by both sides. Id., at 173 (hearing transcript); id, at 337 (meeting minutes). Finally, Member Price, the liaison to the Plan- ning and Zoning Division, made a motion [ *813] to deny the application. She said that the tower would be aesthetically incompatible with the natural setting, that it would be too tall, and that its proximity to other homes would adversely affect the neighbors and the resale value 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 2 of their properties. Id., at 176 -177 (hearing transcript); id., at 339 -340 (meeting minutes). The motion was seconded, and then passed unanimously. Id., at 177 (hearing tran- script); id, at 340 (meeting minutes). Two days later, on April 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Division sent a letter to petitioner that said in its entirety: "Please be advised the City of Roswell Mayor and City Council denied the request from T- Mobile for a 108' mono -pine al- ternative tower structure during their April 12, [ * * *91 2010 hearing. The minutes from the aforementioned hearing may be obtained from the city clerk. Please contact Sue Creel or Betsy Branch at [phone number]. "if you have any additional questions, please contact me at [phone number]." Id., at 278. The detailed written minutes of the hearing, however, were not approved and published by the City until 26 days later, on May 10, 2010. See id., at 321 -341 (meeting minutes). I Brief minutes had been adopted on April 19, but these only noted that the motion . to deny the application had passed with five members in favor and one member recused. See Council Brief 041210, online at http: // roswell. legistar.com /LegislationDetaii. aspx ?ID= 657578 &GU1D= 08D5297C -0271 -41 F9 -9D AA- E8E3DD6314BDD6341 BD &Options= &Sear ch= (all Internet Materials as visited 'January 12, 2015, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). According to the meeting calendar for the City Council's May 10, 2010, meeting, it was on that day that the City Council approved detailed minutes of the April 12 meeting that included a recitation of each member's statements during the hearing. See http://roswell.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?l D= 101786 &GU]D =63 8281321 -EB 83- 4485- B4EA- 10EE65CF48CD &O ptions==infoj &Search =. On May 13, 2010, 3 days after the detailed minutes were published- -and now 29 days after the City denied petitioner's application -- petitioner filed suit in Federal District Court It alleged that the denial [ * * *10] of the application was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and would effectively prohibit the provision of Packet Page -64- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 wireless service in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). The parties filed cross - motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had violated the Act when it failed to issue a written decision that stated the reasons for denying petitioner's application. The District Court interpreted the Act to require that a written denial letter or notice describe the reasons for the denial and that those reasons be sufficiently explained to allow a reviewing court to evaluate them against the written rec- ord. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. 731 F. 3d 1213 (2023). It explained that, in T- Mobile South, LLC v. Mil- ton, 728 F. 3d 1274 (2013), which was decided after the District Court's decision in this case, it had held that "to the extent that the decision must contain grounds or rea- sons or explanations, it is sufficient if those are contained in a [* *688] different written document or documents that the applicant is given or has access to." Id, at 1285. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Courts of Appeals had split on that question, and that it had departed from the [***III majority rule. Compare Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc, v. Todd, 244 F. 3d 51, 60 (CAI 200 1) (requiring that a locality issue a written denial that itself contains a "sufficient explanation of the reasons for the [ *814] permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those rea- sons"); New Par v. Saginaw, 301 F. 3d 390, 395 -396 (CA6 2002); MetroPCS, Inc_ v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F. 3d 715, 723 (CA9 2005), with AT &T A%ireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F. 3 d 423, 429 (CA4 1998) (holding that written minutes of a meeting and the word "denied" stamped on a letter describing the application were sufficient). Applying its rule to this case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the re- quirements of 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii) were satisfied because petitioner had its own transcript as well as a written letter stating that the application had been denied and informing petitioner that it could obtain access to the minutes of the hearing. 731 F. 3d, at 1221. It did not consider when the City provided its written reasons to petitioner. We granted certiorari, 572 U. S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2136, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1123 (2014), and now reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. 11 A The first question we answer is whether the statute requires localities to provide reasons when they deny 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 3 applications to build cell phone towers. We answer that question in the affirmative. Our conclusion follows from the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. The Act generally preserves "the traditional authority of state and local governments [ * * *12] to regulate the location, construction, and modification" of wireless communications facilities like cell phone towers, but imposes "specific limitations" on that authority. Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U. S. 113, 115, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2005); see §332(c)(7)(B). One of those limitations is that any deci- sion to deny a request to build a tower "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Another is that parties adversely affected by a locality's decision may seek judi- cial review. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). In order to determine whether a locality's denial was supported by substantial evidence, as Congress directed, courts must be able to identify the reason or reasons why the locality denied the application. See Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 128, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (BREYER, J., joined by O'Connor, Souter, and GTNSBURG, JJ., concurring) (observing that the Act "requires local zoning, boards ... [to] give reasons for [their] denials 'in writing "'). The requirement that localities must provide reasons when they deny applications is further underscored by two of the other limitations on local authority set out in the Act. The Act provides that localities "shall not unrea- sonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services," and may not regulate the construc- tion of personal wireless [ * * *13] service facilities "on the basis of the [* *689] environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications Commis- sion's] regulations concerning such emissions." § §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(J), (iv). 2 Again, it would be consider- ably more difficult for a reviewing court to determine whether a locality had violated these substantive provi- sions if the locality were not obligated to state its reasons. 2 The last "limitation." listed in the Act provides that localities shall act on applications to construct personal wireless service facilities "within a rea- sonable period of time after the request is duly filed ... taking into account the nature and scope of such request" §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). [ *815] This conclusion is not just commonsensi- cal, but flows directly from Congress' use of the term "substantial evidence." The statutory phrase "substantial evidence" is a "term of art" in administrative law that describes how "an administrative record is to be judged by a reviewing court." United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709, 715, 83 S. Ct. 1409, 10 L. Ed.. 2d 652 (1963). There is no reason discernible from the text of the Packet Page -65- 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 4 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 Act to think that Congress meant to use the phrase in a different way. See FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. _ _, 132 S. Ct. 1441, 1449, 182 L. Ed. 2d 497, 509 (2012) ( "[W]ben Congress employs a term of art, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas [***141 that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, for those who consider legislative his- tory relevant, the Conference Report accompanying the Act confirmed as much when it noted that "[tlhe phrase 'substantial evidence contained in a written record' is the traditional standard used for review of agency actions." H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104 -458, p. 208 (1996). By employing the term "substantial evidence," Con- gress thus invoked, among other things, our recognition that "the orderly functioning of the process of [substan- tial- evidence] review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly dis- closed," and that "courts cannot exercise their duty of [substantial - evidence] review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review." SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 94, 63 S. Ct. 454, 87 L. Ed. 626 (1943); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1983) (explaining that an agency must "articulate a sat- isfactory explanation for its action" to enable substan- tial- evidence review); Beaumont, S. L. ce W. R. Co.. v. United States, 282 U. S. 74, 86, 51 S. Ct. 1, 75 L. Ed. 221 (1.930) ( "Complete statements by the [agency] showing the grounds upon which its determinations rest are quite as necessary as are opinions of lower courts setting forth the reasons on which they [ * * *15] base their decisions . . . "). In response, the City primarily argues that a rea- son- giving obligation would deprive it of local zoning authority. But Congress intended to place "specific limi- tations on the traditional authority of state and local gov- ernments" regarding cell phone tower siting applications. Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 115, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 1.61 L. Ed. 2d 316. One of those "limitations," §332(c)(7)(B), necessarily implied by the Act's "substan- tial evidence" requirement, is that local [* *690] zoning authorities state their reasons when they deny applica- tIons. In short, the statutory text and structure, and the concepts that Congress imported into the statutory framework, all point clearly toward the conclusion that localities must provide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting applications. We stress, however, that these reasons need not be elaborate or even sophisticated, but rather, as discussed below, simply clear enough to enable judicial review. II The second question we answer is whether these reasons must appear in the same writing that conveys the locality's denial of an application. We answer that ques- tion in the negative. Like our conclusion that localities must provide reasons, our conclusion that the reasons need not appear in a denial letter [***16] follows from the statutory text. Other than providing that a locality's reasons must be given in writing, nothing in that [ *816] text imposes any requirement that the reasons be given in any particular form. The Act's saving clause makes clear that, other than the enumerated limitations imposed on local governments by the statute itself, "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities." §332(c)(7)(A). Given this language, and the system of "cooperative federalism" on which the Act is premised, Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 128, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed_ 2d 316 (BREYER, .I., concurring), we understand the enumerated limitations to set out an exclusive list. So while the text and structure of the Act render it inescapable that localities must pro- vide reasons in writing when they deny applications, we can locate in the Act no command -- either explicit or im- plicit —that localities must provide those reasons in a spe- cific document. We therefore conclude that Congress imposed no specific requirement on that front, but instead permitted localities to comply with their obligation to give written reasons [ * * *17] so long as the Iocality's reasons are stated clearly enough to enable judicial review. Although the statute does not require a locality to provide its written reasons in any particular format, and although a locality may rely on detailed meeting minutes as it did here, we agree with the Solicitor General that "the local govern- ment may be better served by including a separate state- ment containing its reasons." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26; see also id, at 34. If the locality writes a short statement providing its reasons, the locality can likely avoid prolonging the litigation - -and adding expense to the taxpayers, the companies, and the legal sys- tem —while the parties argue about exactly what the sometimes voluminous record means. Moreover, in that circumstance, the locality need not worry that, upon re- view of the record, a court will either find that it could not ascertain the locality's reasons or mistakenly ascribe to the locality a rationale that was not in fact the reason for the locality's denial. We hasten to add that a locality cannot stymie or burden the judicial review contemplated by the statute by Packet Page -66- r\ 10-1 /0—\ 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 delaQying the release of its reasons for a substantial time after it [ * * *18] conveys its [* *691] written denial. The statute provides that an entity adversely affected by a locazlity's decision may seek judicial review within 30 days of the decision. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). Because an entity may not be able to make a considered decision whether to seele judicial review without knowing the reasons for the denial of its application, and because a court cannot re- view the denial without knowing the locality's reasons, the locality must provide or make available its written reasons at essentially the same time as it communicates its denial. 3 THE CHIEF IUSTICE's dissent rejects this particular requirement, and instead invents a pro- cess that turns judicial review on its head. Rather than give effect to a process that would permit an entity seeking to challenge a locality s decision to see the locality's written reasons before it files its suit - -and the dissent agrees that the statute re- quires that a locality convey its reasons in writing, see post, at 5 —the dissent would fashion a world in which a locality can wait until a lawsuit is com- menced and a court orders it to state its reasons. The entity would thus be left to guess at what the locality's written reasons will be, write a com- plaint that contains [ * * *19] those hypotheses, and risk being sandbagged by the written reasons that the locality subsequently provides in litigation after the challenging entity has shown its cards. The reviewing court would then need to ensure that those reasons are not post hoc rationalizations, see Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168, 83 S. Ct. 239, 9 L. Ed- 2d 207 (1962), but the dissent offers no guidance as to how are viewing court that has never seen near- contemporaneous reasons would conduct that inquiry. [ *817] This rule ought not to unduly burden local- ities given the range of ways in which Iocalities can pro- vide their reasons. Moreover, the denial itself needs only to be issued (or the application otherwise acted upon) "within a reasonable period of time." §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). In an interpretation we have recently upheld, see Arlington v. FCC, 569 U. S. _ , 133 S. Ct. 1863, 185 L. Ed. 2d 941(2013), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has generally interpreted this provision to allow localities 90 days to act on applications to place new antennas on existing towers and 1.50 days to act on other siting applications. In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, 13995, T;4 (2009). If a locality is not in a position to provide its reasons promptly, the locality can delay the issuance of its denial within this 90- or 150 -day window, and instead release it [ * * *20] along with its 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 5 reasons once those reasons are ready to be provided. Only once the denial is issued would the 30 -day commence- ment -of -suit clock begin.' 4 The City urges us to hold that the clock does not begin to run until after the reasons are given. We cannot so hold, however, without rewriting the statutory text- The Act provides that a lawsuit may be filed by "[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action. or failure to act ... within 30 days after such action or failure to act." 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). The relevant "final action" is the issuance of the written notice of denial, not the subsequent issuance of reasons explaining the denial. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 177 -178, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997) (agency action is "final" if it "mark[s] the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process" and determines "rights or obligations" or triggers "legal consequences" (internal quotation marks omitted)). III Petitioner offers four reasons why, in its view, our analysis in Part II -B is incorrect. Petitioner argues that the statute requires that a locality's reasons appear in the writing conveying the denial itself, but none of petitioner's reasons are persuasive. First, petitioner argues that the word "decision" in the statute - -the thing that must be "in writing " -- connotes [ * * *21] a written document that itself [* *692] pro- vides all the reasons for a given judgment. See Brief for Petitioner 24 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 407 (6th ed. 1990) (a "decision" is a written document providing "'the reasons given for [a] judgment "')). But even peti- tioner concedes, with its preferred dictionary in hand, that the word "decision" can also mean "something short of a statement of reasons explaining a determination." Brief for Petitioner 24 (citing Black's Law Dictionary, at 407). 5 5 One of petitioner's amici argues that Congress has used the word "decision" in the context of other communications laws to mean something more than a judgment or verdict. See Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Chamber) et al. 9 -13. But while it is true that a word used across "the same act" should be given the same meaning, see Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd, 566 U. S. _, , 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2005, 182 L. Ed. 2d 903, 914 (2012), the Chamber's evidence is less persuasive because it arises out of entirely different "acts" and does not involve any term of art. By relying on other parts of Title 47 of the U. S. Code- -some enacted in the Packet Page -67- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 Communications Act of 1934 decades before the enactment ofthe Telecommunications Act of 1996 at issue here - -the Chamber stretches to invoke this [ * * *22] canon of construction beyond its most forceful application. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 172 -173 (2012). Second, petitioner claims that other provisions in the Act use the word "notify" when the Act means to impose only a requirement that a judgment be communicated. ' [ *818] Because the provision at issue here does not use the word "notify," petitioner argues, it must contemplate something more than a judgment. This does not logically follow. For one thing, the statute at issue here does not use any verb at all to describe the conveying of information from a locality to an applicant; it just says that a denial "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." §332(cx7XB)(iii). But more to the point, "notify" is a verb the use - -or nonuse - -of which does not reveal what the thing to be notified of or about is. 6 For example, petitioner cites § I 1 (FCC must "notify the parties concerned" when it makes a "determination and order" regarding a railroad or telegraph company's failure to maintain and op- erate a telegraph line for public use) and §398(b)(5) ( "Whenever the Secretary [of Com- merce] makes a final determination ... that a re- cipient" of federal [ * * *23] funds has engaged in impermissible discrimination, the Secretary shall "notify the recipient in writing of such determina- tion .. , "). Brief for Petitioner 24 -25. Third, petitioner contends that the "substantial evi- dence" requirement itself demands that localities identify their reasons in their written denials. See Brief for Peti- tioner 23. Certainly, as discussed above, the phrase "sub- stantial evidence" requires localities to give reasons, but it says nothing on its own about the document in which those reasons must be stated or presented to a reviewing court. Finally, petitioner invokes the statutory requirement that any adversely affected person shall have their chal- lenge heard by a court "on an expedited basis." §332(c)(7)(B)(v). See Brief for Petitioner 14 -15, 28. As long as the reasons are provided in a written record, however, and as long as they are provided in such a manner that is clear enough and prompt enough to enable judicial review, there is no reason to require that those reasons be provided in the written denial itself. We acknowledge that petitioner, along with those Courts of Appeals [* *693] that have required a local- ity's reasons to appear in its written denial itself, have 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 6 offered plausible [ * * *24] bases for a rule that would require as much. See, e.g., Todd, 244 F. 3d, at 60 ( "A written record can create difficulties in determining the rationale behind a board's decision ... "). Congress could adopt such a rule if it were so inclined, but it did not do so in this statute. It is not our place to legislate another ap- proach. IV Thus, we bold that the Act requires localities to pro- vide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting ap- plications, but that the Act does not require localities to provide those reasons in written denial letters or notices themselves. A locality may satisfy its statutory obligations if it states its reasons with sufficient clarity in some other written record issued essentially contemporaneously with the denial. In this case, the City provided its reasons in writing and did so in the acceptable form of detailed minutes of the City Council meeting. The City, however, did not provide its written reasons essentially contempo- raneously with its written denial. Instead, the City issued those detailed minutes 26 days after the date of the written denial and just 4 days before petitioner's time to seek judicial review would have expired. ' The City therefore did not [ *819] comply with its [ * * *25] statutory obligations. We do not consider questions regarding the applicability of principles of harmless error or questions of remedy, and leave those for the Eleventh Circuit to address on remand. 7 Though petitioner arranged for a transcript of the meeting to be recorded on its own initiative and at its own expense, see App. 109 -275, the fact that petitioner took steps to reduce oral statements made at the City Council meeting to writing can- not be said to satisfy the obligation that Congress placed on the City to state clearly its reasons, and to do so in a writing itprovides or makes available. * ** For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings con- sistent with this opinion_ It is so ordered. CONCUR BY: ALITO CONCUR JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I concur in the Court's opinion because I agree that Congress, by using the term "substantial evidence," in- tended to invoke administrative law principles. One such principle, as the Court explains, is the requirement that Packet Page -68- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 agencies give reasons. I write separately, however, be- cause three other traditional administrative law principles may also apply. First, a court must "uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity [***26] if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned." Bowman TMnsp., Inc. v. Arkansas -Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286, 95 S. Ct. 438,42 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1974). In the context of 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7), which leaves in place almost the entirety of a local government's authority, a succinct statement that a permit has been denied because the tower would be es- thetically incompatible with the surrounding area should suffice. Nothing in this statute imposes an opinion - writing requirement. [* *694] Second, even if a locality has erred, a court must not invalidate the locality's decision if the error was harmless. "In administrative law, as in federal civil and criminal litigation, there is a harmless error rule." National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 659 -660, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 168 L. Ed. 2d 467 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, for instance, I have trouble believing that T- Mobile South, LLC- -which actively participated in the decisionmaking process, including going so far as to transcribe the public hearing —was prejudiced by the city of Roswell's delay in providing a copy of the minutes. Third, the ordinary rule in administrative law is that a court must remand errors to the agency "except in rare cireurnstances_" Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744, 1.05 S. Ct. 1598, 84 L. Ed. 2d 643 (1985). Nothing we say today should be read to suggest that when a locality has erred, the inevitable remedy is that a tower must be built. The Court has not passed on what remedial powers a "court [ * * *27] of competent jurisdiction" may exercise. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). This un- answered question is important given the federalism im- plications of this statute. I do not understand the Court's opinion to disagree with this analysis. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion. DISSENT BY: ROBERTS; THOMAS DISSENT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins as to Part 1, dissenting. The statute at issue in this case provides that "[a]ny decision ... to deny a request ... shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The Court con- cludes that the City loses this case not because it failed to 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 7 provide its denial in writing. It did provide its denial in writing. Nor does the City lose because the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in a written record - The City compiled a written record; whether that record con- tained substantial evidence supporting the denial is not at issue here and has not been decided. Nor does the City lose because its denial was not accompanied [ *820] by a statement of reasons apart from the written record. A sharp conflict had developed in the lower courts over the necessity of such a separate statement, and the Court [ * * *28] today squarely holds that one is not required. Ante, at 5, 8 -11. No, the City instead loses because of a question of timing: The written record was not made available roughly the same day as the denial - -a require- ment found nowhere in the text of the statute. The Court says this timing requirement is necessary for judicial review of whether the denial is supported by substantial evidence. A reviewing court, however, can carry out its function just as easily whether the record is submitted four weeks or four days before the lawsuit is filed - -or four days after, for that matter. The Court also supports its timing rule by saying that the company whose application is denied needs the time to carefully consider whether to seek review. But cell service providers are not Morn and Pop operations. As this case illustrates, they participate extensively in the local government proceed- ings, and do not have to make last- second, uninformed decisions on whether to seek review. [* *695] The City here fully complied with its ob- ligations under the statute: It issued its decision in writing, and it submitted a written record containing -so far as we know -- substantial evidence supporting that decision. I respectfully [ * * *29] dissent from the Court's contrary conclusion. Section 332(c)(7), enacted as part of the Telecom- munications Act of 1996, places several limits on local L.0 authority to regulate the siting of cell towers and other telecommunications facilities. A locality's reg- ulations must not unreasonably discriminate among ser- vice providers, effectively prohibit the provision of ser- vice, or rest on concerns about the environmental effects of radio emissions. See § §332(c)(7)(B)(i), (iv). In addi- tion, the provision central to this case specifies that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government ... to deny a request to place, construct, or modify" a cell tower "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence con- tained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). And an- other provision authorizes expedited judicial review of a locality's alleged failure to comply with these rules. See §332(c)(7)(B)(v)• Packet Page -69- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 After the city council of Roswell voted to deny T- Mobile's application to build a cell tower, the City sent T- Mobile a short letter that announced the denial but provided no further explanation. The question T- Mobile has presented to this Court is whether such a letter satis- fies the "decision ... in writing" requirement of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). See Pet. for Cert. i. I would bold [ * * *30] it does. The City's letter was certainly in writing. And it certainly memorialized the denial of T- Mobile's application. So T- Mobile's only hope is that the lack of explanation for the denial means the letter is not truly a "decision." But like the majority, I reject T- Mobile's contention that the term "decision" inherently demands a statement of reasons. Dictionary definitions support that conclusion. See ante, at 12 (citing Black's Law Dictionary); see also B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 251 (2d ed. 1995) (grouping "decision" with "judgment," as distinct from "opinion "). A comparison between Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and other statutory provisions that were on the books in 1996 also suggests that when Congress wants decisionmakers to supply explanations, it says so. Consider first the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act. In the context of formal ad- judication and rulemaking, it demands that "decisions ... include a statement of ... [ *821] findings and conclu- sions, and the reasons or basis therefor; on all the mate- rial issues." 5 U. S. C. §557(c)(A) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). Even in informal proceedings, an agency must give prompt notice of the denial of a written application, and, "[e]xcept in affirming a prior denial or when the [ * * *31] denial is self - explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for de- nial_" §555(e) (emphasis added). The Communications Act of 1934, which the Tele- communications Act overhauled, itself contains a similar express requirement. Section 309 allows an interested party to petition the Federal Communications Conunis- sion to deny a license application. 47 U. S. C. §309(d)(1) (1994 ed.). If the FCC decides to grant an application despite such a petition, it must "issue [* *696] a concise statement of the reasons for denying the petition." §309(d)(2). And a provision added along with Section 332(c)(7) in the Telecommunications Act provides that when the FCC grants or denies a petition for regulatory forbearance, it "shall explain its decision in writing." §160(c) (2000 ed.) (emphasis added). Many other statutes in effect in 1996 could be added to the list. See, e.g., 19 U. S. C. §1515(a) (1994 ed.) (notice of customs protest de- nial "shall include a statement of the reasons for the de- nial"); 30 U. S. C. §944 (1994 ed.) (individual whose claim for black lung benefits "is denied shall receive ... a written statement of the reasons for denial "); 38 U. S. C. §5104(b) (1994 ed.) (notice of denial of veterans benefits 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 8 must include "a statement of the reasons for the deci- sion"). Given the commonplace nature [ * * *32] of express requirements that reasons be given- -and the inclusion of such provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act, the original Communications Act, and another provision of the Telecommunications Act - -the absence of one in Sec- tion 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) is telling, and supports reading "decision ... in writing" to demand nothing more than what it says: a written document that communicates the town's denial. In my view, resolving that interpretive question in the City's favor also resolves the case as it stands in this Court. Although Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) goes on to require that a denial be "supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record," the adequacy of the City's written record is not properly before us. As the EIeventh Circuit noted in its opinion below, the "sole issue" before it was the "in writing" requirement; it did not examine whether the City's denial was supported by substantial evidence. 731 F. 3d 1213, 1221, n. 7 (2013). The Court today also — correctly - -does not decide whether substantial evidence supported the City's denial. The Eleventh Cir- cuit's judgment therefore ought to be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceed- ings on T- Mobile's remaining challenges. 11 The Court agrees that the City was not required [ * * *33] to explain its reasoning in its denial letter, but it nonetheless rules for T- Mobile. The improbable linchpin of this outcome is the City's failure to finalize the minutes of the April 12 city council meeting until May 10. Im- probable because, so far as I can tell, T- Mobile never even mentioned this timeline, let alone based an argument on it, in its filings in the lower courts or its petition for certio- rari. Nor did the Eleventh Circuit address this timing question in any way. Cf. Zivotofsly v. Clinton, 566 U. S. —, -__-_, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1430, 182 L. Ed. 2d 423, 433 (2012) ( "Ordinarily, we do not decide in the first instance issues not decided below." (internal quotation marks omitted)). [ *822] The Court nonetheless rules against Ro- swell on this ground, proceeding in two steps: First it concludes that a town must provide written reasons in some form (the minutes being the only candidate here); then it decides a town must make those reasons available "essentially contemporaneously" with its decision (the final minutes were not). Ante, at 14. In my view, the first step is justified by the statutory text, but the second is not. The need to provide reasons in some form follows from the portion of [* *697] Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) requiring that denials be "supported by substantial evi- Packet Page -70- /—%, 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 dence contained in a written record." [ * * *34] Like the majority, I read this phrase as specifying a familiar standard of review to be used if a denial is challenged in court. And like the majority, I agree that substantial evi- dence review requires that a decisionmaker's reasons be identifiable in the written record. If a reviewing court cannot identify any of a town's reasons for denying an application, it cannot determine whether substantial evi- dence supports those reasons, and the town loses. But then the Court goes a step further and creates a timing rule: A town must provide "its written reasons at essentially the same time as it communicates its denial." Ante, at 10. This riming rule is nowhere to be found in the text of Section 332(c)(7)(B) - -text that expressly estab- lishes other time limits, both general and specific. See §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) (requiring localities to act on siting requests "within a reasonable period of time "); §332(c)(7)(B)(v) (giving injured parties 30 days to seek judicial review). Despite its assertion that the statute's "enumerated limitations" constitute "an exclusive list," ante, at 9, the Court offers two justifications for its in- ference of this additional, unenumerated limitation. The first is that "a court cannot review the denial . without knowing the locality's [ * * *35] reasons," so it would "stymie" judicial review to allow delay between the issuance of the decision and the statement of reasons. Ante, at 10. This makes little sense. The Court's "essen- tially contemporaneous" requirement presumably means the town must produce its reasons within a matter of days (though the majority never says how many). But a re- viewing court does not need to be able to discern the town's reasons within mere days of the decision_ At that point no one has even asked. the court to review the denial. The fact that a court cannot conduct review without knowing the reasons simply means that if the town has not already made the record available, it must do so by whatever deadline the court sets. The court should pro- ceed "on an expedited basis," §332(c)(7)(B)(v), but that hardly means it will need the record within days of the town's decision. And in this case there is no indication that the City's submission of the written record was untimely or delayed the District Court's review. The Court's second justification focuses on the de- nied applicant, which must choose within 30 days from the denial whether to take the town to court. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). "[W]ithout knowing the locality's rea- sons," the majority says, the applicant [ * * *36] "may not be able to make a considered decision whether to seek judicial review." Ante, at 10. This concern might have force if towns routinely made these decisions in secret, closed -door proceedings, or if applicants were unsophis- ticated actors. But the local zoning board or town council is not the Star Chamber, and a telecommunications company is no babe in the legal woods. Almost invariably 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 9 in cases addressing Section 332(c)(7), the relevant local authority has held an open meeting at which the applicant was present and the issues publicly aired. In this case and [ *823] others, T- Mobile has brought its own court re- porter, ensuring that it has a verbatim transcript of the meeting well before the town is likely to finalize [* *698] its minutes. See Brief for Petitioner 12, n. 2; T- Mobile South, LLC v. City of Milton, Georgia, 728 F. 3d 1274, 1277 (CAI 12013). 1 strongly doubt that a sophisticated, well- lawyered company like T- Mobile- -with extensive experience with these particular types of proceed- ings —would have any trouble consulting its interests and deciding whether to seek review before it had received a written explanation from the town. The Court worries about towns "sandbagg[ing]" companies with unexpected reasons, ante, at 10, n. 3, but if those reasons in fact come out of nowhere, they will not be [ * * *37] supported by substantial evidence in the record. And if the company's initial complaint mistakes the town's reasoning, the company will have no difficulty amending its allegations. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). In sum, there is nothing impractical about reading the statutory text to require only that the reasons implied by the term "substantial evidence" be discernible to the court when it conducts substantial evidence review. Demanding "essentially contemporaneous" written reasons adds a requirement that Congress has included expressly in many other statutes, but not in this one. See supra, at 3-4. * ** For the foregoing reasons, the Court's opinion and judgment are wrong. But this is not a "the sky is falling" dissent. At the end of the day, the impact on cities and towns across the Nation should be small, although the new unwritten requirement could be a trap for the unwary hamlet or two. All a local government need do is withhold its final decision until the minutes are typed up, and make the final decision and the record of proceedings (with discernible reasons) available together. Today's decision is nonetheless a bad break for Ro- swell. Or maybe not. The Court leaves open the question of remedy, ante, at 14, and it may [ * * *38] be that failure to comply with the "in writing" requirement as construed by the Court can be excused as harmless error in appro- priate cases. It is hard to see where the harm is here. T- Mobile somehow managed to make the tough call to seek review of the denial of an application it had spent months and many thousands of dollars to obtain, based on a hearing it had attended. And nothing about Roswell's failure to meet the "contemporaneously" requirement delayed, much less "stymied," judicial review. The Court today resolves the conflict over whether a town must provide a statement of reasons with its final Packet Page -71- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 decision, apart from the written record. We now know it need not. As the Court explains, "nothing in [the] text [of the Act] imposes any requirement that the reasons be given in any particular form," and there is "in the Act no conunand -- either explicit or implicit —that localities must provide those reasons in a specific document." Ante, at 9. Good analysis- -which also should have been followed to reject the timing requirement the Court creates today. I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I join Part I of THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent, which says all the Court needed to say to [ * * *39] resolve this case. 1 [* *699] write separately to express my concern about the Court's eagerness to reach beyond the bounds of the present dispute to create a timing requirement that 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 10 finds no support in the text or structure of the statute. We have been unwilling to impose procedural requirements on federal agencies in the absence of statutory command, even while [ *824] recognizing that an agency's failure to make its decisions known at the time it acts may burden regulated parties. See, e.g., Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 653 -655, 110 S. Ct. 2668, 110 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1990). When a State vests its municipalities with authority to exercise a core state power, those municipalities deserve at least as much re- spect as a federal agency. But today, the majority treats them as less than conscripts in "the national bureaucratic army," FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 775, 102 S. Ct_ 2126, 72 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1982) (O'Connor, 7., concur- ring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent. Packet Page -72- 10/13/2015 9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92 -23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, TO ADD A 120 -FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES, ADD DEVIATIONS RELATING TO PRESERVE SETBACKS, COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, AMEND ONE ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on April 28, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 92 -23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (the "PUD "); and WHEREAS, the Wilson Professional Center PUD was amended by Ordinance Numbers 94 -24 and 98 -21; and WHEREAS, Lauralee G. Westine, Esquire representing SBA Towers III, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD to add a 120 -foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communication tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, amend one environmental development commitment, and revise the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [ 12- CPS - 01192/ 1209582/ 1 ] Words double are added; Words str-ueli thfoug h are deleted [12- CPS - 01192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001 128 — 9125/15 t Packet Page -73- 10/13/2015 9.A. SEC'11710N ONE: Amendment to the Cover Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended n The Cover Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Amendment to Section I, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended Section I, Statement of Compliance, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: The purpose of this section is to express the intent of Wilson, Miller, Bai4en -&Pz x-00 y-Lane -a- of Read, Naples, Fier-ida 33942 South Florida Growers Association Inc.• 800 Tarpon Woods Blvd Suite E -1, Palm Harbor Florida 34685, hereinafter referred to as applicant or sponsor, to develop property located in part of section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson Professional Center. The development of this Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land n development regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable documents for the following reasons: SECTION 'THREE: Amendment to Subsection 2.1 of Section II, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended Subsection 2.1 of Section II, Property Ownership and Legal Description, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by �XilsenMillef,Barten,& I'ekIn:a 3--� Bailey Lane a4 Airpeft Read, Naples, Flerida3942 -South Florida rowers Association_ IIlc. SECTION FOUR: Amendment to Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document of Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended [ 12- CPS - 0 1192/1209582/1 ]Words double underlined are added; Words 4vde4i44rough are deleted [ 12- CPS -0 1192/1150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001 128 — 9i 25115 e w.. Packet Page -74- 10/13/2015 9.A. Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES 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: I ) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of 72,000 sq. ft. limited to two buildings, and subject to the following limitations: 1. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. 2. Medical office uses are limited to a maximum occupancy of 17,39E 96 sq. ft. bye (11 120' MonQpine Communication Tower and Related Facilities 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I ) Maximum Number of Parcels: Two building parcels. 21 Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Structures: a) Internal road casement or front yard - 25 feet. b) Side Yard - 15 feet. c) Rear Yard - 25 feet. d) PUD Property Line - 50 feet in which no parking is permitted. e) Preser��e - zero feet princtpal and accessory structures,_ The -Mon.op _Tower and all related facilities. shall Lne Cornnowuniqajkon -enclosed by an 8' tall, opaque architecturally finished wall and located, an the-P-roposed tower tract, shown on Exhibit "A". The Monopine- Communication Tower --shall [12 -CPS -01 192/12095 82/1 ]Words &o= are added; Words stfeek dwet',4, are deleted [12- CPS - 01192/1150329/1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20120001128 - 9/25115 Packet Page -75- 10/13/2015 9.A. be set back from the property lines as follows: North 442'2''• South 229'6'j� East 610'3 "; West 42' 1 ". All related facilities. other than the Monopine n Communication Tower, shall be set back from the property lines a5 follows North 402'9'': South 1907: East 570'8"; West 20'1" 14) Deviations for Monopine Communication Tower Deviation 41 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07(H)(3) requiring a 25 feet setback for principal structures and l0 feet for accessory structures to allow a zero feet setback for principal and accessory structures, in recognition of the then existing Growth Management Plan requirements for native vegetation retention at the time the original PUD was approved which did not require a preserve setback. Deviation #2 seeks relief from the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a. which requires a 375' setback for the tower from all residential property calculated at the height of the tower multiplied by 2.5, to allow a 2.2.9'6" setback from residential property to the South. Deviation #3 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.02 C. L. "Buffer Requirements." which requires a Type A l 0 -foot wide landscape buffer with trees s aced no more than 30 feet on center to allow a 0 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the communication tower, only as indicated on the Master Plan. — Deviation._ #4 seeps relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05 B 2.c. "General n Landscaping Requirements_," which requires sites without native vegetation to have a 15 -foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size trees located 25 cet on eent�.r and a 3_ -foot high hed ;planted 3 feet on center., to allow the following landscape buffer widths graphically depicted hereto on Exhibit around the tower com op und: - - "— - - -- _ -_ _.__ -.._ a) Along the northeast side: a mitjimunl 5 -foot wide buffer for into 50% of_the landscape buffer. b_Along the southeast side: a m_ inimum_4 -foot wide buffer fa_r up 50% of the landscaaDe buffer. _- Alon the southwest side: a.minimum 0 -foot/ �� de buffer for ur) to 50% of the landscape buffer. d )___Along the northwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 25% of I he landscape buffer. -- Alot &the west side: a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer for up to 100% of the landscape buffer. [12- CPS -0 1192/12095821"] ]Words double... underlined are added; Words str-uelt throug are deleted [12- CPS - 01192,1 150329!1] Wilson Professional Center PUD PUMA- P1.,20 1 20001 1 28 — 9/25/15 Packet Page -76- ( 0 10/13/2015 9.A SECTION FIVE: Amendment to Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.4 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. The PUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" ('Wilsen, Miller-, Baften, Sell & Peek, ine., Dfawing File NO. RZ 154A) is an illustrative preliminary development plan. 5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS e. As portrayed in the revised preliminary site plans dated july 7, ! 997 --March, 1989, a may be amended retention/buffer areas surrounding the parcel _v, ,-d-Dry will be an average of at least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry retention,'buffer areas should incorporate retention of the maximum amount of native vegetation possible, and final designs will be subject to the review and approval of the County Project Review Services Environmental staff. !11i5s condition is —conce tuLll ,y �c =R d icteCas Preserve Areas on A ie.P �V D - t � pr 14a and shall sat All iia.tix,,exle..�7etationiretentionreciuire ents. JIal -1- - _ SECTION SIX: Amendment to Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92-23, as Amended Exhibit -A", the PUD Master Plan, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92- 23, as amended, is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by Exhibit "A", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. [12- CPS -01 192111209582/1 ]Words doublu-un are added; Words struek-thfou-0 are deleted [12 -CPS - 01192!1 150329/11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA-PL20 120001128 - 9/25/15 Packet Page -77- 10/13/2015 9.A. SECTION SEVEN: Addition of Exhibit "B," the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as Amended Exhibit "B ", the Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the PtJD Document attached to Ordinance No. 92 -23, as amended. SECTION EIGHT: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attomey day of , 2015. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Tim Nance, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Cover Page Exhibit B — Exhibit "A" PUD Master Plan Exhibit C -- Exhibit "B" Communication Tower landscape buffer exhibit [12- CPS -01192/1209582/1 ]Words a °able _Dined are added; Wards,r�nr ;; are deleted [12- CPS - 011921/1150329:'11 Wilson Professional Center PUD PUDA- PL20120001128 — 9%25/15 Packet Page -78- _.. 10M3/2015 9.J\. EXHIBIT A WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT D Acres Located in Section 2I Township 4A South, Range ZSEast, Collier County, Florida PREPARED BY: 800 Tarr)on Woods Blvd., SUite E-1 Palm Harbor, FL34fiL5 Date Reviewed bvC[PC____ Date Approved byBCC Ordinance Number Amendments and Repeal EXHIBIT "A" Words cluiLle—underlirjej are added; Words StFUGk thFeugk are deleted Packet Page -79- NAPLES ist CHURCH NAZARENE INC COLTER COUNTY ZONING.: INSTITUTIONAL - CHURCHES OR 975 PC 656 PROPOSED 120'-0" SBA MONOPINE I PUD Boun- a r , y 6' Fence 'V:"h 5), Natural Vegetation Buffer 10/13/2015 9.A. BAILEY LANE - ir," NATURAL VEGE TATION Bt)' F, LR --- 77-7-7-7-11 x "T --T VEGETATICN R ES E RVAT I ON NATIVE VEGETATION I7 NATNE, VEGETATION (VAPIL WD TH) (0�1 A, PRESERVATION \—PRESERVATION (VARIED WIDTH,)- fVARIE"D WIDTH) I 1.35 AC) ; kO.04 AC) NATIVE VEGETAHON P iR E S LE RVAT 10 INI VARIED 1,VI7,,T 06 AC) 30LDING PARCEL A t V'�; N' & ONL"LL PAR TNi:RS ! i josEpii M I USA DAV;n -HOMPSON - ", �S VAR'A HARDY S' AN ADAMS DALF, 1 -NI t R N"'A"d COLL,ER COUNTY COUNTY i E i 1EK N t 'ER MiNly LR COUNTY 7-n�jji��r� MFI 10 NINA A -o XR COUNY "'L' 10 ZONING: MFL*- PINE VESFTM ION PRESERVATON ZONNC� MF 0 N A Y.' L"0 IOR 4RQ2 PC 5211 PC, 10 475 -: -" ' P2 p'!L'o NING: MF, OR 3484 PC 969 1 OR 4766 --G 375 1 -640 P(, 4',' 4! SITE DATA t V'�; N' & ONL"LL PAR TNi:RS ! i josEpii M I USA DAV;n -HOMPSON - ", �S VAR'A HARDY S' AN ADAMS DALF, 1 -NI L- COUNTY R N"'A"d COLL,ER COUNTY COUNTY i E i 1EK N t 'ER MiNly LR COUNTY 7-n�jji��r� MFI 10 NINA COLIJER U I 1 7 0 Ni N G MFL10 -o XR COUNY "'L' 10 ZONING: MFL*- COLLIER ZON.. - NG.WL11.0 OR ZONNC� MF 0 N A Y.' L"0 IOR 4RQ2 PC 5211 PC, 10 475 -: -" OR 4508 ' NING: MF, OR 3484 PC 969 1 OR 4766 --G 375 1 -640 P(, 4',' !Ok 1, 1366 PO �2861� PC 2025 I SITE DATA WILSON TOTAL SITE AREA: 1:,13 AC PRESERVE REQUIRED (3A X.15): I, � PRESERVE PROVIDED: A_ 1.31 AC NOTE: FILE DATE: 2, PRESERVES AREA ARE CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED AND ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 5.6(a). ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928 0 Z O 0 O J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. WILSON PROFESSIONAL PROJECT #: 13414-1 23150 FASHION DRIVE, SUITE 242 CENTER FILE DATE: 7/2014 ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928 DESIGN BY: SCF 0 50' 100 PHONE: (2 39) 405-9148 FAX: (239) 288-2537 kASTER CONCEPT PLAN j SEC. 23, TOWN. 49S, R. 25E SCALE': 1 VA".JREVANSENGINEERING.COM FL. COA # 29226 EXHIBIT A SCALE: 1" = loo, Packet Page -80- AWL ) /00*) `n v c n 3 c w 3 r d it a 0 0 a PA-1 110 U 0 c a 3 NAPLES 1st CHURCH NAZARENEINC COLLIER COUNTY ZONING: INSTITUTIONAL- CHURCHES OR 975 PG 656 PROPOSED 120' -0" SBA MONOPINE Exhibit C BUILDING PARCEL A 10/13/2015 9.A t i PUD i Boundary ' Deviation #4 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05.B.2.c., "General Landscaping } i Requirements," which requires sites without native vegetation to have a 15 -foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size trees located 25 feet on center and a 3 -foot ! high hedge planted 3 feet on center, to allow the following landscape buffer widths, I graphically depicted hereto on Exhibit "B," around the tower base: A. Along the northeast side: a minimum 5 -foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. B. Along the southeast side: a minimum 4 -foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. ,PRESERVE C. Along the southwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. D. Along the northwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 25% of the landscape buffer. i E. Along the west side: a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer for up to 100% of the landscape buffer. J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, PA WILSON PROFESSIONAL PROJECT #i: 13414 -1 ' 23150 FASHION DRIVE, SUITE 242 ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928 CENTER FILE DATE: 4/2015 PHONE: (239) 405 -9148 DESIGN BY: SCF ; C 25' 50' FAX: (239) 288 -2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM EXHIBIT B SEC. 23, TOWN. 49S, R. 25E SCALE: 1" = 50' FL. COA # 29226 SCALE: 1" = 50' Packet Page -81- 10/13/2015 9.A. W �- i �' E 0 r _ m i Y t Z 1 � I rc R:,RRXRYRxRS: 37335:7 SA=1S\RRrSRY:OOaRS:YYR��C�RRt:�RY: Y:XYR:YYY:RS:YRX JIB ii Oil, � � I 111 �H k <_W -di' ffiffil I°r<_di$ 1811 � s2�www VV! �cc ��u Wg U�3wpp FAP.w �.5$aS. �a fne: ��nyiwg {ggE f `§ a s mar 8k'58 � Rp SY iia, °aka yy eC E.E5�Qc ��rt�O�.p�reF H Z1 E�E� ° X %��een3www -6g Y-1 dYQ�A6^So��P.B�w�6 `m�P.B °.= CSY�i'1 -ixi Rg6 £� gg}q ^S RYRpp22- a_SSC -gg�6 �,' �.i ��✓'. X-- ^9._C"��f'cY�Y. S�F y y -e:R� XA�^ Xn- R_nA.n W ^__.pS�R= -b -SNn � s7. `c � �X.R Ems.. X�nBn- �~K.>:SJ ^.:RAPS .�..FYRYF5iY.8..at= I nn {,, T r, U K Zy 2 � n E >e d�0 r_ WW s 8 e 1.47 1- Y� . _ . i _Q 4 is EI m O 0 C ' n.,.nertn Co Z t E - GOOF 0" Cl Packet Page -82- 10/13/2015 9.A. W Z Q. G Z 06 O Q \ 00 L LU N F- \ a � a z O Q ¢ a z O a z v w Q 2 F N d d w -' F � Q a G <( L`� w V LU Z LU 1 0 I- V 2 � Co O z J Z X LU W 0 p o7j w O= Z Co O U w O O u CL Z � W p F- Cr w LL, U m w W N Z � a Z vt z X V O X w a o z O a w ,i O Q U w a O W\ a un �- w O N F- z X w X U Z O n F- Z F- !- Z Imo- W z Z F- �- w Z Z¢ w w Z W F w z O F Q O �? N u, n w N a FW- N Z Va F- h N W ¢ w Z .� U p cn U U\ > U\ us U U\ ¢ U F- w U w o_ \ U= Q U Z a- J a n w C3 w Z D a Z a �' \ w \ Z J 4 Z a �_ w O O F- O F- F- F- F- O F- - O ij \ W O m F- O �- _� m m N m F Z= m z m Z Z Z N Z F. W F F• F F- N F O F F- z F N Z O O Z R ►- w O 6.6 oG ~ w O O oG cL m cr o2S F iii Cz X Cz X w Co 06 X W � o?� OC w 7 ozS F- cG oiS F- w 2 F- a a a a n. w a F- F- w F- w F- F- Z a F- a a F- a > F- a F- Ln F- vt 0 0 > Ln a a z ¢ z > ¢ F- a a > cn F- I W � p z Z Q ->-°°m W F_ N - ' a- O � O O Z a m -a > a >> a> -a a m m L CV w () d 3 d? cmo L Cu 0) a) D> CL' m m m m i m m r0 U m U m m a > d' ai + rn rn rn Q t' °� m 1- m v v n, v °—' L m ` W a� a) � m _a W a N > of m (n N N N O O O m W to W c°0a W Y D ++ L by O .- -_— O— O O O O �S LA a N ++ O ` Q- L L Cu >$ U w O a i O c— U O O D O U O U U U U O O> co y L 7 m 00 H +, 0 �= to N V) cn �n ¢t m Q Q¢ a m m m Co Co m u vi D O U u D LL O 0 'n of o� � m Ln rn Ln H Ln m m m�� o° 2 vi vi Ln �D m� U U r-i o Ln m O 0 o N to O H Ln cn N m m to cH o 0 o H tD o 0 0 o m m I" H m o lD 01 M O N to 00 01 d �n to N 00 O N m O N cP N Ln O O w o O N O -1 t (.0 M Q1 04 Ol 1� e-i 'cf 1� N in ", ri r-I In N i, tD to n n M '-i r-I .--i tf1 m to e-1 r-1 r-I N o0 N to '� M Packet Page -83- 10/13/2015 9.A. ,* m Ln m tD m 1'- m w m m m O d r-I I%t N lqr m Ct -9t lqT N dI-T t,O f- TT w d m d O Ln r-I Ln N Ln m Ln '7 0 Ln 111 LD N I� Ln w N m Ln O w e-1 w N w m to ct CO Ln W lD LD r- W U a F- z N Ln v z Ln a O O N 06 Fes- w F- F- z z > N z Q Ln 0 H O F\- 06 n. O a Q Lis a a � o N w i- Q c w C:: m a N w w > w 0O N a a N a 2 G H a Z a LU f\- F- w w p F- z O z z � ° U w w a d a \\ a w O o� a O w J w 2 w J as Ln - z0 U Q -' Co ZOO a> N O N O D oJUOwzpw W N° WCLz jw z N W }- N m a >r X N m w z m z 0 J o2S 0.S LLJ N > L1 L'n z z> Q a w z X Q Q cr ` W z U v-\ Q \V v c;:\\\F - \v u E-N> \awe W D_ Z J 4. d �, D- Z J_ LL, U-J J\ Z CL D- Z \ \\ J\ Z Z z Z w W\ W O F- O w W w m W O O O m Z Z O Co z z Co Co R j R R 0� X R x Lr �cc it Cz 06 22 RC-6 x O x c�c L c�c W d W I- W G w W I- F-' d w I'- w w w {"' 2 W F- W W W Q i- N Ln > a I- N Z N Z a '� H I- Z> N Q Q N> Q Z Z Z Q I- Z Q! >> ❑ Z z v '6 Co N L ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ (d ❑ 'O � ❑ Y ❑ m m OC 4J > L Y 'Q m > M M M M m N L 111 L Q1 OJ a� N v v Q 0 o Z ❑ L L� C O O >, a ❑ L O CJ C7 w L N L1 O D iJ N N N N r6 F � 4- J �G N O i ra [m > 4� C O Z D L L O O M M Lp Y Y D C6 L [0 C L C? Q U +' J N v C m N N L L -lC Y Y Y O O O ~ i O 00 :3 'O U C L N >' ? � GJ N N N w w N 4- w- O N O O O O E � ?� Q1 O L w=. � N Ln Q OJ V a 7 7 E Y N= O L _ > U .+�+ i Y O O O O O O 0 C7 O D E E E E� L m m O >- Z O f6 O) O 'C � t3 L L p D (D C7 tD (7 o t7 (D " o CJ LD - - - - o Ln J J M W to Z a a CL a N N N ,..r N �Y ri Ol O O N r-I O m �q H O 00 0 0 �Y LO O N N -1 -1 0 0 Ln dl 1" d N d D r-I N m a) d' Ln O O � D1 >` O I� Ln am O r l m N w r� O cO � d- N �-I Ln o0 , ri O N O Ln O r- N 1� N N r-1 w w O H H t rl O O O m m m LD to O N o tD o o0 Ln Q1 to O O LO Ln r-1 cr et Ln N r-1 Lo L7, r I ,-L N ct Li1 tT r I r-I N r-I N oo m Ln N 00 m f1 m ri ri to Ln rl Packet Page -84- 10/13/2015 9.A. a0 'o Q1 O ei N M �t N tD h oo 01 O� 00 1 Co N 00 M 00 'Ct' 00 L7 00 l0 oo n 00 DO 00 m 00 O Q' r-I m N m m� m rn LM (n W O) n (n a H z L1 V a U CL z 0 0 0 w � w U z O 2 w � W --j U 06 0 oz� 06 z r o o¢ a Q Q w o Q � -j H vat � J Co CC U i- = o Co z a J w > a p U O a z 2E O N = O Z O O w Z I�u - Z z O m p z 0 L V a U a U > ,� U a w w O Q cn � Q a w U �- a= s ~ 2 J � -� w > I- !- > °2S Z ~ o2S J —C w w 06 (WU W O O I- ''� p Fes- m 0~ ZZ a �` f-' Q �' a a i- Q O d J m 0�J J Co Q ;'. ozi 0Z I- X w X W N N 0.f H w p6 H Cz m`` ` U ` O {- Q O v Q Q z > >¢ CC a Q w z Q a w z z ri Z z 2 a Z Z z, w J� Z p� z z J w m 0 N w O m 0 N 0 N �- Z w ~ 0 N 0 N �-- I- O N (- O !- w H o 0 o W r m 0 ,; o w >: O O w X 0 F- O a� X 06 oZS oc o2S w 0Z X� w� X K O w w F- z Q a> a a z > >> z F z > >> w z z> z > >� >> 0 M m m m p Cr V) = V = p z Z Z 0 uj w w W L U m V m N D i- N > p OC w CC 0 J p l0 m W m Co ++ a — H W I- .�- to I- o p c p in C p F- w= O Q Co (D M E to to ca 2' N m C p p U p '� v v a C O L° O Z H N J D p O o i 10/13/2015 9.A. Sabre Industries - Towers and Poles ^ April 9, 2015 Mr. Mauricio Agredo SBA Network Services, Inc. 5900 Broken Sound Parkway Northwest Boca Raton, FL 33487 RE: Proposed 145' Sabre Monopole for Bailey Lane, FL Dear Mr. Agredo, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 126 mph with no ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C and Topographic Category 1 in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222 -G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas" and an Ultimate Wind Speed of 163 mph (Risk Category II), in accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code. When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include ^ several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25 %. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built -in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built -in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In the unlikely event of total separation, this would result in the portion above collapsing within a radius of 32 feet. .O# �%*V. �W Sincerely, Robert E. Beacom, P.E. Design Engineer fl Packet Page -86- & M.Irlim WH � W�m �&fAm W. Packet Page -87- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. Ri GRE 31 t LexisNexl T- MOBILE SOUTH, LLC, PETITIONER v. CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA No. 13 -975. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 135 S. Ct. 808; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 31; 61 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1336 November 10, 2014, Argued January 14, 2015, Decided NOTICE: This preliminary Lexis version is unedited and sub- ject to revision. PRIOR HISTORY: [ * * *1] ON WRIT OF CER- TIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT T- Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 731 F.3d 1213, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20027 (11th Cir. Ga., 2013) . DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded. COUNSEL: Jeffrey L. Fisher argued the cause for pe- titioner. Ann O'Connell argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae. Richard A. Carothers argued the cause for respondent JUDGES: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion in which GINSBURG, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part I. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. OPINION BY: SOTOMAYOR OPINION JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 1 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides, in relevant [ * * *5] part, that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 110 Stat. 151, 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The question presented is whether, and in what form, localities must provide reasons when they deny telecommunication companies' applications to construct cell phone towers. We hold that localities must provide or make available their reasons, but that those reasons need not appear in the written denial letter or notice provided by the locality. Instead, the locality's reasons [ *812] may appear in some other written record so long as the reasons are suf- ficiently clear and are provided or made accessible to the applicant essentially [* *686] contemporaneously with the written denial letter or notice. In February 2010, petitioner T- Mobile South, LLC, applied to build a new, 108 -foot -tall cell phone tower on 2.8 acres of vacant residential property in the city of Roswell, Georgia (City). Roswell's city ordinances re- quire that any cell phone tower proposed for a residential zoning district must take the form of an "alternative tower structure " - -an [ * * *6] artificial tree, clock tower, steeple, or light pale - -that, in the opinion of the city council (City Council or Council), is "compatible with the natural set- ting and surrounding structures" and that effectively camouflages the tower. Code of Ordinances § §21.2.2, 21.2.5(a); see App. 68, 75. In accordance with these pro- visions, petitioner's application proposed a structure in the shape of an artificial tree or "monopine." M.., at 42. Packet Page -88- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 The City's Planning and Zoning Division reviewed petitioner's application, along with a substantial number of letters and petitions opposing it, and ultimately issued a memorandum to the City Council concluding that the application met all of the requirements set out in the City's ordinances. It recommended that the City Council ap- prove the application on three conditions to which peti- tioner was prepared to agree. The City Council then held a 2- hour -long public hearing on April 12, 2010, to consider petitioner's appli- cation. Petitioner arranged privately to have the hearing transcribed, and, as discussed below, the City subse- quently issued detailed minutes summarizing the pro- ceedings. At the hearing, after the Planning and Zoning Division presented its recommendation and after peti- tioner's [ * * *7] representatives made a presentation in support of the application, a number of residents raised concerns. Among these were concerns that the tower would lack aesthetic compatibility; that the technology was outdated and unnecessary, and that the tower would be too tall. Petitioner's representatives responded by reit- erating that it had met all of the ordinance's requirements and by providing testimony from a property appraiser that placement of cell phone towers does not reduce property values. Members of the City Council then commented on the application. One member of the six- person Council was recused, see id., at III (hearing transcript); id, at 322 (meeting minutes), leaving five voting members. Member Igleheart said that other carriers had sufficient coverage in the area and that the City did not need to level the playing field for petitioner. Id., at 173 -174 (hearing transcript). He also stated that his "[b]ottom line" was that he did not think it was appropriate for residentially zoned properties to have the cell towers in their location." Id., at 174 (hearing transcript); id., at 338 (meeting minutes). Member Dippolito found it difficult to believe that the tower would not negatively impact the area and doubted that it would be compatible [ * * *8] with the natural set- ting. Id., at 175 -176 (hearing transcript); id_, at 339 (meeting minutes). Member Wynn expressed concerns about the lack of a backup generator for emergency ser- vices, id., at 172 (hearing transcript), and did not think the tower would be "compatible with this area," id., at 176 (hearing transcript); id, at 339 (meeting minutes). Member Orlans [* *687] said only that he was im- pressed with the information put together by both sides. Id., at 173 (hearing transcript); id., at 337 (meeting minutes). Finally, Member Price, the liaison to the Plan- ning and Zoning Division, made a motion [ *813] to deny the application. She said that the tower would be aesthetically incompatible with the natural setting, that it would be too tall, and that its proximity to other homes would adversely affect the neighbors and the resale value 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 2 of their properties. Id., at 176 -177 (hearing transcript); id, at 339 -340 (meeting minutes), The motion was seconded, and then passed unanimously. Id, at 177 (hearing tran- script); id., at 340 (meeting minutes). Two days later, on April 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Division sent a letter to petitioner that said in its entirety: "Please be advised the City of Roswell Mayor and City Council denied the request from T- Mobile for a 108' mono -pine al- ternative tower structure during their April 12, [ * * *9] 2010 hearing. The minutes from the aforementioned hearing may be obtained from the city clerk. Please contact Sue Creel or Betsy Branch at [phone number]. "If you have any additional questions, please contact me at [phone number]." Id. , at 278. The detailed written minutes of the hearing, however, were not approved and published by the City until 26 days later, on May 10, 2010. See id., at 321 -341 (meeting minutes). ' I Brief minutes had been adopted on April 19, but these only noted that the motion `to deny the application had passed with five members in favor and one member recused. See Council Brief 041210, online at http://roswell.legistar.com/LegislationDetail,aspx ?ID= 657578 &GUID =08D 5297 C- 0271 -41 F9 -9D AA- E8E3DD6314BDD6341 BD &Options = &Sear ch= (all Internet Materials as visited January 12, 2015, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). According to the meeting calendar for the City Council's May 10, 2010, meeting, it was on that day that the City Council approved detailed minutes of the April 12 meeting that included a recitation of each member's statements during the hearing. See http://roswell.legi.star.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?l D= 101786 &GUID =63 828B21 -EB 83- 4485- B4EA- 10EE65 CF48 CD &O ptions= info { &Search =. On May 13, 2010, 3 days after the detailed minutes were published- -and now 29 days after the City denied petitioner's application -- petitioner filed suit in Federal District Court. It alleged that the denial [ * * *10] of the application was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and would effectively prohibit the provision of Packet Page -89- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEMS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 wireless service in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). The parties filed cross- motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had violated the Act when it failed to issue a written decision that stated the reasons for denying petitioner's application. The District Court interpreted the Act to require that a written denial letter or notice describe the reasons for the denial and that those reasons be sufficiently explained to allow a reviewing court to evaluate them against the written rec- ord. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. 731 F. 3d 1213 (2013). It explained that, in T- Mobile South, LLC v. Mil- ton, 728 F. 3d 1274 (2013), which was decided after the District Court's decision in this case, it had held that "to the extent that the decision must contain grounds or rea- sons or explanations, it is sufficient if those are contained in a [* *688] different written document or documents that the applicant is given or has access to." Id., at 1285. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Courts of Appeals had split on that question, and that it had departed from the [ * * *11] majority rule. Compare Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Todd, 244 F. 3d 51, 60 (CAI 2001) (requiring that a locality issue a written denial that itself contains a "sufficient explanation of the reasons for the [ *814] permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those rea- sons"); New Par v. Saginaw, 301 F. 3d 390, 395 -396 (CA6 2002); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F. 3d 715, 723 (CA9 2005), with AT &T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F. 3d 423, 429 (CA4 1998) (holding that written minutes of a meeting and the word "denied" stamped on a letter describing the application were sufficient). Applying its rule to this case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the re- quirements of 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii) were satisfied because petitioner had its own transcript as well as a written letter stating that the application had been denied and informing petitioner that it could obtain access to the minutes of the hearing. 731 F. 3d, at 1221. It did not consider when the City provided its written reasons to petitioner. We granted certiorari, 572 U. S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2136, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1123 (2014), and now reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. M F The first question we answer is whether the statute requires localities to provide reasons when they deny 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 3 applications to build cell phone towers. We answer that question in the affirmative. Our conclusion follows from the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. The Act generally preserves "the traditional authority of state and local governments [ * * *12] to regulate the location, construction, and modification" of wireless communications facilities like cell phone towers, but imposes "specific limitations" on that authority. Rancho Palos Verdes v.,4brams, 544 U. S. 113, 115, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2005); see §332(c)(7)(B). One of those limitations is that any deci- sion to deny a request to build a tower "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Another is that parties adversely affected by a locality's decision may seek judi- cial review. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). In order to determine whether a locality's denial was supported by substantial evidence, 'as Congress directed, courts must be able to identify the reason or reasons why the locality denied the application. See Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 128, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (BREYER, J., joined by O'Connor, Souter, and GINSBURG, JJ., concurring) (observing that the Act "requires local zoning boards ... [to] give reasons for [their] denials 'in writing "'). The requirement that localities must provide reasons when they deny applications is further underscored by two of the other limitations on local authority set out in the Act. The Act provides that localities "shall not unrea- sonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services," and may not regulate the construc- tion of personal wireless [ * * *13] service facilities "on the basis of the [* *689] environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications Commis- sion's] regulations concerning such emissions." § §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1), (iv). 'Again, it would be consider- ably more difficult for a reviewing court to determine whether a locality had violated these substantive provi- sions if the locality were not obligated to state its reasons. 2 The last "limitation" listed in the Act provides that localities shall act on applications to construct personal wireless service facilities "within a rea- sonable period of time after the request is duly filed ... taking into account the nature and scope of such request." §332(c)(7)(B)Q. [ *815] This conclusion is not just commonsensi- cal, but flows directly from Congress' use of the term "substantial evidence." The statutory phrase "substantial evidence" is a "term of art' in administrative law that describes how "an administrative record is to be judged by a reviewing court." United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709, 715, 83 S. Ct. 1409, 10 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1963). There is no reason discernible from the text of the Packet Page -90- /"*N, 135 S. CL 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 Act to think that Congress meant to use the phrase in a different way. See FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1441, 1449, 182 L. Ed. 2d 497, 509 (2012) ( "[W]hen Congress employs a term of art, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas [ * * *14] that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, for those who consider legislative his- tory relevant, the Conference Report accompanying the Act confirmed as much when it noted that "[t]he phrase 'substantial evidence contained in a written record is the traditional standard used for review of agency actions." H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104458, p. 208 (1996). By employing the term "substantial evidence," Con- gress thus invoked, among other things, our recognition that "the orderly functioning of the process of [substan- tial- evidence] review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly dis- closed," and that "courts cannot exercise their duty of [substantial- evidence] review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review." SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 94, 63 S. Ct 454, 87 L. Ed. 626 (1943); see also Motor i'ehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1983) (explaining that an agency must "articulate a sat- isfactory explanation for its action" to enable substan- tial- evidence review); Beaumont, S. L. & W. R Co.. v. United States, 282 U. S. 74, 86, 51 S. Ct. 1, 75 L. Ed. 221 (1930) ( "Complete statements by the [agency] showing the grounds upon which its determinations rest are quite as necessary as are opinions of lower courts setting forth the reasons on which they [ * ** 15] base their decisions . . .,T). In response, the City primarily argues that a rea- son- giving obligation would deprive it of local zoning authority. But Congress intended to place "specific limi- tations on the traditional authority of state and local gov- ernments" regarding cell phone tower siting applications. Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 115, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316. One of those "limitations," §332(c)(7)(B), necessarily implied by the Act's "substan- tial evidence" requirement, is that local [* *690] zoning authorities state their reasons when they deny applica- tions. In short, the statutory text and structure, and the concepts that Congress imported into the statutory framework, all point clearly toward the conclusion that localities must provide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting applications. We stress, however, that these reasons need not be elaborate or even sophisticated, but rather, as discussed below, simply clear enough to enable judicial review. 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 4 B The second question we answer is whether these reasons must appear in the same writing that conveys the Locality's denial of an application. We answer that ques- tion in the negative. Like our conclusion that localities must provide reasons, our conclusion that the reasons need not appear in a denial letter [***16] follows from the statutory text. Other than providing that a locality's reasons must be given in writing, nothing in that [ *816] text imposes any requirement that the reasons be given in any particular form. The Act's saving clause makes clear that, other than the enumerated limitations imposed on local governments by the statute itself, "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service 'facilities." §332(c)(7)(A). Given this language, and the system of "cooperative federalism" on which the Act is premised, Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 128, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (BREYER, J., concurring), we understand the enumerated limitations to set out an exclusive list So while the text and stricture of the Act render it inescapable that localities must pro- vide reasons in writing when they deny applications, we can locate in the Act no command- -either explicit or im- plicit- -that localities must provide those reasons in a spe- cific document. We therefore conclude that Congress imposed no specific requirement on that front, but instead permitted localities to comply with their obligation to give written reasons [ * * *17] so Iong as the locality's reasons are stated clearly enough to enable judicial review. Although the statute does not require a locality to provide its written reasons in any particular format, and although a locality may rely on detailed meeting minutes as it did here, we agree with the Solicitor General that "the local govern- ment may be better served by including a separate state- ment containing its reasons." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26; see also id, at 34. If the locality writes a short statement providing its reasons, the locality can likely avoid prolonging the litigation- -and adding expense to the taxpayers, the companies, and the legal sys- tem- -while the parties argue about exactly what the sometimes voluminous record means. Moreover, in that circumstance, the locality need not worry that, upon re- view of the record, a court will either find that it could not ascertain the locality's reasons or mistakenly ascribe to the locality a rationale that was not in fact the reason for the locality's denial. We hasten to add that a locality cannot stymie or burden the judicial review contemplated by the statute by Packet Page -91- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 delaying the release of its reasons for a substantial time after it [ * * *18] conveys its [* *691] written denial. The statute provides that an entity adversely affected by a locality's decision may seek judicial review within 30 days of the decision. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). Because an entity may not be able to make a considered decision whether to seek judicial review without knowing the reasons for the denial of its application, and because a court cannot re- view the denial without knowing the locality's reasons, the locality must provide or make available its written reasons at essentially the same time as it communicates its denial. 3 3 THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent rejects this particular requirement, and instead invents a pro- cess that tuns judicial review on its head. Rather than give effect to a process that would permit an entity seeking to challenge a locality's decision to see the locality's written reasons before it files its suit - -and the dissent agrees that the statute re- quires that a locality convey its reasons in writing, see post, at 5- -the dissent would fashion a world in which a locality can wait until a lawsuit is com- menced and a court orders it to state its reasons. The entity would thus be left to guess at what the locality's written reasons will be, write a com- plaint that contains [ * * *19] those hypotheses, and risk being sandbagged by the written reasons that the locality subsequently provides in litigation after the challenging entity has shown its cards. The reviewing court would then need to ensure that those reasons are not post hoc rationalizations, see Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168, 83 S. Ct. 239, 9 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1962), but the dissent offers no guidance as to how are viewing court that has never seen near- contemporaneous reasons would conduct that inquiry. [ *817] This rule ought not to unduly burden local- ities given the range of ways in which localities can pro- vide their reasons. Moreover, the denial itself needs only to be issued (or the application otherwise acted upon) "within a reasonable period of time." §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). In an interpretation we have recently upheld, see Arlington v. FCC, 569 U. S. ^ , 1.33 S. Ct. 1863, 185 L. Ed. 2d 941(2013), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has generally interpreted this provision to allow localities 90 days to act on applications to place new antennas on existing towers and 150 days to act on other siting applications. In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarf� Pi- misions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC Rcd. 1.3994, 13995, ¶4 (2009). If a locality is not in a position to provide its reasons promptly, the locality can delay the issuance of its denial within. this 90- or 150 -day window, and instead release it [ * * *20] along with its 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 5 reasons once those reasons are ready to be provided. Only once the denial is issued would the 30 -day commence - ment -of -suit clock begin. 4 The City urges us to hold that the clock does not begin to run until after the reasons are given. We cannot so hold, however, without rewriting the statutory text. The Act provides that a lawsuit may be filed by "[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act ... within 30 days after such action or failure to act." 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(13)(v). The relevant "final action" is the issuance of the written notice of denial, not the subsequent issuance of reasons explaining the denial. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 177 -178, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997) (agency action is "final" if it "mark[s] the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process" and determines "rights or obligations" or triggers "legal consequences" (internal quotation marks omitted)). III Petitioner offers four reasons why, in its view, our analysis in Part If-B is incorrect. Petitioner argues that the statute requires that a locality's reasons appear in the writing conveying the denial itself but none of petitioner's reasons are persuasive. First, petitioner argues that the word "decision" in the statute - -the thing that must be "in writing" -- connotes [ * * *21] a written document that itself [* *692] pro- vides all the reasons for a given judgment. See Brief for Petitioner 24 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 407 (6th ed. 1990) (a "decision" is a written document providing "'the reasons given for [a] judgment"')). But even peti- tioner concedes, with its preferred dictionary in hand, that the word "decision" can also mean "something short of a statement of reasons explaining a determination." Brief for Petitioner 24 (citing Black's Law Dictionary, at 407). $ 5 One of petitioner's amici argues that Congress has used the word "decision" in the context of other communications laws to mean something more than a judgment or verdict. See Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Chamber) et al. 9 -13. But while it is true that a word used across "the same act" should be given the same meaning, see Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Lid, 566 U. S. _, _, 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2005, 182 L. Ed. 2d 903, 914 (2012), the Chamber's evidence is less persuasive because it arises out of entirely different "acts" and does not involve any term of art. By relying on other parts of Title 47 of the U. S. Code- -some enacted in the Packet Page -92- Ird M-01 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 Communications Act of 1934 decades before the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 at issue here- -the Chamber stretches to invoke this [ * * *22] canon of construction beyond its most forceful application. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 172 -173 (2012). Second, petitioner claims that other provisions in the Act use the word "notify" when the Act means to impose only a requirement that a judgment be communicated. s [ *818] Because the provision at issue here does not use the word "notify," petitioner argues, it must contemplate something more than a judgment. This does not logically follow. For one thing, the statute at issue here does not use any verb at all to describe the conveying of information from a locality to an applicant; it just says that a denial "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). But more to the point, "notify" is a verb the use - -or nonuse - -of which does not reveal what the thing to be notified of or about is. 6 For example, petitioner cites §11 (FCC must "notify the parties concerned" when it makes a "determination and order" regarding a railroad or telegraph company's failure to maintain and op- erate a telegraph line for public use) and §398(b)(5) ( "Whenever the Secretary [of Com- merce] makes a fmal determination ... that a re- cipient" of federal [ ** *231 funds has engaged in impermissible discrimination, the Secretary shall "notify the recipient in writing of such determina- tion ... "). Brief for Petitioner 24 -25. Third, petitioner contends that the "substantial evi- dence" requirement itself demands that localities identify their reasons in their written denials. See Brief for Peti- tiODer 23. Certainly, as discussed above, the phrase "sub- stantial evidence" requires localities to give reasons, but it says nothing on its own about the document in which those reasons must be stated or presented to a reviewing court. Finally, petitioner invokes the statutory requirement that any adversely affected person shall have their chal- lenge heard by a court "on an expedited basis." §332(c)(7)(B)(v). See Brief for Petitioner 14 -15, 28. As long as the reasons are provided in a written record, however, and as long as they are provided in such a manner that is clear enough and prompt enough to enable judicial review, there is no reason to require that those reasons be provided in the written denial itself. We acknowledge that petitioner, along with those Courts of Appeals [* *693] that have required a local- ity's reasons to appear in its written denial itself, have 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 6 offered plausible [ * * *24] bases for a rule that would require as much. See, e.g., Todd 244 F. 3d, at 60 ( "A written record can create difficulties in determining the rationale behind a board's decision "). Congress could adopt such a rule if it were so inclined, but it did not do so in this statute. It is not our place to legislate another ap- proach. IV Thus, we hold that the Act requires localities to pro- vide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting ap- plications, but that the Act does not require localities to provide those reasons in written denial Ietters or notices themselves. A locality may satisfy its statutory obligations if it states its reasons with sufficient clarity in some other written record issued essentially contemporaneously with the denial. In this case, the City provided its reasons in writing and did so in the acceptable form of detailed minutes of the City Council meeting. The City, however, did not provide its written reasons essentially contempo- raneously with its written denial. Instead, the City issued those detailed minutes 26 days after the date of the written denial and just 4 days before petitioner's time to seek judicial review would have expired. ' The City therefore did not [ *819] comply with its [ * * *25] statutory obligations. We do not consider questions regarding the applicability of principles of harmless error or questions of remedy, and leave those for the Eleventh Circuit to address on remand. 7 Though petitioner arranged for a transcript of the meeting to be recorded on its own initiative and at its own expense, see App. 1.09 -275, the fact that petitioner took steps to reduce oral statements made at the City Council meeting to writing can- not be said to satisfy the obligation that Congress placed on the City to state clearly its reasons, and to do so in a writing it provides or makes available. * ** For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings con- sistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. CONCUR BY: ALITO CONCUR JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I concur in the Court's opinion because I agree that Congress, by using the term "substantial evidence," in- tended to invoke administrative law principles. One such principle, as the Court explains, is the requirement that Packet Page -93- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 agencies give reasons. I write separately, however, be- cause three other traditional administrative law principles may also apply. First, a court must "uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity [ * * *26] if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned." Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas -Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286, 95 S. Ct. 438, 42 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1974). In the context of 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7), which leaves in place almost the entirety of a local government's authority, a succinct statement that a permit has been denied because the tower would be es- thetically incompatible with the surrounding area should suffice. Nothing in this statute imposes an opinion - writing requirement. [* *694] Second, even if a locality has erred, a court must not invalidate the locality's decision if the error was harmless. "In administrative law, as in federal civil and criminal litigation, there is a harmless error rule." National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 659 -660, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 168 L. Ed. 2d 467 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, for instance, I have trouble believing that T- Mobile South, LLC- -which actively participated in the decisiommaking process, including going so far as to transcribe the public hearing- -was prejudiced by the city of Roswell's delay in providing a copy of the minutes. Third, the ordinary rule in administrative law is that a court must remand errors to the agency "except in rare circumstances." Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744, 105 S. Ct. 1598, 84 L. Ed. 2d 643 (1985). Nothing we say today should be read to suggest that when a locality has erred, the inevitable remedy is that a tower must be built. The Court has not passed on what remedial powers a "court [ * * *27] of competent jurisdiction" may exercise. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). This un- answered question is important given the federalism im- plications of this statute. I do not understand the Court's opinion to disagree with this analysis. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion. DISSENT BY: ROBERT&; THOMAS DISSENT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins as to Part I, dissenting. The statute at issue in this case provides that "[a]ny decision .. to deny a request ... shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The Court con- cludes that the City loses this case not because it failed to 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 7 provide its denial in writing. It did provide its denial in writing. Nor does the City lose because the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The City compiled a written record; whether that record con- tained substantial evidence supporting the denial is not at issue here and has not been decided. Nor does the City lose because its denial was not accompanied [ *820] by a statement of reasons apart from the written record. A sharp conflict had developed in the lower courts over the necessity of such a separate statement, and the Court [ * * *28] today squarely holds that one is not required. Ante, at 5, 8 -11. No, the City instead loses because of a question of timing: The written record was not made available roughly the same day as the denial - -a require- ment found nowhere in the text of the statute. The Court says this timing requirement is necessary for judicial review of whether the denial is supported by substantial evidence. A reviewing court, however, can carry out its function just as easily whether the record is submitted four weeks or four days before the lawsuit is filed - -or four days after, for that matter. The Court also supports its timing rule by saying that the company whose application is denied needs the time to carefully consider whether to seek review. But cell service providers are not Mom and Pop operations. As this case illustrates, they participate extensively in the local government proceed- ings, and do not have to make last- second, uninformed decisions on whether to seek review. [* *695] The City here fully complied with its ob- ligations under the statute: It issued its decision in writing, and it submitted a written record containing--so far as we know -- substantial evidence supporting that decision. 1 respectfully [ * * *29] dissent from the Court's contrary conclusion. Section 332(c)(7), enacted as part of the TeIecom- munieations Act of 1996, . places several limits on local governments' authority to regulate the siting of cell towers and other telecommunications facilities. A locality's reg- ulations must not unreasonably discriminate among ser- vice providers, effectively prohibit the provision of ser- vice, or rest on concenis about the environmental effects of radio emissions. See § §332(c)(7)(B)(i), (iv). In addi- tion, the provision central to this case specifies that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government ... to deny a request to place, construct, or modify" a cell tower "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence con- tained in a written record." §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). And an- other provision authorizes expedited judicial review of a locality`s alleged failure to comply with these rules. See §332(c)(7)(B)(v). Packet Page -94- i0-111 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *, 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 After the city council of Roswell voted to deny T- Mobile's application to build a cell tower, the City sent T- Mobile a short letter that announced the denial but provided no further explanation. The question T- Mobile has presented to this Court is whether such a letter satis- fies the "decision ... in writing" requirement of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). See Pet for Cert. i. I would hold [ * * *30] it does. The City's letter was certainly in writing. And it certainly memorialized the denial of T- Mobile's application. So T- Mobile's only hope is that the lack of explanation for the denial means the letter is not truly a "decision." But like the majority, I reject T- Mobile's contention that the term "decision" inherently demands a statement of reasons. Dictionary definitions support that conclusion. See ante, at 12 (citing Black's Law Dictionary); see also B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 251 (2d ed. 1995) (grouping "decision" with "judgment," as distinct from "opinion "). A comparison between Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and other statutory provisions that were on the books in 1996 also suggests that when Congress wants decisionmakers to supply explanations, it says so. Consider first the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act. In the context of formal ad- judication and rulemaking, it demands that "decisions .. . include a statement of ... [ *821] findings and conclu- sions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the mate- rial issues." 5 U. S. C. §557(c)(A) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). Even in informal proceedings, an agency must give prompt notice of the denial of a written applicatiory and, "[e]xcept in affirming a prior denial or when the [ * * *31] denial is self - explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for de- nial." §555(e) (emphasis added). The Communications Act of 1934, which the Tele- communications Act overhauled, itself contains a similar express requirement. Section 309 allows an interested party to petition the Federal Communications Commis- sion to deny a license application. 47 U. S. C. §309(d)(1) (1994 ed.). If the FCC decides to grant an application despite such a petition, it must "issue [* *696] a concise statement of the reasons for denying the petition." §309(d)(2). And a provision added along with Section 332(c)(7) in the Telecommunications Act provides that when the FCC grants or denies a petition for regulatory forbearance, it "shall explain its decision in writing." §I60(c) (2000 ed..) (emphasis added). Many other statutes in effect in 1996 could be added to the list. See, e.g., 19 U. S. C. §1515(a) (1994 ed.) (notice of customs protest de- nial "shall include a statement of the reasons for the de- nial"); 30 U. S. C. §944 (1994 ed.) (individual whose claim for black lung benefits "is denied shall receive ... a written statement of the reasons for denial "); 38 U. S. C. §5104(b) (1994 ed.) (notice of denial of veterans benefits 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 8 must include "a statement of the reasons for the deci- sion"). Given the commonplace nature [ * * *32] of express requirements that reasons be given - -and the inclusion of such provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act, the original Communications Act, and another provision of the Telecommunications Act- -the absence of one in Sec- tion 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) is telling, and supports reading "decision ... in writing" to demand nothing more than what it says: a written document that communicates the town's denial. In my view, resolving that interpretive question in the City's favor also resolves the case as it stands in this Court. Although Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) goes on to require that a denial be "supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record," the adequacy of the City's written record is not properly before us. As the Eleventh Circuit noted in its opinion below, the "sole issue" before it was the "in writing' requirement; it did not examine whether the City's denial was supported by substantial evidence. 731 F. 3d 1213, 1221, n. 7 (2013). The Court today also -- correctly- -does not decide whether substantial evidence supported the City's denial. The Eleventh Cir- cuit's judgment therefore ought to be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceed- ings on T- Mobile's remaining challenges. lI The Court agrees that the City was not required [ * * *33] to explain its reasoning in its denial letter, but it nonetheless rules for T- Mobile. The improbable linchpin of this outcome is the City's failure to finalize the minutes of the April 12 city council meeting until May 10. Im- probable because, so far as I can tell, T- Mobile never even mentioned this timeline, let alone based an argument on it, in its filings in the lower courts or its petition for certio- rari. Nor did the Eleventh Circuit address this timing question in any way. Cf. Zivotofisy V. Clinton, 566 U. S. —, _, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1430, 182 L. Ed. 2d 423, 433 (2012) ( "Ordinarily, we do not decide in the first instance issues not decided below." (internal quotation marks omitted)). [ *822] The Court nonetheless rules against Ro- swell on this ground, proceeding in two steps: First it concludes that a town must provide written reasons in some form (the minutes being the only candidate here); then it decides a town must make those reasons available "essentially contemporaneously" with its decision (the final minutes were not). Ante, at 14. In my view, the first step is justified by the statutory text, but the second is not The need to provide reasons in some form follows from the portion of [* *697] Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) requiring that denials be "supported by substantial evi- Packet Page -95- 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 Bence contained in a written record." [ * * *34] Like the majority, I read this phrase as specifying a familiar standard of review to be used if a denial is challenged in court. And like the majority, I agree that substantial evi- dence review requires that a decisionmaker's reasons be identifiable in the written record. If a reviewing court cannot identify any of a town's reasons for denying an application, it cannot determine whether substantial evi- dence supports those reasons, and the town loses. But then the Court goes a step further and creates a timing rule: A town must provide "its written reasons at essentially the same time as it communicates its denial." Ante, at 10. This timing rule is nowhere to be found in the text of Section 332 (c)(7)(B) — text that expressly estab- lishes other time limits, both general and specific. See §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) (requiring localities to act on siting requests "within a reasonable period of time "); §332(c)(7)(B)(v) (giving injured parties 30 days to seek judicial review). Despite its assertion that the statute's "enumerated limitations" constitute "an exclusive list," ante, at 9, the Court offers two justifications for its in- ference of this additional, unenumerated limitation. The first is that "a court cannot review the denial without knowing the locality's [ * * *35] reasons," so it would "stymie" judicial review to allow delay between the issuance of the decision and the statement of reasons. Ante, at 10. This makes little sense. The Court's "essen- tially contemporaneous" requirement presumably means the town must produce its reasons within a matter of days (though the majority never says how many). But a re- viewing court does not need to be able to discern the town's reasons within mere days of the decision. At that point no one has even asked the court to review the denial. The fact that a court cannot conduct review without knowing the reasons simply means that if the town has not already made the record available, it must do so by whatever deadline the court sets. The court should pro- ceed "on an expedited basis," §332(c)(7)(B)(v), but that hardly means it will need the record within days of the town's decision. And in this case there is no indication that the City's submission of the written record was untimely or delayed the District Court's review. The Court's second justification focuses on the de- nied applicant, which must choose within, 30 days fiom the denial whether to take the town to court. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). "[Vtgithout knowing the locality's rea- sons," the majority says, the applicant [ * * *36] "may not be able to make a considered decision whether to seek judicial review." Ante, at 10. This concern might have force if towns routinely made these decisions in secret, closed -door proceedings, or if applicants were unsophis- ticated actors. But the local zoning board or town council is not the Star Chamber, and a telecommunications company is no babe in the legal woods. Almost invariably 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 9 in cases addressing Section 332(c)(7), the relevant local authority has held an open meeting at which the applicant was present and the issues publicly aired. In this case and [ *823] others, T -Mobile has brought its own court re- porter, ensuring that it has a verbatim transcript of the meeting well before the town is likely to finalize [* *698] its minutes. See Brief for Petitioner 12, n. 2; T- Mobile South, LLC v. Cio) of Milton, Georgia, 728 F. 3d 1274, 1277 (CAll 2013). 1 strongly doubt that a sophisticated, well- lawyered company like T- Mobile —with extensive experience with these particular types of proceed- ings- -would have any trouble consulting its interests and deciding whether to seek review before it had received a written explanation from the town. The Court worries about towns "sandbagg[ing]" companies with unexpected reasons, ante, at 10, n. 3, but if those reasons in fact come out of nowhere, they will not be [ * * *37] supported by substantial evidence in the record. And if the company's initial complaint mistakes the town's reasoning, the company will have no difficulty amending its allegations. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). In sum, there is nothing impractical about reading the statutory text to require only that the reasons implied by the term "substantial evidence" be discernible to the court when it conducts substantial evidence review. Demanding "essentially contemporaneous" written reasons adds a requirement that Congress has included expressly in many other statutes, but not in this one. See supra, at 3 -4. * ** For the foregoing reasons, the Court's opinion and judgment are wrong. But this is not a "the sky is falling" dissent. At the end of the day, the impact on cities and towns across the Nation should be small, although the new unwritten requirement could be a trap for the unwary hamlet or two. All a local government need do is withhold its final decision until the minutes are typed up, and make the final decision and the record of proceedings (with discernible reasons) available together. Today's decision is nonetheless a bad break for Ro- swell. Or maybe not. The Court leaves open the question of remedy, ante, at 14, and it may [ * * *38] be that failure to comply with the "in writing " requirement as construed by the Court can be excused as harmless error in appro- priate cases. It is hard to see where the harm is here. T- Mobile somehow managed to make the tough call to seek review of the denial of an application it had spent months and many thousands of dollars to obtain, based on a bearing it had attended. And nothing about Roswell's failure to meet the "contemporaneously" requirement delayed, much less "stymied," judicial review. The Court today resolves the conflict over whether a town must provide a statement of reasons with its final Packet Page -96- /—N, 135 S. Ct. 808, *; 190 L. Ed. 2d 679, * *; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 612, * * *; 83 U.S.L.W. 4047 decision, apart from the written record. We now know it need not. As the Court explains, "nothing in [the] text [of the Act] imposes any requirement that the reasons be given in any particular form," and there is "in the Act no command -- either explicit or implicit - -that localities must provide those reasons in a specific document." Ante, at 9. Good analysis- -which also should have been followed to reject the timing requirement the Court creates today. I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I join Part I of THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent, which says all the Court needed to say to [ * * *39] resolve this case. I [* *699] write separately to express my concern about the Court's eagerness to reach beyond the bounds of the present dispute to create a timing requirement that 10/13/2015 9.A. Page 10 finds no support in the text or structure of the statute. We have been unwMing to impose procedural requirements on federal agencies in the absence of statutory command, even while [ *824] recognizing that an agency's failure to make its decisions known at the time it acts may burden regulated parties. See, e.g., Pension Benefit Guarani, Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 653 - 655,110 S. Ct. 2668, 110 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1990). When a State vests its municipalities with authority to exercise a core state power, those municipalities deserve at least as much re- spect as a federal agency. But today, the majority treats them as less than conscripts in "the national bureaucratic army," FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 775, 102 S. Ct. 2126, 72 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concur- ring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent. Packet Page -97- 10/13/2015 9.A. I Collier Mosquito Control District 600 North Road, Naples, FL 34104 -3464 Administration: 239 - 436 - 10001239- 436 -1005 (fax) Hangar: 239 - 436 -1008 1239- 436 -1007 (fax) www.collier-mosquito.org Mr. Reischl, The Collier Mosquito Control District (CMCD) identifies the locations of all towers, within Collier County, to prepare for aerial treatment missions. Recently, we learned of a new tower on Bailey Ln. which will be constructed in the near future. CMCD has no safety concerns with the I Bailey Ln. tower at this time. i Regards, I �aha pgPtaezzacto I � Director of Operations } Collier Mosquito Control District 600 North Road Naples, FL 34104 -3464 239 -436 -1000 main # 239- 436 -1005 fax i I johnk;,cmcd.org j � I I � I I l Board of Commissioners: Executive Director: Spray Schedule: 239 -436 -1010 David Farmer, Chair Frank Ilan Essen, Ph.D. Jackie D. Fresenius, Secretary Immokalee Substation: Bob D. Geroy, Treasurer 195 Airpark Blvd f John F. Johnson Immokalee, FL 34142 Linda AlcDaniels 239 -867 -3200 Packet Page -98- n 10/13/2015 9.A. Reisch[Fred om: Richard Eddy [richardteddy @gmail.com] ,oent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:19 PM To: Iauralee @westinelaw.com Cc: ReischlFred Subject: Proposed Bailey Lane Tower Dear Ms. Westine, Lauralee, Thanks for your open and friendly presentation at Fleischmann Community Center on this proposal. Confirming my request, please send me by surface mail, ASAP, the CD (or DVD) of the Environmental Impact study about the existing wild life and flora in the vicinity of this proposed Cellular Tower. You said it was lengthy and would be best sent by mail for me to see on my computer. I use a macbook. As I mentioned I am not convinced this is the best place to put such an obtrusive tower in this neighborhood. As my family has owned this home for 45 years in beautiful. Naples, I am sorry to see such a totally unacceptable tower being put in my back yard adjacent to an area where NOTHING would interfere with the environment. At the meeting I asked about how the building of the tower would affect nesting and migration patterns in the area. My home is on the canal directly behind the church's preserve bordering on the tower site (probably less khan one city block!). While you discussed various aspects of how long these things take, I do not recall your iswering my question. I would hope that the actual building of the tower, if approved, would be sensitive to these natural factors, but I did nor receive any assurances of that being done. Just that there was a 500 -add page study, that would take several weeks to read. Of course, if and when the Proposed Tower is approved, the actual timing of construction could be done to MINIMIZE any nesting or migration patterns. However, it seemed that the firms wanting to use the tower did not have this on their agenda. How will the builder respect nesting and migration patterns at time of construction? I look forward to hearing more about how this important money- making communications tower can enhance (or at least blend with, and NOT detract from) the natural beauty and wildlife of Naples, Florida where we are so fortunate to live. Richard Eddy 3019 Poinciana Drive Naples, FL 34105 PS I doubt that Mr. Fleischmann who was a strong promoter of Naples (promoting the Zoo, and giving land on which the meeting was held, and selling the neighboring Freedom park area to the community) would have been in agreement with putting such a tower in our midst. 1 Packet Page -99- 10/13/2015 9.A. ReischlFred From: BEstesFL @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:16 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: PUDA- PL20120001128 Thank you, Fred. You have been very helpful. Please do send the staff report when it is ready. Brad Estes In a message dated 2/212015 6:03:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, FredReischl(ftolliernov.net writes: I will send several emails because the info is very graphics - intensive and I think one email may be too large. From: l3EstesFL(5)aol.com rmailto:BEstesFL0)aoI.coml Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 12:09 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: PUDA- PL20120001128 Sure. Please send. Thank you, Brad Estes In a message dated 2/2/2015 9:07:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, FredReischl acolliergov.net writes: I have a lot of the info in PDF format. Will that work? From: BEstesFLOaol.com [mailto:BEstesFL(aaol.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:28 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: PUDA- PL20120001128 Good morning Fred, 1 Packet Page -100- 10/13/2015 9.A. I am a property owner near the proposed cellular telephone tower in the Wilson Professional Center Planned Development. I would like to see the file for the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Please advise how I can accomplish that. Thank you, Brad Estes Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -101- 10/13/2015 9.A. 09ZOM 3372 Poinciana Street Naples, FL 34105 239 961 -8843 April 3, 2015 Chairman Mark Strain Commissioners Planning Commission Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Wilson Professional Center PUDA- PL20120001128 Collier County, Florida 10""N Dear Chairman Strain and Commissioners: The Board of Directors of the Poinciana Civic Association of Naples, Inc. objects to the application by SBA Towers III LLC for a 150 -foot communications tower at Wilson Professional Center. The Board voted unanimously to oppose this project at our meeting on March 26, 2015. Our objection is based upon the tower's aesthetic incompatibility with our neighborhood. The Wilson Professional Center has had no negative aesthetic impact on Poinciana Village since it was first constructed. The installation of this tower would negate that. The center would become incompatible with the natural environment within and surrounding our neighborhood. Even though proposed to be a camouflaged tower, the tower's 150 foot height would be in stark contrast with the surrounding natural environment and Poinciana Village's unique visual character which even has underground utilities. The tower's height is approximately 100 feet above the existing tree line at Wilson Professional Center and 115 feet above the permitted maximum height of the structures. in addition, the application is inconsistent with the intent of the 1992 planned unit developed (PUD) that the Wilson Professional Center be aesthetically compatible with adjacent properties, including Poinciana Village. Our association worked closely with Collier County to assure compatibility at that time. Packet Page -102- 10/13/2015 9.A. Page Two The intent is evident by the many restrictions the PUD ordinance contains to assure aesthetic compatibility. Those include large setbacks, open space requirements, retention of natural vegetation, a privacy fence between the PUD and our neighborhood, restricted building heights, building design and use requirements, and signage restrictions. The PUD even requires that underground utilities and electrical transformers be located and screened so as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property. In closing, the Wilson center tower would be the third communications tower in less than one half of a mile of Poinciana Village if this application is approved.. We understand a tower is approved but not yet erected at Capital Center, Coach House Lane and Airport Road. Poinciana Elementary School has an existing tower. Thank you for consideration of our viewpoint. Cc: Fred Reischl, Senior Planner Packet Page -103- Sincerely Kathryn M. Sickels President 10/13/2015 9.A. PUDA— PL20120001128 r—N, TRANSCRIPT OF NIM HELD ON 1 -16 -15 AT 6:OOPM REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT: LAURALEE G. WESTINE, ESQ. LAND OWNER: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. COUNTY: FRED REISCHL MS. WESTINE INTRODUCED HERSELF, STATED THE PURPOSE WAS FOR THE BAILEY LANE COMMUNICATION TOWER, STATED THE DATE AS FRIDAY JANUARY 16, 2015, TIME AS 6:02, AND THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE APPLICANT, SBA COMMUNICATIONS. SHE DESCRIBED THE TOWER AS A 150' MONOPINE TOWER. SHE HANDED OUT EXAMPLES MONOPINE TOWERS IN HILLSBOROUGH AND PINELLAS COUNTIES ALONG WITH n PHOTOS IMULAT IONS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. SHE EXPLAINED THE BALLOON FLIGHT PROCESS FOR MAKING PHOTOS IMULATIONS. SHE EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION AS AN AMENDEMNT TO THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD. SHE THEN GAVE THE ATTENDEES COPIES OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR THE PUD, THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE PLAN, AND A PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE TOWER. SHE STATED THAT THE ANTENNAS WILL BE HIDDEN BY THE TOWER'S BRANCHES. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 4 SETS OF ANTENNAS. SHE STATED THAT AT &T WILL BE FIRST TENANT AND THAT THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN THE TOWER FROM OTHER CARRIERS. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHO SHE REPRESENTED AND SHE RES --ATED THAT SHE REPRESENTS THE APPLICANT, SBA TOWERS. SHE EXPLAINED THE TOWER'S COLLOCATION CAPABILITY AS A "VERTICAL APARTMENT." SHE STATED THAT THE Page 1 of 4 Packet Page -104- 10/13/2015 9.A. TOWER AND ITS BRANCHES WILL MEET THE COUNTY'S WIND SPEED REQUIREMENTS. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE PAINTED BROWN AND GREEN BY SBA, THAT SBA WILL MAINETAIN THE TOWER AND LANDSCAPING, AND THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THE TOWER IF IT WERE TO EVER BECOME NON COMPLIANT. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THE PUD IS THE "WILSON CENTER" AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUTH FLORIDA GROWERS ASSOCIATION. SHE THEN DESCRIBED THE USES OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS GENERALLY AND SHOWED THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE'S OFTEN ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT RF EMISSIONS, GUIDED THE ATTENDEES TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND THE FAA'S WEBSITE, AND OFFERED TO PRINT THE INFORMATION FOR ATTENDEES WHO COULD NOT ACCESS THE INTERNET. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, CELL TOWERS EMIT ROUGHLY 1 /100TH THE ENERGY ALLOWABLE BY THE FCC. MS. WESTINE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE HOW MUCH OF THE TOWER'S SUPPORT POLE WILL BE COVERED BY BRANCHES. MS WESTINE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE A "MEDIUM DENSITY BRANCH" AND DISCUSSED VARIOUS QUALITIES OF BRANCH DESIGNS GENERALLY. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHY THE TOWER HAD TO BE LOCATED WHERE IT WAS. MS. WESTINE DESCRIBED THE CELLULAR GRID AS A `HONEYCOMB" WHERE THE TOWERS HAVE TO BE LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH TO "TALK" TO EACH OTHER. SHE ALSO STATED THAT AS DATA REQUIREMENTS OF CELLULAR USERS INCREAS, THE COVERAGE AREA OF CELL TOWERS GENERALLY DECREASE. ANT ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER WOULD BE LIGHTED AFTER DARK. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAA TO ILLUMINATE THE TOWER AND THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN TO UNLESS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. MR. REISCHL STATED THAT SINCE THE TOWER WAS NOT IN AN APIRPORT ZONE, IT WOULD Page 2 of 4 Packet Page -105- NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED. SECURITY LIGHTING. 10/13/2015 9.A. SHE STATED THAT THE COMPIOUND WILL HAVE ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD PROMOTE THE LOCATION OF RED WINGED HAWKS TO THE AREA. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE TOWER WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR A PARTICULAR BIRD IN THE AREA BUT SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL COMPLY WITH THE FCC AND THE FLA. DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TOWER RULES FOR BIRD SAFETY ALONG WITH THEIR PROCEDURES FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER IF BIRDS CHOOSE TO NEST ON THE PROPOSED TOWER. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER'S CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE DURING BIRD MIGRATION SEASON. MS. WESTINE LAID OUT A ROUGH TIMELINE FOR THE PROCESSES THAT FOLLOW THE MEETING AS 4 TO 6 MONTHS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. SHE STATED THAT FULL CONSTRUCTION TAKES 3 MONTHS BUT TOWER ERECTION TAKES 6 WEEKS. SHE GAVE A PROJECTED "ON AIR" DATE AS FIRST QUARTER OF 2016. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT A "NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT" OR "NEPA" ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE AND THAT SHE COULD MAIL A COPY TO HIM IF HE WANTED. THE ATTENDEE REQUESTED A COPY AND MS. WESTINE TOOK DOWN HIS ADDRESS. ANOTHER ATTENDEE STATED THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE DESIGN. SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE REASONS THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DESIGN. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF ANY PART OF THE ANTENNAS WOULD PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE BRANCHES. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT IT WOULDN'T. THE ATTENDEE THEN STATED THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE INDUSTRY AND THAT THE DESIGN WAS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SBA ATTEMPTS TO FIT THE DESIGN TO THE AREA AND Page 3 of 4 Packet Page -106- 10/13/2015 9.A. DESCRIBED THAT THE MONOPINE DESIGN WAS SUPERIOR TO A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE THE n. FLAG WOULD GIVE THE TOWER A MUCH LARGER PROFILE THAN THE MONOPTNE DESIGN. MS. WESTINE THEN OFFERED HER CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE ATTENDEES AGAIN IN CASE THEY HAD ANY FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS AFTER THE MEETING. MS. WESTINE RE- ITERATED THAT SBA WILL BE BOUND TO THE DESIGN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. MS. WESTINE STATED THE TIME AS 6:35 AND ASKED IF SHE COULD CLOSE THE MEETING. HAVING NO OBJECTION, SHE DID SUCH. Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -107- .-r 30 HAPLAr,,� Packet Page -108- 1 0/1 3/201 5 9.A. 10/13/2015 9.A. Reisch[Fred P.lchard Eddy [richardteddy @gmail.com] sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:49 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Proposed Bailey Lane Tower Dear Naples Zoning Commission, I am son of the fourth property owner in Poinciana Village, 3019 Poinciana Drive. I am strongly against the proposed cell tower in my backyard for many reasons: 1. It will reduce property values. 2. It is a health hazard. 3. It is ugly as sin. 4. It than -es the community from a residential neighbourhood into that to of an ugly commercial one. These cell towers should be restricted to be along super highways and not in residential neighbourhoods. In Sweden home of Nokia, they no long build cell towers but use different technology to transmit mobile phone signals. Why cannot that be done here? Richard Eddy X019 Poinciana Drive .aples, Florida 703- 303 -4719 Further I find that building the tower in the midst of a low income residential area a particularly cowardly act. When I asked at the meeting at Fleischmann Community Centre, if they would build the tower in Grey Oakes, everybody but me laughed? For Naples Zoning Board to approve such a property value depreciating tower in a poor, under represented neighbour hood because the voice is low, is indeed a travesty. Packet Page -109- 4 a 0 O � G O a� 0 a-i Packet Page -110- 0 10/13/2015 9.A. Co LO 0 LQ E W � v FL _ O N ■ , X 0 i< � I:F;3:LL Co c Z �o 0 OZ >r 'N Ln `o °oTuir� E 0omv 0- c N G � v Z 00 It CL J LL 0 0 CCtf m O o 07 M O O LO a w_ s O to Y O O O O! L O Q L E O L to Q M J J W Q J A O O CV M E6�} 0 ai Packet Page -111- 10/13/2015 9.A. CD LO o L E Co rn _ I 2 d N U).5 C s ■` ! W � Q @� G L N O O o Z W ' O Ir O NtC) E I? CO 0 N ti 03 z Co C,r OD Y �r W Co Cl) � lL O G ti* O O 6i Co C N � id.0 Y U 31 O O m CO O O O) I F � — � � � � 2 — � _ ■ � � 2 .� � 0 0 � q Packet Page -112- 10/13/2015 §.A. Co q 9 E @/ 38 E=3 /» i±CO EU3 \)§ Z& §\G o z > 3_ T S\ G 0 ) c /— \ � \ R z CU �§ \Cu \ \73 {\\ §E j 2 E =3 \ U W Im r+ N W O O tl� C c6 � J U O O U O i 4•. d L Lo 0 T- U. N d Z d C J d Co 0 0 N M Packet Page -113- 10/13/2015 9.A. 00 to E J � n W F- °O o ttj 2 0 N _:55, U� 0 0z' >� iromv 0 Lo N N 'S z T � C!1 00 V Co M n- J y a u- a 3 c M o Co o, 1 Y ca a o 0 mm 0 0 M LO w r+ N w C O O t1f N B J O U O O i O 9 EM � r J J U- W N Q C J A d m Q Q N M Packet Page -114- 10/13/2015 9.A. Co LO o W 0 Co a _ O N N ■ ; IC (� x L Z OD C O j 10/13/2015 9.A. {'s ¢nppppj qq W ri � U. € al T 11 EEPBI� du�a3$9g��Yk � E & H ■ Z e� ' NF ST 8 �0 p fill s% s a a C s 2 8 ° 1 HIMV; F " o g CO m o I W v m m a D z �) u ��(( a m a i a l Z2 W ii 94 �N 9t � W a p Dm- o m N�$ U g s 9 u o Z `y Z \I F'iz JR ri w N F �yz�7 2 U R�& iwn I >J C N a' w 3 T ad ^� 4 ri v €�+ 4= a M_ J OJ F 0 IL W w !'N7 Z Ca —`,SZ � is Airport Pulling Rd �`� 7aka. u >GrcF yw�y D4od m gig ® �`'f g a �� tom p d�U Nna CCW �° 6 W W Q z -� $MlYlnlnlu��/ ti� •a pp5 i Wat �C�i.�ZU1 -�� 4 Q u �aN 'a W W W O U1 =tam osia ae U gad Z m a Y n a 0. L 6 Vl O U ,ou' y�.v H agi mog wiz a C UWD� '+� Q�8 om Ui �p Rill Wn u \ ttXO'�2 G l''. H a W Yi U 3 S S VVV Y O .8 a r w .' no lft wcinm -a ure-• ,+..�r,..+am.- .......� - .,mc,�,.,� Packet Page -115- n N 10/13/2015 9.A. m Rhi 6iSsyE:¢89a s~� �5 ozi °. •pp W �j� 0 In O Q E944¢b ^i .gg0 5C A r{Yr.z1 BQp� °a v✓LL ^ Z h- Z rc " r� n � m EE ..S @x m n m m w rt o z m� WAG a E E o. 4C z �¢ d Ind O m a,s ;s= =ooa o° z-.h ...-M. awas� v3H X mda W d =s 2 iii>ti1�"��'G 6M6��ffi11.��d��G��J��u G�a6SSw�uu ,4iW�ESuwt'.�YE:d�SGei�tY$i�� y 2�� Z ° �� 1 o �m C W ei 3 �a.E m'� 12.F . i� w° = Qe' -oo ,°rc us Wc� or '-0. >'�"!cg< rc Fim_z9 ai oLF3WN €�m �FOZ$SS�gm�3 O¢_F� ¢& wD aUw6.ti 1/NaO ®Z °Z°W o3W3 N <<RE N 6 R V°I �LFW ZN HE p N� dOc�$�OZ�y¢i��Q a� Zr m�S �d °z ��J . m r � Y,{g4goaa azz��'UZm yiiw u t wi `'7 j2 <aU.`gw5dappwu 'u.5rct'. W,$5 W0. rµtg2 a iSm UU �<p G¢�p¢S °¢ y,3 �m O4 ily�lZd ZZO p�j� c.0 Z9 R< -- Y's I. Z 9'.HHHMU%S w z m" ° Z' w W G N 0. m �.�aOC� °�OaOWf aW0 g z� imO m� 5�zS E °- °¢oi u�o ¢ ^g ¢v p °� z ��Lgqam "�g3Fsa'm yl '°^Jucza`c%c+�'Pu'k'g'b'�n rzpWVp�' 7loiffw�z~ E+ oo z�z _p�o�W 5 =fie S� 1p' 0� qo _ Rai - O ¢ $jSS Ga Q U¢m G p° r26Z ° I °mtiL I�6 ovia, -7 $ �soot°sa <3na �m� -u213. uct maw `^ H Z 410 8@H m �Py"6�i�FxSn$u _ of n • �.., wmai a"rsnrm ..v;,i�a -a urm -.", w.n•s+•.�m»,. �.we vas ..wm�n.ws �,nroy..n�.evw.rtumwv,� Packet Page -116- r b k b Y i to T, a N 10/13/2015 9.A. I m, I ¢ _ Packet Page -117- 3i- a•ttsD R g 4i .9 gqggpBg q ii �€ Y w o gn V1� WZ �' B yy N i g Z �AiSS 1 r a, i Sg MH i Y [M •^ -z ¢ fF g835� FIE s: s E m m m �• n it - old M. � N�Nm Y W g < v G 3 GdC F x � lip rw"u o , �-"E o$w a 0 A30 1 o � � zi �a °�oJ� mrc 'J' � • "ifiUCw°i �IC �g�g i.� ° LLO �iti� O & U nWwzw aaa�waww tSo z o n ci a o .wam zx o 'a ig-,�' a Bnm aF x o uu W z �zo2wj� QQ °ii 'you U] Z p FQ$n ;z a' s dig § 1rik rci $OVuO >ftu' 0 oc z U< F �a °oFrc�so�'�aQ'EYQou �UFO�nZ`3 <�ssz� x �€ U gg$G��a Gn5'S- E��'�7owyFy� Zoz°'zw aw 1zD�oazzrco�& g� W�FLap yna ?I €QIFFdz f`jP�1' S£sai x5. °O4Jy O <�Ow pm�QQ^ <K /O�Rm ypp Z. �� S "SCOC 8.5�"Kdg Y~gCd F -�OE1 NaLLquOKm r< O�BUOJ ti� °u �jWaa °�j �pZp G. CCS F�,j,°CCG UL�Uy U 2K aO � � �s�Goy u�`Z'�`�U2$ oy� NU O'S AR! q U<w 2 Ciw. °�" erc'nz F �LLLL� i -5 °z °Lv � �az.F•7 LL�gg uo$o n ;4 �iY "�Z3 N, 9,p <� ° crc k' awD°o�^�n !w �u�� !29 --Rga qu8P $ i2nu-Z "{�=$9�t rc�d"S �ua.SSW 4,`� t55 <€ rR z i r$^�i �rn�Nt �a e'� d 3"$a gg�°$�Qu ' ai l iiw Pi rc< a$ �Ga�'a ��ax TWA. w 'qa Sin €m? M.a8LL 5 acp''iii .. .. _ N h VIA "$ VIA $� F;� y,Y UDUg. uz 0 z< `� Wy Elpg +h2wk �z= ° r- W.3wu p ��£yG� Rm �d� c s �� <g <LL SONS '� 3�<°F ma' <��r fi" �xO q'i m� 4i5 l� rc n o A'S >. �[ °¢Q ��. �K /E,,, yVy FI iDauc�`�!yy,¢ ?�w�G yN Uz 3�$J ° N.DFrc 7dd nN-S�Qi.y ri °o2i2p ZZ S PEN " -� FzNPZO� Qin c� ttttY a1KKJ< Qt >4_i plvW <"8�° a1D�OWh �wwO'6yV OZ °2i r PVT. zz H" G 6�i LLa<ZZUUa 2w� E"� iE OEo x2 -�x 8. Nx .Pi�Z =~ M L ZF. °Z 2 w w o= U Td ✓rNmz G um ?az� rcN�'m ff €€g�SsyE< ux��"��n��4 °Q<iZs��po dk < °< �� rj w (l Ba < '= <� _ < °Lx ��jj<y�F6 u¢42 �Sm "�m El nOZ _�� °G3 °aw 6i3 5:1OQ z YZO ZUZZOV6BZ >mnpU�ui lS -rJ �p -� "�o�4J�Q"OO�++yi °il.a CrcmZ WO?..]UZIV1 SW wv Qzp qyY�- {'op�sp�» WZUK VIZU��o sm�� ==gym¢ €a w�rrp °Goaa -n UNO?6VLL €n ,In6 ,NNS � <NU�fN"m ?VN ¢� <� <= G o Oa q49 o ° "�u � C oGl1nnsr^� Mk z E. mFSt°J Ci 1��° r� D CZ n m Ng X�U� � .N= y ©-H 'CM.AiFFFyM Zw << DEfr WAy ".��"giq�ZC °� ��. •��0 <d nk Og ga�N ZFn 'Wq� ipgCg A4 aW � >v�i ff€ <i� O ��u,d°ad° 3 zG °Z; ?H ��iR QQ�� °z° Fa�Gzg a;� nN F � eG6 6 o L¢" v� <x��y�U�N�0. dVkY rc n< 4E 2Ra6F &Z w -Tk t>m =a'z'p F capm �iuZs. °w WAa 6 �� o °9'��n sq�y iiJi ZZ� s SSp 'm� a yy� zs rc aOC �.1'Y ¢wi� FJJ F.rV .° U FFt1N NS ON p O KpK /� t; "fin Uxf361a W w H O.ii1� Z Kw TW Z 4 I;4 �1 pU ME °k' u�� 99 o fn O��. -Fis. �14M FaS�a� ao yE Zi �oY pzpd "��Up° °o¢�JJ O$�Zp �rc o °�jrcsq' WS "rc z �'�GgD�'F BaG adav yy�a�Nm.D .:LiO zc°,z, P`ia e'°9 "o ;nYk�ov� rcW a�. ��$ �S� ~Gnu_uga�,�$ €o.gNN$N$N$,,,,o:G °xsN�ggU��°"ou�$G4h Or c8i?rE3�C3kss�n"�3�€'arvt�a�n�a ayWgpm� F_E 8�$ fd�x�aofaa�two�° Mu3d$ Packet Page -117- 10/13/2015 9.A. In 1 1 m I < §:68�j �?0 3�gg� � 4 � � s �� g�7.! yr a t6eB RIN dLLBg g rs C C g�g C ° pp �6v� ag N2 CO G =� f Ro Grc�a u S EM p .. NZ Z 111-01 Y CO 0 p S p r gg _ d x❑ a� i ~ O It OO alLOr Q h Z�� urco 1j6� �tli mod ;j'� sZW¢a tn�°SOta KOz M oP, 8 Cfl w z'6'W 9 FNU 1iq °� �nylo�E` iF11 -Uy�N oOFw �g?Sq$qw� O�zk �S K uq>ws V a „d"q FFO°i 0 J p 4 � NzW€ g qp � F Cow$ Q b °o °`d °�"� 0 °`uYioa�r'6 =4 4i€ bawl' �oo� LS�zSQg U � Ov�O fNwN¢ RJ os �o ion Si aZg L fiuoo rids o. .ia�4°'' c:�a.x.S °u ,nan°x �.a wmm swc!nno an,c�re -� mrar+ -i wa�+a.m�.+. •me v®- .aone�.w.v e�nv.e�ne..+��.� =ma�wv... Packet Page -118- 1 t N 10/13/2015 9.A. sfaya st I e °e�3: ��so3k "� @ Zxg m wx $ 1 i b a$ 6 0 a <a � O P� vV O �tl II �1 ... wr tlwtliava .... Ins-..,.-- or.-, ��a...,•.. �........ e. �- :�In.,»�sl��ro,n�rlrt..waatlwnn� Packet Page -119- u I 1 m 10/13/2015 9.A. f k w veer clat/[Vm �Ya'cfx'�flY'R'�.1.1+�A+�M.Vpw WbY6- �nzu \Mn iLL11�IMAmJ1.Mt \Pxrt.+�mVV�1 Packet Page -120- eo- ID M N i ��s a �r I E_ O1 08 m�S a� p J a Wy a a a 84 1.E l I � � O � a��S�Re�u q f � u s a •� o � �2 adza�u FF >� m n m N e n N- w °K a'g a om� -SH ^Uj Z�NU< �v 4�N?NrKm'ygjoQWO�o �IO xowpUOwo V paH U ) OV�Z Y Vm �.aY \O�FW <N< .'tyi . l62 i ♦�w \lrj6 Oa 8L)% FWn i U<'a m 'r6rjOF 1fi rlI LLO6 � U ZU F Wp x 0 >Y —n 03 slim 6 O ��. LT^ °O`-F =�2�m Y� ZW \a W m r O w S Y N K X w <i16 O"LTiw2� O��wN �VI IzyW p 1il UFV <� � �KwW O ��\�6�maa ^zri"� 6x =F� m °d zj�� 'wwJ �ffaCC€ S O Ow Z g 8 pO m ,crKx °b�'w',Nr�NWx�.o v<, nrcrcra�rc °ZZ��c�'`zW.gN warcorc 5S'N�,r <<_UOa 5 ^ O�z�ONWm��+O� � im W�ra�� S N�ZV£�oJ��N.F rN mO�wOg Y�°VIO W W = �iiOO� ��a�gwxW�m. ~m� � 7pO�Wm. <go4 w�]�N ^$roman lN°ya �wFinaNOG,q, I�i° DQ¢ N � a�o�� z Z¢SO p C G�N�wiWIJi.6 � >{� Z .- �c��ZL�g w rWuo�W�aw °w7'��W WX p�"a wrcFrc 3 �w O?O¢N U -iWO J aQ €v$ wiz m` �w '�' oo.-i MHO uzNnzd �z��' <z�`.ri u°dw .-., r000u -Ka aL °oZomTF uRumi i oc�H'ezb < �y og'oNZ uzNNo�zra�z�WSfiGg GSrc �ci h yy %4021- 6N33� UW<NPYi. V �WL1 tiW IVIw gH�lzYa 'pw °�® .�rrpmlK -.g YO ZF3 �N4.vv11 myg VZ n 0�� FmU1.Z I; Z � zLL Y O° N� << al- nF OKK O NOWZ NOK� N °my, O 1F1. T O OnNm w� iyyY � �ypy; In ��0. -QO. 6 rD4 VSO 2WVIW 11��Kd yyI` �N Sam \o °w °s €°z ou g'I°J� or sg`WK)a \ii az ova €<: Z O•-mYt �li 'CF4 .Z.w €�KwH4r Z� rL�' �� > `F u °°�ONZ Ko aHNWm UZ¢2W2 U� r -NN�.p YNI WNUN ¢¢a =W O ¢¢ �j 2WpNwO�pN�w� tpil <<' wN vai 1<= ; F viWUw WC� Om4 � �Z =Z= OK TW. ca�z�.g Krc u� °dN �jm ply Z.� at \1'e yS - �� CZ7,j�puu j"•Yruk ^ -VI-�K � wY��pW WO o FW W FOOrZ -u r� b'Uvl^ 2Lt Z F W Opt -v°i i ° -Z OOUPh, m1OU ` z551U 0 C �gYm l Pa G 9. aUN�qq .m� zOpla U � BN lu a w Ow N N V 2w 2 v1 g W �> W Z 3 6 9 4cs�wOo "'a' z°nwrcCi._E� ro z� as N ugx o �o -zrz m o # z a4 Imo �aZmZ� {{.. ow z� �{ZZm � uuWW nn ' xmuW A CgiN� S ^O SawW <�a d; ZJJ 44.. ra °�Fp {iyl .-K �Iwi1F� Z2OO1U 9a° $gi-C�F a F �Z m6b WW ZUZ aCIYO ,2 �ZZC v O Qi aS \ YJ P Y� O 0g6 °� iF .- �IiiiU d TF �K U6 cw]�FT ream wl6N nFTr U3OmU0 m°LZ ��i�,°i cr2 w veer clat/[Vm �Ya'cfx'�flY'R'�.1.1+�A+�M.Vpw WbY6- �nzu \Mn iLL11�IMAmJ1.Mt \Pxrt.+�mVV�1 Packet Page -120- eo- ID M N %—IN, 10—IN 10/13/2015 9.A. fn FE 3� OR Will b S M "j;- o WgMI m �b < I s a 8�0° 3i .1 m n n rc) ♦ M1 N •- 0 2 f L °u at _ o NAB o N nip * $ d :_':� m N — lo - '9 � �# i•LLO- � � {,- 1 � � � Z _ li � i) I A {�OI�/ tiz<< m� , g n q W H I I I S i �4 A Nmna iaodav — and 2� L < 6 ��ao�W Ya i *�� • rR 3.gZ� =5?gg�w 0 Uff � F � � O e Yi w yr il w = •i In v M n — .5 190.583'— ; 90' W9:F 3I ON (190' 1 tld 1N3Wd oS2 F Ir�w F g9 ~ << Z N O a Mf LL Li QZ nN y use d�n Qm t C13 � � v Packet Page -121- O Mi o r %yF�F3 O m g Y� d ri Packet Page -121- m TIM 0 U Q �jY57� IL MAI p� z -.1 m 3ej tl h tl tl ♦. A N � O g < U 6 Ai �rc��A�U €p 4 � i� o �z w 1/ I/ gg n 1 71- p� ti2 -7 OO�h a7 W a 855 �8 y pppZ µ¢ &gs D=WW up o� c� o i f . a 1p <o y� op�o �$o <w ¢a =fox a Oo °N nzz a 5 �Ow��Q sW� °F F Z3_Xz W r _;gym LLa °��z cWOJU 00 10/13/2015 9.A. 0 i E- o. ll of AEzEo � Z °� zo W onrc� rc�jo�� =iW NEU!? j.'SJJ�A yc �� O e�z a g a ° _iuya QL^zdm "€ O !&9 N a �m H6 SpOj 'aa� 4j W o� pia H. f . a 1p <o y� op�o �$o <w ¢a =fox a Oo °N nzz a 5 �Ow��Q sW� °F F Z3_Xz W r _;gym LLa °��z cWOJU 00 10/13/2015 9.A. 0 c o a a }t W¢u °p Z 9.12 W �d W� �Nm UN io 5� A M� Q 00 :D 7: 0 O r a� �m sU mw wzi swz /n!tl e.. e�rno -o n�ro -«.. e.,.p�.w..a..� wne rz - .�wriet<ws nnmrw.ex.xsv.�m„iw,.n� Packet Page -122- n N n I fl za� � !2 iii n N a 0 c o a a }t W¢u °p Z 9.12 W �d W� �Nm UN io 5� A M� Q 00 :D 7: 0 O r a� �m sU mw wzi swz /n!tl e.. e�rno -o n�ro -«.. e.,.p�.w..a..� wne rz - .�wriet<ws nnmrw.ex.xsv.�m„iw,.n� Packet Page -122- n N n I /o—N F o r S N2 R N g �ZZ m �NI N ¢4 w= O W= R a` i W rid a M 8 ¢ @ `F o CF?'� • °[tl.�c g k' ci I Z °¢ F o r S N2 R N g �ZZ m �NI N ¢4 w= O W= Q A Y O .rp� OR a 10/13/2015 9.A. gaE�"d`a� 9 a LO �S 0 Y� � G4 O Fo p o n� �G �c BE e a oW �a h o� u� �g X� 3� if2 a� M.a •btoz tioUCi /w ara ci cceo -r Nrra. t.�m^��^e� t.wwa.�� aws l �s�c:«- . +w..�.+t�.�.......a.. Packet Page -123- a` i I Z °¢ � i 1 Q A Y O .rp� OR a 10/13/2015 9.A. gaE�"d`a� 9 a LO �S 0 Y� � G4 O Fo p o n� �G �c BE e a oW �a h o� u� �g X� 3� if2 a� M.a •btoz tioUCi /w ara ci cceo -r Nrra. t.�m^��^e� t.wwa.�� aws l �s�c:«- . +w..�.+t�.�.......a.. Packet Page -123- 10/13/2015 9.A. a u m a MV wBIIt 410VC1/eo �m➢ �P[ WINYYt •+1MPHCm�•.M•mt/N.BY6- mm[ILtW +S CIG�WIaftmM'i4 \HI�i110YV,� Packet Page -124- F s r i n H — a. W � Cl `e' a LU t` Q :ae °�d1g4 jsxx€ s� a .'d��: Q� J Lu &:a� �$Qd15� p 3�� O a r � •i ��b�iYSk Q& C � N pE 8 i i z F� EEEb�x f Q o k 6 ° Co O z T� , 5 �� PS �� 8 cmm \:o . Y •, v, k� as &t L �•q 9 wow m3 w Ci �, .. ��\. \ oc v g. s ei R G� P� fl aoLLi a <° a >OS Kia Ci oYw rini 55 09 ° G coi {J] Tir R•' ,wTi :lj a' C�3¢. Q � �° � mC. �N aw °_ 6� z � b w Ca Haim w 8 °ai 3a Ng 3«`a g W G u �2 u °° a ae �i�aRs Eu H ?K9 55 M f 6 ' °g <4N Rws g N w~ ppg 2�2 � Z �UOZ K- E UT ` O OU �W� -b z W[�]3? Eo i�°f�'W. >ao m U E 0L- WZ YgMWO QzpIl °G OO Z 2 K i>"yN�`. $Ty�wa gw 0.�„ wd. j� U, a4wf j5 QWr au "fm u° Qin¢i ��Wg%n`9 ¢ w,UF.,kmu �=2 NapmZZN� OU °U Smi pew 6IIpU�� tOi¢ o° �q0QO k!9 Ww' -Z 00 �N u ° 6 N 1 a z aMCjjJga w'w .. W Y Tlz_y�m Nm ZOm�U� i2N wO Sp 6.�IJC° UO Nm g4w lv;N wa ¢a g f¢ r ra zoZ>df�tgY�s�f¢o ¢a 'zz tug g] rc<n oN'S may, e�n'�p� BBJj_� a7a E7z 00 oUE� J,O..NW OW -« �[] 7N 4� zo¢ c'CC �•' ffAA CC �yn�b F ?� ��z K6�2 G g o6 Ew '•l N R NG iz zmoN zazz a a��` ozz u w GNUU �1- 3 Z p. a wd C ¢m ¢LL¢V �¢<wz ¢ONa ztJw�a ZNpK6 5 og "ice ¢7 v�U¢2. Ei G°d�un 'o�° izz ¢pz 3�z'ogs z OW�K uF WmK�r 6. Vl Dj�1 ONQ yO H 4 A < 3�<6 a ZR° ON U NO _ Uw - 6, W JJ �!1 s Z .m fD .7 .. E W SSE E jg d� q L$S - wg, Y u m p„l' zPJV u a . �W ¢ � i ` �W° [�6N L! M1M1 ZZ t°., JG U ¢ °�W D O lal. tJJ U �F O$ �p S 2TU U¢ 3 ui OyWK�65 m O �w 3�LL0 �F ��€ �GV VV11 O O S N M. �j9 3° ih as v ¢ Sw¢K- "U�YI ZKVI L« �N ��.g1LL VVU w" l'= �i El o H zi �rc� �d 5n a�iG I 4? Y� ui $ 8n j u�i �. C mi.�Y o i i N�� oSN"iou� tj 3: 0 SIX sJs -'" z �¢w. i W�° a000ja qn g �� zr. ao U X824 H � � °S gY �� M 5 0 zs « _ HE _� °� cwa sos9 eU m MV wBIIt 410VC1/eo �m➢ �P[ WINYYt •+1MPHCm�•.M•mt/N.BY6- mm[ILtW +S CIG�WIaftmM'i4 \HI�i110YV,� Packet Page -124- F s r i n H "—\ 10/13/2015 9.A. D J m 6 ;6Y y. 9 k. i$ V) # s aR�r`atn ai a s n" 1 W a ¢ 8 tl ?$ "�4 es `e a uu§ Q I w Iron @ p C pCp l „3 UD m„ m m• ro„- o z Moll E o g Jt2 &i23 i a a � C w LU Cl W r_ g Cl) CL W W o s W d Q V1 a U m Z c z cW7 3 ro 1 w LL U t0 W U awo z / / //// $� LL cc O °` ° m W Z goG° 'ms's o °s z o ( -------- - - - - -- - - -, w w r a o r z o 1 o�g u'NZ Z¢ w w i u1 y O Q a° Z} Z F- ' Q 5' ` O zd0Y o WQU ME, i W 1Qr/^� p Q W Vl q NLL I Z a L--- -------- ------------ - - - - -- - -- --- F M 3i T� ,., V -. z C i ID 3 lo ❑ N U- a) " L Q m 0w c„ G r v-+ N O t� N LL �� d rE F {Y i t.t_ cm N_ e c ,.� w,o-�� cwzrcwo •wnnvo -e wrcr...,... =m•c,•.�c.••m••n. eve - nouns..., ._nq.++.•nc�r,,s��.«,a.�,io.,n� Packet Page -125- 10/13/2015 9.A. EXHIBIT A WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P U DA - P L- 2012QQQIM 8 Acres Located in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida I73�IL. � . 7�I�<rr•�li r.T.Tra PREPARED r� e.0 Lauralee G. Was" tine, Esa, Mattaniah S. Jahn, Esa. Law Office of Lauralee G. Westine. PA 800 Tarpon Woods Blvd., Suite E -1 Palm-Harbor- FL 34685 Date Reviewed by CCPC 4P49-2--- Date Approved by BCC 4,442 Ordinance Number 942-23 Amendments and Repeal EXHIBIT "A" Words double underlined are added; Words stFUEk- thFeugl} are deleted Page 1 of 15 Packet Page -126- TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION VI EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS Page 2 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word +"„ ^I, +k - uah mr° deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -127- PAGE -2- -3- -4- -5- 10/13/2015 9.A. 10/13/2015 9.A. SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of ` "won, Miller, Batten & Peek, ins.; ?90 Bailey Lane at n Ft Read, Naples FleFida 33942 South Florida Growers Association Inc.: 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103, hereinafter referred to as applicant or sponsor, to develop property located in part of section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson Professional Center. The development of this Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable documents for the following reasons: n 1. The subject property is within the Urban Residential Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's proposed uses as required in Objective 2 of the 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. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.11. and 1. of the Future Land Use Element. 6. The project development is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management as far as is practical in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as may be required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element. Page 3 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -`- -' "--' -" ---deleted. 5/13115 Packet Page -128- 10/13/2015 9.A. 7. This, PUD has been deemed "improved" as defined in the Collier County Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance (90 -23). Therefore, pursuant to Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), this PUD is consistent with the GMP. Page 4 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Wore- -a.......1. aL .L __., deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -129- 10/13/2015 9.A. SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by Wiese,,, Miler —;m " en & Reek, I^^., ^n Bailey aRe at nc..p9Ft Re a ��Pie PleFida 33942. South Florida Growers Association Inc.; 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is described as follows: Parcel 1: NE % of SE'/ of SE % of NE % less east 100' right of way, less north 30' right of way.. Parcel 2: W %2 of SE Y4, of SE % of NE % less north 30' right of way. Parcel 3 SE % of SE %, of SE % of NE % less east 100' right of way. All located in section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Also see Map of Boundary Survey WMBS &P File No. 4G -662. Page 5 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -`- -' `` — deleted. s 13 is Packet Page -130- SECTION III STATEMEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION 10/13/2015 9.A. It is the sponsor's intention to create a professional office park with associated support facilities. 3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCES a. Regulation for development of Wilson Professional Center PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, together with sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and Ordinances in effect at the time of Final SDP application, to the extent applicable ordinances or codes do not conflict with or restrict development rights, development conditions, and development mitigation contained in this document or the Development Order. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. ^ b. Unless otherwise noted, herein or in the Development Order, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of future development order applications. 3.3 LAND USES The arrangement of land use types is shown on the P.U.D. Master Plan. Minor changes and variations in design and acreages shall be permitted at final design to accommodate topography, vegetation, and other site conditions. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of building area thereto shall be submitted to the Development Services Director for approval, as described in Section 3.3 of this document. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirement for water management, roadway pattern, and building unit size and configuration. The usable open space requirement of 30% for the project shall be met. Calculation of open space shall not include small strip landscape islands in the parking lots. 3.4 RESERVATION OF NATURAL VEGETATION AND TREE REMOVAL Clearing, grading, earthwork and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with applicable Collier County Development Codes, and the standards and commitments of this document. Page 6 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Wore- - -'- ` --- —` - -- deleted. 5113/15 Packet Page -131- 10/13/2015 9.A. 3.5 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other purposes as may be needed. Said easements and improvements shall be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. 3.6 EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following requirements of Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code shall be subject to review by the County Engineer prior to construction plan preparation and submittal under a submission pursuant to Section 3.2.7.2 of the Land Development Code. 1. Division 3.2., Section 3.2.8.4.1 of the Land Development Code: Access. (All access shall be in accordance with Ordinance 82 -91). 2. Division 3.2, Section 3.2.8.3.11 of the Land Development Code: Monuments and Control Points: Where such monuments occur within street pavement areas, they shall be installed in a typical water valve cover, as prescribed in the current County standards. Installation of all monuments shall be in accordance with State Statutes and as approved by the County Engineer. 3. Division 3.2., Section 3.2.8.4.16.8 of the Land Development Code: Curb Radii (Reduce requirements from forty (40') foot radius to thirty (30') foot radius at interior street to local road intersections. 4. Division 3.2 Section 3.2.8.3.24 of the Land Development Code: Utility Casings - approved if all underground utilities are installed prior to street construction. 3.7 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Site Development Plan approval shall follow the procedure as outlined in Division 3.3, Site Development Plans, of the Collier County Land Development Code. In the case of clustered buildings, required property development regulations may be waived or reduced provided a site plan is approved under this section. Page 7 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -` _.._�_ .�__.._L _ -_ deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -132- SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.1 PURPOSE 10/13/2015 9.A. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the permitted uses and standards for development within Wilson Professional Center. 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES 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) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of 72,000 sq. ft. limited to two buildings, and subject to the following limitations: 1. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. 2. Medical office uses are limited to a maximum occupancy of 17,396 sq. ft. b) One (11 120' Monopine Communication Tower and Related Facilities 2) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: a) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this district. b) Caretaker's residences in accordance with applicable County regulations. c) Essential services as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code. 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Maximum Number of Parcels: Two building parcels. 2) Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Structures: a) Internal road easement or front yard — 25 feet. b) Side Yard -15 feet. c) Rear Yard — 25 feet. d) PUD Property Line - 50 feet in which no parking is permitted. pl Preserve — zero feet principal and accessory structures. 3) Maximum Height of Structures: Thirty -five (35) feet not to exceed two (2) stories. 4) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000) square feet per building on ground floor. Page 8 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -'- -' ` """_" ---deleted. 5/13Z15 Packet Page -133- 10/13/2015 9.A. 5) Distance Between Principal Structures - Thirty (30) feet. 6) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall be in conformance with applicable Collier County Regulations in effect at the time permits are sought unless otherwise specified in this document. The project shall have a common uniform signage plan. Areas shown on the Master Plan as landscaped shall be landscaped. 7) Prior to development- of any building parcel, a development plan shall be approved in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 8) Tract Coverage Control Limitations and Architectural Control The maximum horizontal area of each tract that may be covered by the principal building, accessory buildings and future additions to either shall not exceed 25 percent of the total area of the tract. The building area does not include parking areas, driveways, loading areas, or sidewalks. All buildings within the Park shall have a common architectural theme and shall be of permanent type construction with a fire retardant roof. Exterior walls of all buildings shall be of exposed concrete aggregate, stucco, glass, terrazzo, brick, or other similar materials. Concrete, concrete block or wood siding, providing they meet applicable fire regulations, are also acceptable materials for exterior walls, but they shall be finished by painting, staining or other processing. Exterior metal clad buildings shall be prohibited. A common architectural theme shall be established for the project and all structures shall be reviewed for conformity by the project sponsors. 9) Si ns Identification signs identifying the name and business of the persons or firms occupying the premises and the name, purpose and description of the overall project shall be permitted. Advertising signs, billboards or other signs except those specifically permitted by the developer are prohibited. All signs shall conform to Collier County Regulations. 10) Utilities All electrical and telephone service shall be brought underground into the site and to the buildings from the nearest available source. Pad mounted electrical transformers shall be n located and screened so as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property. Page 9 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Wore- deleted. s i3 is Packet Page -134- 10/13/2015 9.A. 11) Parkin Off- street parking spaces sufficient to accommodate the parking demands generated by the project shall be provided on the site and /or on the adjacent church property, subject to a suitable agreement between the two parties and the Collier County Development Services Director concerning sharing of parking facilities. Parking areas shall be constructed to Collier County Standards. 12) Maintenance The owner or lessee of any tract in the Wilson Professional Center must at all times keep the premises, buildings, improvements and appurtenances in a safe, clean, wholesome condition, and comply in all respects with all government, health and policy requirements. All landscaping and exterior portions of structures shall be maintained in order to keep an attractive appearance. n 13 Monopine Communication Tower and Related Facilities Development Standards The Monopine Communication Tower, and all related facilities, shall be enclosed by an S' tall, opaque, architecturally finished wall and located on the proposed tower tract. shown on Exhibit "A" The Monopine Communication Tower shall be set back from the PUD boundaries as follows: South 229.5'. West 32' All related facilities other than the Monopine Communication Tower shall be set back from the PUD boundaries as follows South 190.5': West 10'. 14 Deviations Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 3 05 07(H)(3) of the LDC requiring a 25 feet setback for principal structures and 10 feet for accesses structures to allow a zero feet setback for principal and accessory structures in recognition of the then existing Growth Management Plan requirements for native vegetation retention at the time the original PUD was approved which did not require a preserve setback. Deviation #2 seeks relief from the LDC Section 5 05 09 G 2 a which requires a 300' setback for the tower from all residential property, calculated at the height of the tower multiplied by 2 5 to allow a 229.5' setback from residential property to the South. Deviation #3 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4 06 02 C.1., "Buffer Requirements:' which requires a Tvpe A 10 foot wide landscape buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on Page 10 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Wort'-'`-"-'' "" deleted. s/13/15 Packet Page -135- 10/13/2015 9.A. center, to allow a 0 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the communication tower, only as indicated Qn Exhibit "B" viation #4 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.05.B.2.c.. "General Landscapin Requirements," which requires sites without native vegetation to have a 15 -foot wide landscape buffer with minimum code size trees located 25 feet on center and a 3 -foot high hedge planted 3 feet on center, to allow the following landscape buffer widths, graphically depicted hereto on Exhibit-"B," around the tower base: _4 Along the northeast side: a minimum 5 -foot wide buffer for up to 501% of the landscape buffer, W Along the southeast side- -a minimum 4 -foot wide buffer for up to 50% of the landscape buffer. j Along the southwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 5Q% of the landscape buffer. Along the northwest side: a minimum 0 -foot wide buffer for up to 2500 of the landscape buffer. e) Along the west side: a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer for up to 100% of the landscape buffer. Page 11 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Worc' `'- - -'- --- _, deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -136 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE 10/13/2015 9.A. The purpose of this section is to set forth the general commitments for development of the project. 5.2 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS a) Intersection improvements at project entrances shall be provided by the developer. b) The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Road and Bailey Lane when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. c) The developer shall provide street lighting at the project entrance. The operating and maintenance costs shall be assumed by Collier County. d) The primary access to the property will be via Bailey Lane and since the increase in traffic n from the proposed development will increase turning movements, a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane may be necessary. An existing median opening with a turn lane serves the above northbound left turn lane requirement. No southbound right turn lane exists; accordingly a commitment to construct a southbound right turn lane is required prior to the approval of building permits for the PUD. The southbound right turn lane shall be a joint project between the County and the development wherein the County shall be responsible to obtain the necessary right -of -way, by condemnation if required, and the developer responsible for construction of the turn lane, relocation of sidewalk and utilities. Future developments along Bailey Lane shall be required to make a fair share contribution toward the right -of -way and construction costs of this turn lane. These contributions shall be used to reimburse the County for right -of -way costs and this petitioner for construction costs. e) The location of the entrance drive off Bailey Lane shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet west of Airport Road for sufficient westbound vehicle storage to eliminate delays and conflicts at the Airport Road /Bailey Lane intersection. f) An internal road exit onto Airport Road may be allowed subject to design approval by the Engineering Department with the condition that the County retains the right to close off the curb opening should traffic accidents and /or unsafe conditions develop on Airport Road as a result of exiting conditions. Mountable curbing shall be provided on each side of the median for a distance of 100 feet in each direction from the exit. Page 12 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Wore- --1, +" " — deleted. 5113/15 Packet Page -137- 10/13/2015 9.A. g) The above improvements are considered "site- related" as defined in Ordinance 85 -55, and shall not be applied as credits toward any impact fees required by that Ordinance. h) In accordance with Ordinance 85 -55, requiring development to contribute its proportionate share of funds to accommodate the impact of proposed development on area roads; the developer of each parcel or their successors or assigns, agrees to pay road impact fees in accordance with the ordinance, at such time as building permits are requested. i) Bailey Lane shall be reconstructed as a boulevard section along the frontage of the project and tapered to meet existing pavement. j} The internal street shall be designed to avoid any conflicting turning movements into the individual parcels by configuring the proposed islands to eliminate any possible conflicts. k} A sidewalk shall be provided along at least one side of the internal road and along Bailey Lane from said road to Airport Road. 5.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL n Arrangements shall be made with the approved solid waste disposal service to provide for solid waste collection service to all areas of the project. 5.4 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. The PUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" "" rMille�ter,Sell & Peek, ine., DFawing File Ne RZ 154A) is an illustrative preliminary development plan. b. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood as flexible so that that final design may satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Acreages shown on the PUD Master Plan are approximate and subject to changes to accommodate final engineering plan. c. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. d. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to the County Development Services Director's administrative approval. Page 13 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -` -' `' - ----deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -138- 10/13/2015 9.A. e. Landscape buffers shall be provided along the south property line and along the north property line west of the project entrance as identified here: 1. South property line; 6' woodcrete fence set in 5' natural vegetation buffer. 2. North property line; west of project entrance 10' buffer consisting of natural vegetation. f. Outside storage areas shall be screened from adjacent properties. g. Only three (3) road accesses shall be provided, two from Bailey Lane and one from Airport Road as controlled by the Engineering Department. 5.5 UTILITIES a. A central water supply system shall be made available to the project. The water supply source for the project shall be the city of Naples system. b. The project shall be served by an approved, on -site or off -site wastewater disposal facilities system. c. Any establishment requiring a CCPHU permit must submit plans for review and approval. 5.6 WATER MANAGEMENT The Water Management Advisory Board considered the referenced petition during its regular meeting of July 8,1987; and had no objection to its approval with the following stipulations: a. A Master Water Management Plan and detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the County Engineer for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the County Engineer. If there is a problem with the Staff Review of the submitted plans, the project is to be brought back before the Environmental Advisory Board. b. Prior to the initiation of any project construction, petitioner shall verify that the "Poinciana Village- Gordon River Outfall" has the capacity to accommodate project discharge or make appropriate improvements to the swale system if deemed necessary by the County Engineer. No building permits for the project will be granted until Collier County has secured the necessary easement or agreements to permit the above described improvements. The project sponsors shall contribute their pro -rata share of the cost of acquiring a 30' easement for the 660' section of the outfall ditch currently in need of maintenance. 5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS a. Site clearing permit review procedures shall be in accordance with section 3.9.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. b. The use of native species in landscape plans shall be in accordance with section 2.4.4.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 14 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Word- -` -- ---deleted. s i3 is Packet Page -139- 10/13/2015 9.A. c. Prohibited exotic vegetation removal shall be performed in accordance with section 3.9.6.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. d. Procedures regarding any historical or archaeological sites identified shall be in accordance with Section 2.2.25 County Land Development Code. e. As portrayed in the revised preliminary site plans dated July 7, dry retention /buffer areas surrounding the parcel will be an average of at least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry retention /buffer areas should incorporate retention of the maximum amount of native vegetation possible, and final designs will be subject to the review and approval of the Project Review Services Environmental staff. f. Landscaping and internal /surrounding buffer designs could incorporate the sabal paim- myrsin hammock (northeast corner ), the oak four -plex and, through design or transplantation, the oak saplings and sabal palms. g. Petitioner should investigate using rock or paver bricks for roadways and parking lots in lieu of traditional use of asphalt paving. Page 15 of 15 Words double underlined are added; Worc' deleted. 5/13/15 Packet Page -140- Z D v r M 0 ro Ln ca K m r+ m N w N 0 10/13/2015 9.A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92 -23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, TO ADD A 120 -FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES, ADD DEVIATIONS RELATING TO PRESERVE SETBACKS, COMMUNICATION TOWERAND RELATED FACILITIES SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, AMEND ONE ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA- PL20120001128] A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and C9 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 based. If you area person with adisabilitywho needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112- 5355, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Off ice. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk (SEAT September 2: Packet Page -141- No. 695517 NOVE"E3R 17, 1987 the Clerk, public hearing was continued from October 13, and November 10, 1987 to consider Petition R- 87 -14C, Nilson, Miller, Barton, Soil ; Peek, Inc., representing Raymond w. Miller, Trustee, requesting a rezone from A -2 to PUD known as Bailey Executive Park, a professional Office Park. Planning /Zoning Director McKim stated the parcel is located on the southwest corner of Airport Road and Bailey Lane and consists of 7.8 acres. She displayed a zonino map and outlined surrounding land uses. She stated that Staff has found this particular piece of pro- perty difficult to analyze since both multi - family and low intensity office uses are found to be appropriate. Fors. McKim stated that Staff recommended the following changes to the original PUD document to ensure development of a limited, low intensity office parks 1. The uses rhall be limited to professional offices, excluding medical offices. 2• A one acre minimum lot size with a maximum of'four parcels with only two having direct frontage on Airport Road and e maximum of 80,000 square feet shall be permitted. �• Setbacks and buffers proposed shall be better defined. 4. Na outside storage of commercial and recreational equipment Will be permitted unless surrounded by sufficient landscaping so it cannot be seen from adjacent properties. S• Building should have a common architectural theme and uniform signage o. not of the property shall be usable open space which shall landscaped islands in the parking lot. lo.s. McKim said the petitioner has submitted a reused PUD document which meets all of the above recommendations and has gone even further Page 4 10/13/2015 9.A. Packet Page -142- ■ 0 ,�w.i�5� 10/13/2015 9.A. NOVEMBER 17, 1987 r in limiting the office square footage to 65,000 sq. ft. Mrs. McKim stated that based on the revised PUD, Staff has no objections to the Petition. She stated that the CCPC has forwarded this petition with a recommendation of denial on a 4/2 vote. She noted that at the CCPC hearing 3 people spoke in favor of the petition and 3 people spoke in opposition, citing strip commercialization, incom- patibility with residential neighborhood, and property value depre- ciation. She added that at this time 191 letters of support have been received and two petitions containing 125 signatures in support, 33 letters and two petitions containing 173 signatures objecting to the 4'l rezone. t Mrs. McKim stated the recommendation to the Board of County r Commissioners is to deny this petition in accordance with the CCPC recommendation. Mr. Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll Peek, Inc., displayed an aerial photograph of land uses in the area, stating that Bailey Lane already has a mixture of land uses. He stated their objective is a wooded campus setting for their offices incorporating aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding land uses. He said the primary access to the property will be from Bailey Lane and the exit on Airport Road, and the four sites will have access from the internal road. He continued by stating that the site has a very dense cover and affords the opportunity to save vegetation and create a wooded setting. He said they have agreed to a 50 ft. buffer system with 803 Page 5 Packet Page -143- - -- ax. 10/13/2015 9.A. NOVEMER 17, 1967 Opacity along the south, west and north boundaries, excluding the area of access. He stated the buildings will have a common architectural theme, common lighting and landscaping, and uniform signage. He added they will be able to ensure these measures because they will be responsible for the planning, design and construction of the project. Mr. Reynolds stated they have worked closely with Staff and deve- loped a number of development restrictions. He said they began with the professional office district of the County and then ndded restric- F Lions to the use permitted on this piece of property. He distributed copies showing the differences between these standards. Tape /2 ` Mr. Reynolds then shoved a rendering of the improvements that will .7 be made to the entrance of Bailey Lane. He stated they have designed r a right -turn lane on Airport Road, a deceleration and left -turn lane Y i on Bailey Lane into the entrance of Bailey Executive Park. He said iy there will be a landscaped island median with a sidewalk crossing on Bailoy Lane and two east bound lanes, one for turning north and one 1 for turning south. Mr. Reynolds stated that no s pec.fic reasons mete stated for the• CCPC recommendation of denial, however, the two primary concerns were the possibility of a medical use and no stated architectural defini- tion. He said that these concerns and well as others from Staff have + been addressed and the PUD document has been changed. He requested that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval to their peti- Page 6 iUJft7.526 Packet Page -144- •��sasa 10/13/2015 9.A. ow lWom V NOVEMBER 17, 1987 tion. Responding to Commissioner Piator, Mr. Reynolds showed a picture of the type of architecture for the building. He said there are no plans at this time to connect the church parking lot with theirs, however, it could be done with no difficulty if that became a require- ment. In answer to Co.Raissioner Saunders, Mr. Reynolds stated the lighting along the entrance drive and parking lot will be low level lighting designed not to glare on other properties. Mr. Tom Peek of Wilson, Hiller, Barton, Soll S Peek, Inc., stated they have been in business in Collier County for over 30 years and are currently housed on the corner of Airport Road and M.- archantile Avenue. He stated they have outgrown their office and their lease will be expiring in 1989. He stated it is necessary for then to move and they ere eager to have their own building. He said the.property on Bailey Lane was purchased in December, 1986 and they own it outright with no contingencies. He then introduced the 13 stockholders of Wilson, ` Miller, Barton, Soll b Peek, Inc. He stated that before they purchased the property they knew it was essential that the new faci- 4 lity be compatible with Poinciana Village to the south and the Nazarene Church to the west. i� Fir. Peek stated they will have a stornwater retention system in i accordance with the S£WMD consisting of shallow swales along the Peri- meter of the property. He said there will not be a retention lake. r ;; He noted that in the traffic improvements being made, there will be no Page 7 f Packet Page - 145 - 10/13/2015 9.A. i NOVEMBER 17, 1967 w entrance from Airport Road, but rather an exit only. He added that the road improvements being made will also alleviate a sight distance problem existing at Bailey Lane today. Mr. Peek stated that he would like to address the four issues on this rezone that hav* come to their attention. He said the first issue is whether the rezone for professional offices would cause strip commercial zoning along Airport Road. He displayed a map showing the existing development and zoning on Airport Road from Pine Ridge Road to Golden Cate Parkway. He pointed out that all the vacant land on the east aide of Airport Road is owned by the Barron Collier Company and what happens to the subject property will not affect what that company wants to do with their land. He said the only other Piece of property to be developed is further to the north on the west side of Airport Road and that property can be restricted the same as the subject property. He noted there is no retail commercial in their request and it will not be permitted, and therefore cannot be used as a precedent for retail commercial. fie noted that their request is the mast restrictive non - residential PUD he has seer in Collier County irl 7. 20 years. ';. Mr. Peek stated the second issue is drainage and showed another asap of their property, Poinclana village and the drainage outfall canal. He said Poinciana village was designed in the early 1970's and contains a roadside drainage system which !s piped to the exterior of rrr the subdivision vfhere an existing ditch receives the water which flows Page 8 M i �O. n[. �_�� Packet Page -146- WNEMBL'R 17, 1987 to the southwest corner of the subdivision and then flows to the south. Taps 13 Mr. Peek advised they invited Poinciana Village residents to an information meeting where the residents advised there is a drainage problem. He said they pledged their support in identifying the problem. He advised they have found that the ditch located at the southwest corner of Poinciana village is on a parcel of land on Coach House Lane and the County does not have an easement and does not maintain the ditch. He stated that, based on the information gathered during Hurricane,Floyd, they have calculated that 1 ft. of headloss was experienced through the blockade in this section of the canal. He said that if the easement were existing and the canal was clean, the water in Poinciana Village would have been about a foot lower and would not have been in the strut. Mr. Peek stated they do not with to further the drainage problem in Poinciana and have stipulated in the PVD document that Wilson, Miller, Barton, Sall t Peak, Inc, will not be able to get a Building Permit until the County acquires the easement and the maintenance work is complete on that section of canal. He added that, regardless of the outcome of their petition, the water situation in Poinciana Village cannot be permitted to exist. County Attorney Cuyler advised that the owner of the parcel which contains the ditch has another matter in litigation with the County. Packet Page -147- Page- 9 10/13/2015 9.A. 10/13/2015 9.A. KN M8ER 17, 1967 He said the County may have to consider eminent domain procedures for the tasesent. h After further discussion, Commissioner Saunders suggested that the r Board consider directing the County Attorney to begin eminent domain q procedures on the property. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Peek stated that they would 1a contribute to obtaining the easement. A Mr. Peek stated the third issue is the potential effect on pro - perty values in the area. He said the proposed building and limits - x tions on it will not have a negative effect on the property values. He said that to put this assessment on a more professional basis they hired the firm of Carroll G Carroll to determine the effects similar types of uses and building have had on similar neighborhoods. He stated Carroll L Carroll studied four areas having similar con- figurations figurations over y period of time before construction and after completion. He quoted from the second page of Carroll 6 Carroll's reporti "Based on the results of this study, it is my opinion that the c market data review does not show there to be any diminishment in the value of nearby property from the construction of commercial buildings at the intersection of the residential streets and major thorough- fares." He added that their building is the type which has been placed at some of the highest level residential developments in the E' co=unity. Mr. Peek atated the fourth issue that has been brought up is that j M Page 10 iQ�r•s 530 Packet Page -148- -ti f 10/13/2015 9.A. �a NOVEMBER 17, 1967 Nilson, Miller, Barton, Soll L Peek, Inc. is rezoning this property for profit. He stated they will be building their own offices on that property and not selling it. He reminded the Board that their firm owns three acres at the entrance to Crescent Lakes. He stated that this property was originally selected to hold their offices, however, they soon realized that the property was too small and rather than selling the property as commercial property, they come back to the Board and had it rezoned back to residential. He said Wilson, I Miller, Barton, Soll t Peek, Inc, has not rezoned for personal profit in Collier County. t, Mr. Peek stated that if the Board would like further assurance f that the property will not be sold as commercial zoning, they will agree to a stipulation which states that if Wilson) Miller, Barton, Soll S Peek, Inc. does not place their offices on that-property, it will revert back to A -Z zoning. t. •s. R=83 AT IotZo A.X. RECOXVI= AT lotto A.Z. ®f Tape #t r The following people spoke in opposition to the petitiont pr Philip Schlichting Jim McGrath Bill Kerrigan Joseph Locker, Jr. Dennis Lynch Attorney Jeff Friedkin The following people spoke in favor of the the petition: Rev. Randall Cook Kevin Killilen John Kurke 4` Page 11 F I M 4 Packet Page -149- , NOVEMBER 17, 1987 In response to the speakers, Mrs. McKim stated Staff has found the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She said the one major concern under neighborhood commercial of strip commercial was addressed thoroughly. Mr. Cuyler pointed out that there is a 'Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan' section in the back -up, which is included on every rezone request. Mrs. McKim staled that the existing church confines the subject property to the west and it is also confined to the south due to residentially zoned property. She said to the north *_here is a piece of property zoned C -2 which is surrounded in an "L" shape by A -2 property, and to the west of the A -2 property is Estate zoning, which originally had a provisional use for a nursing home. She stated that by having a provisional use once granted on that property, without major changes in the surrounding area, it can be assumed that possibly that same type of use would be appropriate today. She said the land to the east is undeveloped at this time and is separated by a major road, as well as a canal, and should not impact the use on the subject property. She said Staff did feel that what happens with the subject property is very likely to occur to the north, if it is commercial, however, because of the C -2 zoning, it is likely that the C -2 property would only be appropriate for commercial use, since it would be very difficult to place a resi- 3ential project on such a small piece of property. Mrs. McKim stated that for these reasons, and the confined nature 5f the subject property, it is appropriate for very low intensity com- 10pK Jag PPA 532 Packet Page -150- Page 12 10/13/2015 9.A. I 1T 10/13/2015 9.A. P� iG9nx53� F. NOVEMBER 17, 1967 Nercial use. She confirmed that it is the most restricted PUD the County has seen. Mrs. McKim stated It is true that there is additional zoned pro- perty throughout the County that would allow such use, although there is limited C -1 zoning that allows just offices, however, this fact applies to all rezones heard for commercial, residential, etc. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mrs. McKim stated Staff is recommending approval subject to amendment of the PUD document, which has been completed, however, the CCPC recommendation is the one pro- vided to the Board of County Commissioners in the Executive Summary. Tape is Responding to Commissioner Hasse, Mrs. McKim stated the parcel received high enough points to be developed to a maxim= density of 16 units per acre. She said that often multi- family hnd very restrictive users are seen as an equal impact and possibly the typt of offices being discussed are less of an impact because they are utilized only during the day. She stated that if the parcel were larger, Staff would feel differently, however, it cannot develop into a larger pro - ject because it is physically confined. Attorney Jeff Friedkin, representing Dennis Lynch, stated that he does not disagree with any of the points raised by Mrs. McKim, however, there is a difference between compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that 'consistent" Is a legal term with a strlct definition r Page 13 k .t Packet Page -151- NOVEMBER 17, 1987 r and the recommendation does not may that the request is consistent because it is not. Mr. Eduard Resta spoke in opposition to the petition. Sumarizing his statements, hr. Peek reminded the Board that the property is not currently zoned residential. He said one of the concerns expressed was that zoning was relied upon when property was '7 purchased in 1980, however, there has been a provision for non- residential zoning in every Comprehensive Plan ever written in Collier County. He stated that no reasons for negative votes were given at the CCPC public hearing, however, after speaking to a couple of the CCPC members, their concerns about medical offices and lack of archi- tectural definition were addressed. He noted that he had received letters from two of the CCPC members casting the negative votes. Mr. Cuyler reminded the Board that the individual letters from CCPC mem- bers does not - Tnstitute a CCPC recommendation. Attorney Ceor7e Varnadoe, representing Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll G Peek, Inc., stated ttiat the Board should not be interested in word games. He said Collier County has always used the term "in compliance with the the Comprehensive Plan' and he does not feel that someone can comply without being consistent. Mr. varnadoe stated that the Comprehensive Plan was recently amended to include a definition -strip commercial" zoning. He then read the definition from the Comprehensive Plan, and pointed out why the subject property does not meet the definition of strip commercial. P87,1 14 10/13/2015 9.A Packet Page -152- "�� rte. s4 10/13/2015 9.A. 0"o ' -Tj NOVEMER 17, 1987 Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by commissioner sannders and carried unanimously, that the public bearing be closed. Responding to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Cuyler stated that tradi- tionally in the Staff Report, when they talk about compliance, they are referring to both compliance and consistency, and if they feel there is something inconsistent, they point it out clearly as pert of the compliance section. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by commissioner Pistor, that Petition R- 97 -14C is conaiatent and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted ind entered into ordinance Book go. 29. ORDIX"CE NO. 87 -92 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 62-2 THE 9OMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TiE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 49-25 -6 BY CHANCING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A -2 TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS BAILEY EXECUTIVE PARK, A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PARR, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND BAILEY LANE, IN SECTION 23, TOMINSHIP 49 SoTTA, RANGE 25 EAST, +7.8 ACRES TOTAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Commissioner Saunders stated that although he sees merits in this petition and many improvements will be made to the area, he is having difficulty with the question of invasion into a residential neigh- borhood. Commissioner Pistor requested assurance from Mr. Peels that the property would not be sold as :oam+ercial and is definitely going to be used for their own offices. Commissioner Saunders suggested the four �e .. ys Packet Page 15 4 10/13/2015 9.A. � WYMER 17, 1467 ,t parcels be consolidated Into one parcel. tap• 06 Mr. Bill Barton, president of Wilson, Miller, Barton, 9011 G peek, ' Inc., stated they have no objection to consolidating the parcel. He stated that for growth purposes they say see the benefit of constructing the building larger than presently needed and may lease �+ DOM of the space for two or three years, however, any user would be i restricted to the uses allowed. comLissioner Goodnight amended her notion to include the stipula- tion that fractionalisation of the parcel be eliminated. Cosisissioner Pistor amended his second. Mr. Cuyler pointed out for the record that the petitioner agreed to this stipulation. Commissioner Hasse stated his feeling that this petition infringes on a residential area'and noted there are a great number of people upset about this petition. Vpon call for the question, the notion carried 4/1.(Cosmissioner Sasso Opposed). a. C'Ommiasioner Saunders mowed, seconded by commissioner 000daight saQ carried unanimonslr, that staff be directed to acquire the Jr naoeasary easeaent for the goo ft. of canal at the southvest corner or Boinciana Pillage. item 0622 GORni]q► MN a7 -91, FRTITIOX R- 47 -20C, R026Jt? p. nl"ZXDZMR urn PICZM r RX"2 01TING WXRVXX ENTER_ pRlsZg CoRp. , X.P. , ToR V=oX'E YRAM TENWIS CV]rTER - ADOPTLD WITH Cz"ax Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily New on September 25, 1487 as evidenced by affidavit of Publication filed with IM iC3pjr4 Packet Page -154- P890 16 10/13/2015 9.A. Sabre IndustriesM Towers and Poles April 9, 2015 Mr. Mauricio Agredo SBA Network Services, Inc. 5900 Broken Sound Parkway Northwest Boca Raton, FL 33487 RE: Proposed 145' Sabre Monopole for Bailey Lane, FL Dear Mr. Agredo, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 126 mph with no ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C and Topographic Category 1 in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222 -G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas" and an Ultimate Wind Speed of 163 mph (Risk Category II ), in accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code. When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25 %. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built -in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built -in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the upper portion of the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In the unlikely event of total separation, this would result in the portion above collapsing within a radius of 32 feet. Sincerely, STATE Of Robert E. Beacom, P.E. 'y',�'.Ftr� 1ja3''",c Design Engineer II �tv1A� Packet Page -156-