Loading...
Ex Parte - Solis 01/24/2017 Ex parte Disclosure - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 01/24/2017 9A. Hamilton Place NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings (Correspondence e-mails Calls Alternative disclosure on this item. CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.3. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Benvenuto Court Replat, Application Number PL20160002720. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE (Meetings [iCorrespondence Fie-mails Calls Co bier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001255 HAMILTON PLACE RPUD PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owners: Applicant(Contract Purchaser): Maria Santos Edmund and Betty Poore WCI Communities, LLC 2316 Andrew Drive 7025 Nighthawk Drive 24301 Walden Center Drive Naples, FL 34112 Naples,FL 34105 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Elfrieda H Sutherland Trust Agent: c/o Gayle Ann Durrance 2076 Sagebrush Circle D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Naples, FL 34120 Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. 3800 Via Del Ray Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located east of Livingston Road and south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to sixty-six (66) single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on 9.75±acres. (See location map on page 2) PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 1 of 13 December 5, 2016 AM g ._ > ►l111111111111111® 1111111'- --t a:vc g in= ®®® _ 111®®1 a. 1111 ®® s 3Mtl0 H1LY3000D ,b 6 mg an a CI .�---6it z g 1%O CO i o o i 0. $ 'a — II Q = — g „t Li' <dL g ' m g --A,. LI i j Z ) 1 ' 6-- ® O • LO LO s N w o a (9 0 o on3 , — -0) N— -.---- - -------Th alin LI 1 11 IiiiIimrlinii iiiiiiiii ' ' i,gt , if . c) . 1 6 in- Z U L (B ID O 2 Zei L N C O o O O r ',. +-i O -� J r—ti a_ °- 0 N ^ P1 r ct O >, S G 7 C a23 uoIsfiuinil •— `° 03 o U N Q O N W p cr a) 0) 'O V �I C 0 C7 N 2 N a 6utlind-pod.gv a) E n 0 O 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject project proposes a density of 6.77 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the Hamilton Place RPUD: • North: Single-family residential, zoned Brynwood Preserve PUD (5.47 DU/AC) East: Residential, zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0 DU/AC) South: Multi-family residential (condomimums), zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0 DU/AC) West: Right-of-way for Livingston Road, farther west is vacant commercial, zoned Hiwasse CPUD (291,000 square feet) ' =s"Fn` E- p BALDRIC - q RELATED GROUP �'`..-. .? :.o e^casti >nan 2oning gU 7 �° K r{lASSE BRYNWOOD-, v r-L rl a R V`A Ti 1 tiam to t D R,E`G o a s 4 wr�s ww Pf{ESERVE - E... U� a 4 .�=yy1 „a xl �1 . t"+w+x*rst as gqr Zaeung i•W3D „....„ ....„ ;sj{y, ,, aq �, 5 5t 7t#3�t�a ka ` # a ' KENSINGTON B64:! oo° '' 3r 4''% ,- mo ,. ,� .SPARK €_,x P x s ry a,L N t.r r.+;r ,gg' g RSF-:�O.s#j .-a 2a it PSJ6 b ,.-''� "fir' Pp ro. g2om" a 11iMfiS Y,...a a m+' Y � � {�# e 2.41 R:a a t - Y I PUDE zo,.g.Pr3D, RUNGION I. = WNIPPGORWLLL �' „"t ttx "-2-+ -, �` ,, -,-,4-';:i, a LAKES LAKES ist i{ i � �- �.•':. B r��w;i�:„ lY 0.V� £ t,� s��.w,tt 1A J� 4i� d�C a ;%t � _.'.:r'. ��I�m ki- ''t`] +d t p 't A;Q�t cia ,...Y.-w-1 ae-` hth wk DR r y 6* ? 1.46 LY 4. r N 0 , £b k WAY 4. `F �N ' ,, 'a °x444 F° „y— t'x-Sr P'4O!t ` a WHIPPOORYALL \ i i ood LN ,`Ciq�n` " logg i -•c+� Y }NS * t Y. i s . f°j a f to 'c''.{j �atur � , r[ Datta no P 7R a. +ft *' M rrpos� P. .+ � @'Y 7. EVAN9 .3•' x �fGiR L �. ri CKURGN Of -��. = T' s1 Mac � '� 4 $ ',f , .-CHO ''n AtPt3D.`4i S a • CH' 3 —ate h a_ M©RALI,r4 : g ' e-C' }-.Y1- 2 c ay 3 Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area(Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The property is also located within a mile of the Pine Ridge Road - I- 75 Mixed Use Activity Center(MUAC#10). PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 3 of 13 December 5, 2016 The FLUE provision for the Density Rating System states, If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre may be added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is within the density band, the additional density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project. Density bands are designated on the Future Land Use Map and shall not apply within the Estates Designation or for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area. More than fifty percent (50%) of the project is located within the density band, so the additional density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project. The FLUE Consistency Review provides a more comprehensive analysis of how the proposed project is consistent with the relative objectives and policies of the GMP (see Attachment 3 — FLUE Consistency Review). In short, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AU1R). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links(roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 4 of 13 December 5, 2016 c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of sixty-six (66) multi-family units on the subject property that will generate approximately 43 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Livingston Road. Livingston Road is a six-lane divided facility and has a current service volume of 3,100 trips,with a remaining capacity of approximately 1,624 trips between Pine Ridge Road/Golden Gate Parkway, and is currently at LOS B as shown in the 2015 AUIR. Please note at the time of writing this report the 2016 AUIR was not yet adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (Board); however, staff reviewed this road segment for the CCPC's consideration,finding a remaining capacity of 1,594 trips and the same LOS B. Staff, therefore,finds that the proposed project does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway links, and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five(5)-year transportation planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 0.97 acre of native vegetation is required to be retained for the RPUD. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions,such as this proposed rezoning. 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. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation(commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission • Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 5 of 13 December 5,2016 or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The location of the preserve was selected to retain the highest quality wetlands on-site and to provide connectivity to existing preserves and flowways on neighboring properties to the east. No listed species of wildlife were observed on the property. Air plants (Tillandsia) have been observed on cypress trees within the RPUD and will be retained or relocated in accordance with the requirements LDC Section 3.04.03. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer is proposed along the project's north property line, except in areas depicted as preserve, such as in the northeast corner of the site as well as along the RPUD's entire eastern boundary. A thirty (30)-foot wide access easement runs along the entire southern property boundary. As such,the south landscape buffer,proposed just north of this access easement, is depicted as either a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "A" Buffer or a ten (10)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer, depending on how the subject project is developed. A twenty (20)-foot wide Type "D" Buffer is proposed along Livingston Road. Each single-family lot is required to provide at least one (1) canopy tree. The proposed right-of- way will be wide enough to accommodate trees in connection with a street tree program pursuant to LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1 if it is determined that the lot sizes and building setbacks do not provide enough room to accommodate the requisite trees. It should be noted, however, that this type of detailed analysis to ensure compliance with the LDC will appropriately occur during a subsequent development process. School District: At this time there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle concurrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area of the proposed development. At the time of SDP or platting,the project will be evaluated for school concurrency. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: Water and wastewater service will be provided by the Collier County Water- Sewer District, which has adequate public utility facilities readily available along Livingston Rd. All water distribution and wastewater collection systems shall be conveyed to the District. County Utility Easements shall be dedicated for all utility facilities to be owned,operated, and maintained by the District. Design, construction, and conveyance of the utility facilities shall conform to current Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures. Applicable system development charges and connection fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 6 of 13 December 5, 2016 Zoning Services Review: Staff analyzed the proposed uses and associated development standards. The abutting development to the north, Brynwood Preserve PUD,has been developed with single- family detached dwellings. The PUD Document for this PUD also allows for two-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings. To the south and east, the Arlington Lakes PUD allows single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, zero-lot-line, patio dwellings, and multi- family dwellings. The Arlington Lakes PUD also allows Group Care Facilities (category I and II), care units, nursing homes, and the like. The uses proposed in the Hamilton Place RPUD (i.e., single-family detached, single-family attached, single-family variable lot line, and multi-family dwellings) are comparable and compatible to the uses approved in the aforementioned PUDs. With respect to development standards, staff evaluated the standards of the proposed RPUD and compared them with the standards of the Brynwood Preserve PUD and the Arlington Lakes PUD. The Brynwood Preserve PUD has been developed with single-family detached homes. The Arlington Lakes PUD to the south has been developed with condominium buildings. Staff determined the proposed development standards are comparable and compatible with the development standards of the aforementioned PUDs. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 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 in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject site fronts on Livingston Road. Water and wastewater facilities are located within the right-of-way, and each has enough capacity to serve the proposed RPUD. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting and construction permits. 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. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 7 of 13 December 5,2016 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. As described in the Analysis section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The RPUD is required to provide at least sixty percent (60%) of the gross area for usable open space. No deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e.,GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies,to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 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. No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD. PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 8 of 13 December 5, 2016 Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. There are no other RPUDs located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; however, the proposed project relates well to the surrounding projects, particularly those containing residential land uses. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The rectangular shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the parcels assembled for the rezoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in 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 affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e.,GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 9 of 13 December 5,2016 Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed rezoning request for up to sixty-six (66) residential units is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management system is designed to discharge into the Whippoorwill Flowway. Stormwater Best Management Practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District, and County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, including stormwater calculations, at time of SDP and/or plat. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning;however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The Hiwasse CPUD is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this proposed RPUD would serve as a deterrent to its improvement. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes 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. PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 10 of 13 December 5,2016 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and 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. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 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. Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later 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. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 11 of 13 December 5,2016 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2,Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 27, 2016 at the Naples Church of Christ in Naples, Florida. The meeting commenced at 5:37 p.m. and ended at approximately 6:11 p.m. The NIM meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2—Application and Support Material. Many of the questions dealt with the proposed density, buffering, recreation/amenities, and location of access point. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on November 28, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Review 4) Density Map 5) Legal Notifications 6) Emails_Letters from Public PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 12 of 13 December 5, 2016 PREPARED BY: 1 ( 1zl /16 ERIC JOHN , AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ,1I1 / -3'.2./tv-----' II z_( . /6 O V.BELL'OV�S ZONING MANAGER DATE RAYM , ZONING VISION ,_=�� I c-2/. - I C, MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION j APPROVED BY: Ulla) �� 1.2._ --/ -' J4, J • ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Ce );,.c KIC/fe. `` /�'.- 1Z t1' DAVID S. W SON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 13 of 13 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE Solis,Andrew I. Collier County Board of County Commissioners MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 300 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑CITY of COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Naples Collier NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Collier County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 of ELECTIVE 0 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAs)under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. • APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(0,F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Andrew I. Solis hereby disclose that on January 24 20 17 (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of a client of my law firm, WCI by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: BCC Agenda Item 9A is a recommendation to change the zoning classification of a designated parcel to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as Hamilton Place. The Developer, WCI, is a client of my law firm, and in an abundance of caution, I will abstain from voting pursuant to Section 286.012, Fla. Stat. to avoid any perceived prejudice or bias. If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. 71 f January 24, 2017 /L-7-7/1 2‘1Hi; Date Filed S. �'• NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.