CCPC Agenda 11/01/2018
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 10/25/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
November 1, 2018
9: 00 AM
Mark Strain - Chairman
Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair
Patrick Dearborn
Ned Fryer
Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental
Joseph Schmitt, Environmental
Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board
Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak
on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on
an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials
included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to
the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the
public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part
of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if
applicable.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings
pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
November 2018
Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 10/25/2018
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call by Secretary
3. Addenda to the Agenda
4. Planning Commission Absences
5. Approval of Minutes
A. October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes
6. BCC Report - Recaps
7. Chairman's Report
8. Consent Agenda
9. Public Hearings
A. Advertised
1. ***Note: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC
meeting.*** PL20170001729: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 90-292
(Development Order 90-3, as amended) for the Halstatt/Grey Oaks Development of
Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, amendments to Development Order
by revising the Master Plan to relocate unbuilt access locations from Airport Road
and Golden Gate Parkway to access locations on Livingston Road for access only to
the areas of the PUD identified as FP&L easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive
East; amendments to Exhibit E, Development Order access conditions and Sub-
Exhibit 1, project access locations and Sub-Exhibit 2 project access conditions;
Section Two, findings of fact; Section Three, conclusions of law; and Section Four,
effect of previously issued Development Orders, transmittal to Department Of
Economic Opportunity and effective date. The subject property is located at the
intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road in Sections 24, 25
and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to
Agenda item PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,
AICP, Principal Planner]
November 2018
Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 10/25/2018
2. ***Note: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC
meeting.*** PL20170001548: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 07-40, the Grey Oaks MPUD,
by relocating unbuilt access locations on Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to
Livingston Road for access only to the areas of the PUD identified as FP&L
easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive East, and by providing an effective date.
The subject MPUD consisting of 1,601+/- acres is located at the northeast,
northwest, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road (S.R. 31)
and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Sections 24, 25, and 26, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item
PL20170001729-Halstatt/Grey Oaks DRI) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP,
Principal Planner]
3. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to make changes consistent with
Board direction, including revising the affordable housing definition, updating the
terminology and income levels associated with affordable housing categories, and
increasing the maximum affordable density bonus from 8 to 12 dwelling units per
acre, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section
Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically
amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions, including Section
1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section
2.06.01 Generally, Section 2.06.02 Purpose and Intent, Section 2.06.03 AHDB Rating
System, Section 2.06.04 Limitations on Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Section
2.06.05 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Monitoring Program, and Section
2.06.06 Violations and Enforcement; Section Four, Conflict and Severability;
Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section
Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP Principal Planner]
B. Noticed
10. New Business
11. Old Business
12. Public Comment
13. Adjourn
11/01/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 5.A
Item Summary: October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes
Meeting Date: 11/01/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management
Name: Judy Puig
10/15/2018 4:31 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
10/15/2018 4:31 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 10/15/2018 4:31 PM
Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 11/01/2018 9:00 AM
5.A
Packet Pg. 4
October 4, 2018
Page 1 of 22
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, October 4, 2018
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Patrick Dearborn
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
ABSENT: Joe Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT:
Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 2 of 22
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, October 4th meeting
of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Our secretary is not here. Her last meeting was last month. We'll
deal with that at the end of today's meeting, but right now I'll do roll call.
Tom Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm here.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Mr. Schmitt has got an excused absence.
Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to addenda to the agenda. We have one item on the
agenda today, but we have two items that were scheduled from a previous meeting we need to recontinue to
the November 1st meeting. I'll read those off and ask for that item to be continued to November 1st by a
vote.
First item is PL20170001729. It's the Grey Oaks Development PUD change. That one is at the
intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport Road. Is there a motion to continue till November 1st?
MR. KLATZKOW: And is anybody here from the public to speak to this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see anybody. Other than the staff people in the audience, are you
here? No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I looked. I didn't see anybody out there. I figured there wouldn't be.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, what is there, five of us -- 5-0.
Next item to be continued, same situation, is PL20170001548. It's the Grey Oaks MPUD. Same
location. The first one was the DRI. This is the PUD portion. Is there a motion to move this -- to continue
this to November 1st?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 3 of 22
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you. That gets us past our addenda to the agenda.
Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 18th. Does anybody know if they're
not going to make it on the 18th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'll have a quorum.
Approval of the minutes. We've all been emailed or somehow got our minutes from September 6th.
Is there any changes or corrections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Ray's not here, so we'll forego BCC report and recaps, I assume, Mike?
MR. BOSI: Yeah. I didn't prepare a detailed report. I just will let you know the Seed to Table GMP
amendment and CPUD was approved at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Chairman's report: In regards to our meetings, Mike, we used
to get a pre-agenda coming up, like, for now we -- like today we'd have a pre-agenda for our next meeting so
we'd know how much time we've got to allocate to it. So could we start getting those included back in the
packets again?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful.
***And that takes us to nothing on consent, and our first and only advertised hearing that remains is
9C, and it is PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-2. It's the annual update for the -- called the AUIR, the Annual
Update and Inventory Report for 2018.
And just -- this is not zoning, so do we need disclosures or any of that from the County Attorney's
Office?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so.
Okay. Mike, look forward to your introduction.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The top of my page says 2018-1. You said dash 2.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 4 of 22
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine says dash 2.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think we all know what it is. It's the AUIR, but --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why mine says something different, but it's happened a lot.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And we will check to make sure that we
coordinate that the correct title is being consistently utilized.
As the Chair indicated, this is the Annual Update and Inventory Report, the annual Capital
Improvement Element update as well for 2018.
I have a really quick introduction PowerPoint; it just talks about the overall purpose of what the
AUIR is, and then some other information related to the proposals contained within.
AUIR, it's, you know, a one-year snapshot in time. It tries to identify the projected needs and
required improvements from all the infrastructure and service-providing departments. They're based upon
adopted levels of service, and it should be noted that it's a snapshot in time, and it changes as your demand
equation changes, but also as the revenue equation changes.
There's two different categories -- well, there's three different categories. Category A is your
concurrency facilities: Roads, drainage, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, parks, recreation and
schools.
Category B is law enforcement, jails, libraries, emergency services, government buildings; and C is
the coastal zone management. It's a non -- it's a non-concurrency. It's a non-impact fee related category, but it
was added a couple years ago just to ensure that -- the attendance to the health of our beaches are maintained.
How do we project growth? Per our Growth Management Plan, population estimates shall be based
upon the most recent population bulletin from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, commonly know as BEBR. And we have a seasonal population adjustment within our Capital
Improvement Program, and we understand that between the months of December through March, April, we
have an influx within our population, so we coordinate and correspond our infrastructure allocation for a 20
percent increase above our permanent population to handle those spikes in demands at those periods of times.
Some of the specific components like Public Utilities uses a little bit different formula than just a
straight 20 percent, but that could be provided in a little bit greater explanation. And how do we make a
determination of how we build? And it's based upon -- it's your population. It's a math equation. In this
AUIR we are projecting for this five-year period 35,380, and our level of service is .33 square feet, and it's
simply a math equation as to what the additional square footage we need within this five-year period to
maintain the levels of service. And those correspond not only to library but all the individual divisions and
components of the AUIR.
It's the level of service against the population that dictates what's the improvements that are needed to
maintain the same type of services that individuals when they first came to Collier County experienced, to
maintain those as they move forward.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon my interruption. Point of information, I guess, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And maybe you'll defer to Mr. Bosi, but are we invited to ask questions
now, or should we await the completion of his report?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It depends. I mean, we've got -- we usually ask a lot of questions of
departments. If you have something in general, if Mike doesn't answer it during his presentation, it might as
soon as he finishes up with his.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Perfect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then each department -- if we have questions in each department, then they
can address your questions separately than Mike.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
MR. BOSI: Oh, reasons.
Other reasons AUIR establishes a rational nexus required for capital impacts fees for both of the
categories, and approximation of revenue projected over the capital period to determine the county's ability to
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 5 of 22
construct and adopt to the adopted levels of service, and projects in the AUIR must be growth related.
And why this matters to the Planning Commission is you're regularly presented petitions for growth,
you're regularly presented petitions to amend the Growth Management Plan, and this formulates the
backdrop, the comfort level as to whether we are maintaining the levels of service that we provide on a
year-to-year basis in relationship to the individual petitions.
And one of the things that I think -- or I guess a common discussion point within the petitions is the
AUIR and the capacities that are provided within each individual road segment. So these do set the -- this
does set the background for the evaluations of these individual petitions you're going to make over the
next -- over the next 12 months.
And this is the realities of growth that Collier County has faced over the past six years, and 2012 was
dropped off just because it's outside this little six-year window, but it would provide the same type of
consistency.
Over the last seven years, the State of Florida has allocated our population right under 2 percent. As
you can see from the years indicated, there's a range from 1.97 down to 1.89. So we've been in a tight
concentration and in a steady pattern of growth. It seems to have been -- just the over a decade of experience
I've had with the AUIR, we've hit a sweet spot in the sense that that stability, that constant 2 percent
increase -- and it's mirrored pretty good to reality in terms of comparison to what we had projected in the next
year coming and what we -- the population we've received.
And it's allowed for our infrastructure providers to have a steady approach as to when the next
increment of improvement's going to be needed.
And this is interesting in the sense that here are the COs that were issued between October 1st of
2017 projecting out approximate values of March 31st, 2018. And where I would draw your attention is the
areas that have been circled within that light teal blue. Those are the top 10 PUD site developments, so you
can see where the growth is happening. It's along the Immokalee corridor, but most particularly where the
growth is being located is the East Trail.
If you look at the areas that are really growing, the COs, it's that East Trail corridor, that 951
intersection that finds the greatest concentration of pattern and development.
And also, through coordination with the County Attorney's Office and the Chair, modified a bit what
the recommendations we're asking for the Planning Commission. We realized that the recommendations
were a bit stale. They were left over from a couple years ago, and we really analyzed what the statutes
required, what the LDC requires, so we modified them a bit specifically what we're asking, the
recommendation after you hear the presentations or have questions for the individual divisions and
departments, to accept the attached report, to accept the Category A, B, and C facilities while it's in the
projects and revenue sources with any modifications that you make with Category A facilities set forth to
include the schedule of capital improvements to the annual CIE update, and to accept the CIE schedule of
improvements and, by reference, the school district's Capital Improvement Plan.
With that, that's the overview of the AUIR. Any specific questions that you would have of me? And
then after that I think I'd like to engage the Planning Commission how they would like to move forward.
Prior years we've had presentations; prior years we've just went straight to questions. So it would be at the
pleasure of the Planning Commission as to what they would like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with Ned's questions first on your presentation.
Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, when I went through this document, I noticed use of different terms to mean
approximately the same things: Capital improvements, facilities, assets, but for the most part, if not
exclusively, I think what I found was dealing with improved real estate of some kind or other, whereas a
capital asset would include tangible personal property that has a life expectancy in excess of a year. Is, like,
heavy equipment or automobiles or trucks, are they included in this?
MR. BOSI: They are included within the cost of new stations, new increments. What would be a
good example would be an EMS station. The cost of the equipment associated with that EMS station, that
new proposed EMS station would be included, whether it be law enforcement. Those (sic) equipment is
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 6 of 22
included in the terms of the overall cost that is related to the new unit and those accessory -- but it focuses
upon the actual -- the physical building of the unit.
Parks is an anomaly in the sense that Parks only concentrates upon the acreage activity and does not
contemplate or get into or try to quantify the capital improvements that are actually on -- or facilities that are
on the park acreage. So the Parks does sit as somewhat of an anomaly.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. My next question: Things have been allocated into
Categories A, B, and C. Was that explicitly done by the Board of County Commissioners, or was it done by
staff? How do we get to the point of having these allocations?
MR. BOSI: It started with the State of Florida. It started with the State of Florida, and the State of
Florida said that local governments must maintain a concurrency management system, and they've dictated
that early in the late '80s, early '90s that the concurrency management system had to maintain your public
utilities, your roadways, your park and recreation facilities, and your stormwater management as
requirements for concurrency management. So they established that Category A facility.
Category B facilities --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Before you go to B, do we have any flexibility with respect to adding
items to Category A?
MR. BOSI: We have -- it's at our own individual local discretion in terms of your Category A
facilities. If you wanted to include schools, if you wanted them to include roads, those are options that this
Board of County Commissioners has made.
So if you wanted to bring a Category B facility into a Category A facility, I think we could probably
find the legal pathway forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mike, isn't it true that the entire AUIR process is a Collier County process and
not state mandated?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: We could structure it as we please.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
Okay. My next question, sources of authority for our involvement. And I'm glad we're involved.
And you're absolutely right, it's important that we be involved because so many things in the AUIR touch
upon votes that we have throughout the rest of the year that are going to impact the levels of service that have
been established and sometimes get very close to if not actually encroach upon the LDC and the Growth
Management Plan, judgments that we have to make. So I'm really glad this is in front of us, but I'm not sure
where the ordinance source of authority comes for our involvement.
I notice on Page 3 it said -- this is 3 of 148 or Page 97 of the packet, depending upon what you're
referencing. It says, "The CCPC charge is to provide, quote, recommendations to the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners on specific projects and associated funding sources for inclusion in the schedule of
capital improvements within the CIE during Fiscal Year '18/'19 annual update."
And then it goes on to say on Page 3 that our role is to make recommendations upon the
appropriateness of the county's current levels of service, and it also says that we are to evaluate budgetary
priorities and determine appropriateness of the county's currently adopted LOS standards.
So that's the language that I found in there, and I'm gathering that it was put in there by staff. It's all
fine, but is there an ordinance referenced that we should look at as well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDC, Michael, has a Section 6.00.00 that discusses infrastructure, the
AUIR, and the CIE and what we're supposed to be receiving from staff, and it's quite a bit different than what
you've just read off, because we haven't historically followed that. I think that's something that probably
needs to be corrected.
Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The process has evolved --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're mike's not on, I don't think.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are two parts to what you're hearing today. One is the AUIR, which
as Mr. Klatzkow said, that's something that the county created, and the other is the schedule for the Capital
Improvement Element. That's governed by Chapter 163. And that's evolved in the sense that at one time
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 7 of 22
changes to the Capital Improvement Element were deemed amendments to the Growth Management Plan
and, therefore, the Planning Commission's recommendation was required.
But when Mr. Scott took office, he revamped the program, and so now the adoption of the Capital
Improvement Element is not deemed a Growth Management Plan amendment.
So the county, as a matter of policy, brings it to the Planning Commission to continue to obtain the
Planning Commission's recommendations or acceptance of the plans.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think it's good that we see it, and it's good that we vet it and
challenge things. And I just want to be sure that we're doing everything that we're supposed to be doing and
that our scope is as broad as we've been directed to extend our scope and that we're not overstepping it as
well.
MR. KLATZKOW: To answer that question, you are the perfect body to be hearing this. You are
not exceeding your scope, and this is a great service to the Board of County Commissioners to have it vetted
through you before it goes to them.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we were to read the Land Development Code and what the task for
this board is, it doesn't involve the AUIR except for the CIE portion, and that involves -- basically the AUIR
is something that goes directly to the BCC.
We've been receiving it since Joe Schmitt initiated it way back when, and now we've been reviewing
it in detail. But right now, in order to review the AUIR, there's a lot more data that really needs to be
provided than what we're ending up with.
And based on that, I think -- and for this board to accept the AUIR is significant, but to approve it or
provide any detail on issues we don't have in front of us today is problematic.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I disagree. You're the local planning agency. You are, by statute, the local
planning agency, and anything having to do with planning should come through you, and your
recommendations, you know, are valuable, and this process is valuable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Jeff, then I'm at a loss, because in reading this report, I finally
realized that it's based on our budget. We don't have the 800-page budget in front of us to review, and that
needs to tie specifically into this, and the revenue sources and all that are not -- they're just stated. The
documentation to support that is hundreds of pages that the Board reviews. We don't review the budget.
So I'm at a loss to go too far with this without having all that backup material for review and
understanding it. And it's going to take a lot longer than one meeting to do something like that.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's entirely up to you what you want to review in the context of making a
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: To that point, what is our timeline? What if we wanted to spend more
time on this than just today? Are we locked in by, say, the BCC's schedule?
MR. BOSI: In regards to we -- it's advisable to be able to adopt this within the calendar year of
2018. So if we can't make the November meeting, we would have to try to make it at the last -- the
December meeting. So if you wanted --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So potentially some flexibility. I'm not suggesting that we need to or
should take more than a meeting, but that was going to be one of my questions, whether we were locked
into --
MR. KLATZKOW: But, again, this entire process that we're going through right now is not required
by Florida Statutes, all right. If the Board, for example, had questions, they could pass this on to 2019. There
is no deadline that I'm aware of to get this done.
This is a planning process. It's a valuable process that Collier County does. Not every county does
this. I guess the majority of them don't, I believe. And it really enables us to maintain a level of service over
time where other counties who don't really look at this issue, it slips from them.
So it's a planning tool. It's a planning issue. It helps with the Board's budgetary processes where,
you know, they need X number of dollars for roads, they need X number of dollars for libraries. This is how
we're figuring out how much this is. But at the end of the day, it's a voluntary process that we do here to keep
the quality that Collier County expects of its services.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 8 of 22
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
Continuing, if I may.
On Page 5 there's a reference to this language: "The process of capital improvement programming
for the county is a linear equation." And then it goes on: "The equation would be new population times
level-of-service standard equals capital improvement."
I accept that as far as it goes, but we're not talking about maintenance as well, are we here? We're just
talking about, like, adding new roads versus fixing old roads.
MR. BOSI: The AUIR is only focused upon projects that are related to the demand of new
populations. This does not include any maintenance schedule. This is not a document that tries to account
for a schedule of maintenance improvements for any one of our -- it's only related to growth.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Interesting. Okay.
Let's see. So I think this is my last general question.
The phrase "impact fees" is used a lot, and I believe I understand what is meant by that. Are impact
fees able to be used for maintenance?
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions of Mike's presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, unless the Planning Commission has a better way they'd like
to approach it, normally we just take it an element at a time, preferably in order, and I'd just as soon we go
that route first.
Now, as far as presentations go, I have read everything, and I've done this for a number of years. I
don't need any presentation myself, but other members of this Planning Commission may. Does anybody
need each department to make presentations? If not, then let's just start with our AUIR first element, which is
Transportation, and have any questions from this panel, or if staff has anything they want to say before we
ask any questions, you're more than welcome to.
Let's start with that. Does anybody have any questions from the Transportation section?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. Do you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, you just go first from now on. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. I'll just move right into it, because I think the rest of us
may not have as many questions as you'll have, so...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Attachment F, which is an extremely helpful
spreadsheet -- and I asked for and received the underlying Excel spreadsheet, and when I got that, I was then
able to see the formulas which really added a lot of clarity and answered a lot of what would probably have
been stupid questions that now I don't have to ask. So thank you very much for sending me that spreadsheet.
At the top -- it's on Page 24; I guess it's 115 of the packet, under the header it says, "Collier County
2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report." I think you just need to change your date; bring your date up to
2018.
MS. SCOTT: That's correct. It's a typo.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. A subject that I have asked a number of times, and
quite possibly because of my own limitations, brings me the need to ask it again, but I think it's very
appropriate here. And it has to do with the concept of vesting and trip banks and a related question that -- the
extent to which we are obligated to allow developers to exceed into deficiency areas based upon information
known today when those increases are beneath what they could have done had they not asked for a deviation
or a rezone or something like that.
So those are the three areas, and perhaps I could maybe just ask it open-endedly. Could you explain
those three terms: Vesting, the trip bank, and maybe it's more of a legal question. When we get -- developers
come in and their agents come in and they say, you know, you need to approve this because it's going to
result in fewer -- less automobile traffic than we could put in had we not asked for this rezone, but then in the
looking glass, if you will, or with the ability to view present conditions, we can see that that would throw us
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 9 of 22
into a deficiency situation.
And the fact that it hasn't been development in accordance with it's original zoned PUD suggests that
there may be a good reason for that, that maybe the demand wasn't for that, and when this number -- when
that deficiency number was established, it was with a view of lesser demand coming into being. I don't know
if that makes sense. Care to comment?
MS. SCOTT: I think there's two different definitions of vesting, I think, as I'm listening. I think
there's vested development rights, and then there's vesting from a concurrency standpoint. And I'm looking at
Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: And, Trinity, feel free to help me with this conversation. Everybody has the
right to develop their property sooner or later, and you cannot stop that right saying we just don't have
enough -- we don't have enough of an ability for our road system to handle it, all right. That's on us. That's
one of the reasons we go through this AUIR process, to see how much capacity we have, how much we're
going to need, how much roads we should build, where we should build it.
You can declare a moratorium, for example, if you have a short-term problem, but there's no such
thing as an indefinite moratorium. And the purpose of a moratorium is so that, okay, we're going to stop
growth here for a period of a year or so, so we can figure out how we can get out of this mess, but eventually
you either get out of that mess, or you allow the development and you just have crowded roads.
We're kind of in a curious process here because we've got capacity on many roads, which allows the
development, but we don't necessary have enough capacity to allow everybody, ultimately, to develop. When
we get to that, we're going to have to figure it out. I don't know if anybody has that answer. I know staff is
working on different transportation concepts.
But for a developer to say, you know, you have to approve me because if I do what I'm zoned to do it
could be worse, that's a nonsense argument by the developer, all right, and I've never understood the
argument. The proposal comes to you. You view that proposal, you know, as it is rather than what they can
do, and make your decision accordingly.
Usually when they're trying to rezone, it's because they can't develop the property as it is zoned. So
don't tell me that, you know, well, if I developed it this way, I'd have more traffic. Well, if you could
development it this way, you would, but you can't.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's an argument that's been used. I've never understood it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the longest you can impose a moratorium for?
MR. KLATZKOW: Man, I don't like more an a year. I'll go beyond a year, but we better have a real
plan in place on that.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You mean -- by a plan, you mean funding and everything?
MR. KLATZKOW: Everything, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I've got vesting. How about trip bank?
MS. SCOTT: Well, vesting -- a lot of our larger developments -- I'm sorry. For the record, Trinity
Scott, Transportation Planning manager.
Many of our larger developments, Lely, Fiddler's Creek, Heritage Bay, many years ago when we
instituted the concurrency system, there was a vesting determination that was done, and so most of those
larger developments have vested rights, and we bank those trips within our system. So they're already kind of
holding their place.
MR. KLATZKOW: They prepaid their impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I wanted.
MR. KLATZKOW: What they did was -- and Nick Casalanguida was instrumental in this -- is that
you would prepay your impact fees, and we would use those impact fees then to expand the capacity of the
roads so that the roads were there before the people were there. That was the concept.
And so rather than simply issuing the impact fees on permitting or CO, depending upon when we've
done this, they prepaid them, and it enabled the county to expand the road system earlier than we could have,
but we would bank them. Say, okay, you've already bought 100 homes worth of trips, you're vested for that,
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 10 of 22
okay. We can't say no if you want to put those 100 in, and we did that very successfully for many years.
That's was six-laned -- that's what ultimately six-laned everything was that system.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. So when something goes into the trip bank, it's assigned to a
particular depositor at that bank. It's not generally available.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, he can sell it, in a sense. There's some assignability of these things. But,
at the end of the day, from a practical standpoint, the developer wants to develop, and this gives them
assurance that the county's not going to say, no, you can't develop, we don't have the capacity.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there are many things that that applies to, like
stormwater and water and sewer, and -- stormwater was a bad one. I shouldn't --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The one that we've done was transportation. That's been the --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but concurrency also pertains to water and sewer.
MR. KLATZKOW: Concurrency also pertains to water. We've never really had an issue with
maintaining concurrency on sewer and water.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I remember -- the only moratorium I remember was due to
sewers.
MR. KLATZKOW: That must have been a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It was, yeah. It was before your time.
MR. KLATZKOW: That was before George's time.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. It was Jim Mudd, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next question appears on Page 26 of 148.
MS. SCOTT: If I could -- Commissioner Fryer, if I could just touch on trip banking and --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please.
MS. SCOTT: -- when a project actually gets banked.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
MS. SCOTT: When a project comes before the Planning Commission in a zoning petition, the
majority of the time -- and I'm not going to say all the time, because sometimes there's an associated
Developer Contribution Agreement that might call for that vesting to be done concurrent when the Board is
approving the PUD. Typically, those trips are not banked at the time that you see them. They get banked
when they come in for a Site Development Plan or a PPL, plan and plat review, through our development
review section.
They then go back, make sure that there's sufficient capacity available. The person pays a portion of
their impact fees, and they receive a certificate of adequate public facility, and then those trips are physically
banked at that time.
So when someone is coming before you, not always, but most of the time, they are not within that
concurrency system.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Interesting. Frequently the term is used, and it certainly appears
prominently on Attachment F, but I can't think of many occasions where the developers' agents have stood up
in front of us and said, by the way, we have this many trip-banked vested trips, if you will.
MS. SCOTT: Right. Most of the time it has not occurred, unless they're coming in for an
amendment and it's one of those older PUDs that paid some time ago.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Got it. I want to go now to Attachment G, if I may. Trinity, are
you ready?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Under Attachment G, there is a reference to improvements that
are expected between now and 2023, I thought, maybe -- well, maybe beyond that.
In any event, particularly with respect to the ones that are going to become deficient between now
and 2023, I see a number of references under -- pardon me. I didn't bring the right glasses -- under solutions
where it's repeated the solution is continue to monitor. And these, to me, seem to be situations that -- well,
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 11 of 22
thank you.
These are situations -- it doesn't work. Thanks anyway -- where, don't we need to be planning in
more detail than just saying "continue to monitor"?
MS. SCOTT: Excuse me. I'm not following with the technology.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On Attachment G.
MS. SCOTT: No, no, no. I was just forwarding it so everyone who's viewing would have it as well.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I see, one, two, three, four, five, six times under the solutions
column that it says "continue to monitor," and some of these are getting pretty ripe.
MS. SCOTT: So when we are looking -- and, by the way, I have Jeff Perry here from Stantec. They
also assist staff in preparing this document.
When we are looking at our traffic counts and doing our projections, we use a minimum of 2 percent
for the growth factor or what the historic growth factor is. So if the historic growth factor is less than 2
percent, we still project out to 2 percent. So we feel that we're very conservative. If the historic growth factor
on the roadway would have been 5, we project that out.
So we continue to monitor those things. If we have a new roadway that's coming online, perhaps a
parallel roadway, we'll monitor for that parallel roadway to be widened and watch the traffic redistribute.
Also, some of these roadways could be impacted. Why we look at this on an annual basis, if there's
construction; Vanderbilt Drive had been closed for 18 months. You see an increase in traffic along U.S. 41.
Well, that's obviously because the folks were diverting over.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that concept.
I'm looking at one of these that's going to become deficient in 2020, which is coming up pretty soon,
and that's the North Trail between Wiggins Pass and Immokalee. That says "continue to monitor." Is that an
example of a case where other roads have mitigated the traffic on that segment?
MS. SCOTT: Well, in this particular situation I would say yes, it may occur, but also that is the
section where folks were diverting. Vanderbilt Drive was closed for 18 months and just opened this past
March. So those counts certainly came up as people were diverting over.
I would also submit that once Livingston -- I'm sorry -- Veterans Memorial is punched through to
Old 41, I believe that we'll start seeing some folks divert over to Livingston north/south to get to their
destination.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That is helpful.
Let's see. My last question on traffic, and maybe it's already been answered at least in part by the
County Attorney, so if that's the case, I apologize here. But in areas which have been designated TCMAs or
TCEAs and it's clear we've got a problem, we've got a congestion problem right now, are we limited in
recommending solutions to the various solutions that are set out in Transportation Element 5.5 like special
parking for carpoolers and things of that nature? And if so, have those things ever been empirically tested or
validated?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're free to make whatever recommendations that you want. That's
what you guys do. As far as the validation, that's a staff issue as to whether or not this stuff actually works.
MS. SCOTT: To my knowledge, it has not been.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just as a layperson reading the list of items, they don't seem to be very
robust in my judgment in relation to having a real meaningful effect on traffic, but maybe I'm wrong.
Okay. I think that answers my questions on traffic, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on traffic?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the next item up is stormwater.
Ned, do you want to ask your stormwater questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I just have a couple; maybe just one.
On Page 3 of 148, or Packet Page 123, I meant, of 148 or Packet Page 123, there's a reference to a
five-year deficit of about three million. And under Section 2, supplemental revenue sources, it says "none
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 12 of 22
required," and yet we're projecting a deficit. Could you comment on that?
MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record.
Actually, this document was revised substantially from the time that we reviewed it with the County
Manager's Office to today due to the delay of the implementation and adoption of the stormwater utility. The
stormwater utility was delayed by the Board at the first budget hearing in September, which would have
provided additional revenue to meet the five-year plan needed in stormwater.
In addition to what you're seeing in front of you over the five years, there's at least another $120
million of identified needs in the stormwater program on the capital side of the house, and $80 million --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little. I know she's probably having a hard time typing that
fast.
MS. PATTERSON: Sorry, sorry -- and $80 million at least of backlogged maintenance. So we did
scramble a little bit to dial this back to the five-year period.
At this point in time, what we're being allocated through the General Fund and 111 is what we have
available to use for the stormwater program. And, absent of that, we will continue to move out with the
utility potentially or be looking for alternative revenue sources outside of the stormwater utility.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But if I recall correctly, this is the only situation where we're facing
just, like, a naked deficit, an uncovered deficit and no action required. It seems somewhat anomalous in
relation to the rest of this AUIR.
MS. PATTERSON: It is different from anything else in the AUIR, and I think with the -- like I said,
with the suspension -- the one-year delay of the implementation or the consideration for the implementation
of the stormwater utility has sort of put us in this unique limbo.
Should the utility fail or fail to be implemented then, obviously, other strategies are going to have to
be looked at to address the needs of stormwater, but at this time, right now we're proceeding under the
direction of the Board to go out and do public outreach and to look at the issues that were raised as part of the
public hearing related to the stormwater utility.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So if this deficit can't be filled, is staff prepared to reduce expenditures
by like amount?
MS. PATTERSON: We already have, so we have -- we have a balanced budget, and so all we're
showing is the need in the next four years, and we would continue on with reducing our projects to make the
available --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I realize this is projected through to 2023 so --
MS. PATTERSON: So you would -- essentially, as long as we're directed to show the need, we will,
but we also will balance to the budget that we're provided. And I know that there's conversations as to other
strategies that may be used should the -- so, obviously, we've spent over three years working on the
stormwater utility concept, but should that be -- should the Board decide that's not the direction they want to
move in, obviously, we would have to consider other strategies, because the problems aren't going away. We
have to figure out a way.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, therefore, wouldn't you say that the phrase "none required" is
incorrect?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a level-of-service issue.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Reducing level of service?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's no different than any other infrastructure, okay. What do you want for your
library system? What do you want from the roads? Well, depending upon what you want, you've got to
spend X number of dollars. The Board has elected, at least for this year budget, not to expect -- not to expend
what staff has asked for. At the end of the day, that reduces the level of service. Now, whether that level of
service is A, B, C, D, or F, you know, as time goes on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might help, Ned, if you wanted to understand the historical issues
involving especially that element, in 2003 -- you can go online and see the AUIRs going all the way back, I
think, to 2003. I've reviewed them all 2003 through 2016 in regards to that issue. And you might look at
those and then determine what happened in 2017 and this year in comparison, and that probably will -- there
will be a lot of questions that you can get -- you might want to ask staff, because it will be after today before
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 13 of 22
you could review those, but it's something you may want to look at.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
All right. This question is broader than just stormwater, but it came up in my notes first. Well, I'll
hold it for now. That's all I have on stormwater.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything in stormwater?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, what's the next one up? I guess I could find it just as easy as
you can. There's stormwater. Stormwater's got a lot of paperwork.
MR. BOSI: Potable water; Public Utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on potable water?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Next one.
MR. BOSI: I believe would be wastewater.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyone else have any questions on wastewater?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next one? Eric, did you have something you want to add?
MR. FEY: I did, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Eric Fey, senior project manager for
Public Utilities, engineer and project management.
I just wanted to submit for the record three revised charts that simply show some labeling that was
inadvertently omitted from the version in your packet. There's no change substantively to what you
reviewed. Just some labeling to clarify things for the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And one quick question, not about the report necessarily. In
prior reports, though, I notice that you had commented on the monitoring efforts of our aquifers, and
previously they said they were either holding steady or doing fine.
Do you have anything that you could supplement later on, just send to us to let us know the status of
those aquifers?
MR. FEY: Sure will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's just helpful knowing, going forward, because between roads
and water, there's always questions, and that just helps answer one of them.
MR. FEY: Will do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, my next question doesn't come up until Page 215 of the
packet, and it just for -- you know, for discussion at the present time, it's going to be Exhibit A, Collier
County Schedule of Capital Improvements, so I don't have any more questions until we reach that page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll walk through and ask if anybody else has.
So the next one is Solid Waste, and I know Dan was here. Oh, that's -- and I don't have any
questions of Solid Waste. Our Solid Waste Department is real solid. So does anybody have any questions of
Solid Waste?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us, Mike, to the next one after that.
Schools. And Joe's not here, but I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to ask -- well, no, we'll leave Tom
alone today. Does anybody have any questions on the school system? Mike?
MR. BOSI: Okay. I just would like to note that school district -- we've had our annual school
working group meeting where the school district meets with all the municipalities in the county to talk about
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 14 of 22
growth and projections and share information.
Had a real good meeting with them, and they are in the final determinations for that -- the location of
the next high school. Two alternatives, I believe. It's Livingston east/west location, also Triple E (sic), which
is off of the Vanderbilt Beach extension. Once that determination is made, the county is prepared to
adequately provide the infrastructure needs to either of those facilities. I just wanted to provide that to the
county, or to the Board.
And also I believe next year you'll see more specificity as to the direction that the school board's
going to go within that location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know the school system is represented by Tom, and they don't show
necessarily up for the meetings, but I do want to compliment whoever is doing their long-range planning,
because in review of the rural areas where their planning efforts are already in place, you guys are way ahead
of the curve in finding locations out there for the school system. So I'm glad to see that. That's good news.
That's the only questions I have.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I'd like to put on the record Amy Lockhart, formerly Amy Taylor's, done a really good job. She
is, in fact, our long-range planner. It's a team. And I'd like to thank Mike as well. We've coordinated with the
county and worked well with the county siting our properties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then that takes us to county parks. I have one question. And
you have a -- go ahead, Ned. Now, you told me not till 215, so, okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know I did. Well, it comes up on Page 216.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing you.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I'm organized strictly by page here rather than subject, and so I
apologize for that.
My question about Parks and Recreation is that it's showing a surplus. And I found this on Page 216
of the packet where the revenue is -- excuse me -- yeah, the revenue is 47 million and the expenses are 17
million. Correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we've got about a $30 million surplus here and significant needs in
other areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think the land generates the surplus, and that's because we
went up, and we've got not only land that is probably going to be transferred to other departments in some
cases, but we've also got the issues involving the acquisition of the sports park, which really bumped us up. It
really doesn't mean there's a liquid surplus, but it's like one of those surpluses that's not money. It's land. So
that's probably where that is coming from.
If I'm wrong Mike, just say so.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. You're spot on.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, that -- just -- you said it well, but let me be sure that I
understand it. So there's nothing that could be borrowed from this to pay for other needs?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think there's an attempt to move some land around, but that may be
the extent of the borrowing from what I understand. But that's not even finalized yet.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there anybody here from Parks and Rec?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Do we need them for something? You have a question?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad they're not here, then. They're doing their job.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question that I have that I think, if the Board may remember, I
remember from being on this board all these years, last year in particular, we as a board recommended that
they add a very clear supplement to the Parks and Rec section isolating out the beach growth, the beach
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 15 of 22
needs, and all that. And I even brought the charts and graphs used in 2003 and 2004 as examples of what
we'd like to see. I couldn't find it.
Now, there's several hundred pages. Maybe I missed it. I found a little blurb in the appendix that
was not sufficient, but I would think when it gets to the Board, maybe some of the Board members remember
it, because they endorsed that recommendation, so I would highly recommend that Parks put that back in or
explain why they're not going to.
MR. BOSI: Noted. And I will carry that message to Parks and Rec.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the only remaining comment I have. Anybody else have any
others?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have one question.
On the -- on Page 120 of 148, the notes -- and it's for regional park, I guess, it says 48 -- 46 acres for
Rural Lands West.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's outside the 10-year window?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But in the adoption resolution on Page 9 of 14 it states that it's 35
acres, and it's next --
MR. BOSI: The Rural Lands West contribution, there's an inconsistency. So the resolution attached
to -- it must be within the CIE. The CIE covers the 5- and the 10-year, so I'm not sure how that --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. It's from 24 to 28, but it lists 35 acres for Rural Lands West.
There's no projects, but it states it's 35, and this says 46.
MR. BOSI: We will align that with the correct -- because they are allocating the 46 acres, so we will
align that within the CIE.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Parks and Rec?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will take us to the Capital Improvement Element. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
On Page 135 of 148 or 215 of the packet, whichever you choose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about -- mine's totally numbered differently, so...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, this is Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing you. We're doing the CIE, though, right?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I think this is Exhibit A of the resolution, and it is the CIE, I
believe. The second line item there having to do with Oil Well Road and Everglades -- the other columns are
not filled in. They're blank. And that's the only situation where that's the case. Is there a reason for that?
MR. BOSI: I'll defer to Trinity Scott.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry, Trinity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that the section that's already completed? The mid-section is the one
that's still going to be completed, if I'm not mistaken, isn't it?
MS. SCOTT: Correct. Once again, for the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager.
You're correct, Mr. Strain, that section is complete. Let me just look and see if we maybe had a
carryover line item in ours. Sometimes with ours, though, they'll kind of carry forward if we have
outstanding -- if we're still obtaining right-of-way. Sometimes that court process will take some time even
though the project's done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Ned's really getting at is if it needs to be filled in, it should be.
And if it doesn't need to be, it probably shouldn't indicate so by being gone or something.
MS. SCOTT: Correct. We will talk with our budget folks and find out why it's still hanging out in
there.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question with respect to that exhibit is broader, and it
has to do with the fact that revenues of 385 million and some change comes out to the same number for
expenditures; 385 million and change. And I guess my question is how do you calculate this? It's got to be
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 16 of 22
more than just happy coincidence that we have exactly the same amount of money coming in as we're going
to be expending going out.
Is this a matter of priorities? Is this something that would be obvious to us if we had more of the
work papers in front of us?
MS. SCOTT: I'm thinking on how, because -- I'm actually looking to Amy maybe, because she
might get more into the budgeting part of it than I do.
I know that when I'm sitting down and we are deciding which projects to move forward with based
on the projections of what roads are going to fail soonest, you know, why do we not have a parallel roadway,
those types of things, we start plugging things in and moving them around. We do balance. Sometimes we'll
balance with money going to reserves.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I guess what I'm hoping to hear -- and I think it's the case,
but please confirm, that you look at what money you have. That's step one. Then you add up your revenues,
and then you can identify and prioritize expenditures, but they're not to exceed the amount of the revenues. I
mean, is that how you do it?
MS. SCOTT: Typically. We do have an unfunded need, though, in transportation that we are
plugging in with a balance line of an unfunded-needs line.
Another thing that we're also looking at when we're looking at projects is based on revenue
projections for impact fee districts and trying to make sure that we are spending in the appropriate areas as
well, because if the impact fee collections are only coming in in one district, then they can't be used
countywide. We have to look at all of that when we're projecting what projects we're going to move forward
with.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. I think we're saying the same thing.
The sales tax vote that's coming up next month, does that play a role at all in this process or not?
Have you made any assumptions about that --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that does not play a role in this process.
MS. SCOTT: No. Everything in here is listed as an unfunded need. So there's a balancing revenue
line item titled "unfunded needs."
MR. KLATZKOW: This is where staff tells you what we need, you review it, make
recommendations. The Board's got to figure out how to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. This is certainly not to be laid upon staff, but the news media
picks up and reports the notion that if the increase fails, then there's going to have to be another bond issue.
And I'm not -- maybe it's improper for me to even ask this question. But I guess I just -- I would like some
assurances -- and this is policy issue -- that there's a third choice, which is to reduce expenditures.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you reduce your expenditures, you've got to change your level of service.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can certainly do that. That could be a recommendation from the Planning
Commission but, you know, it's -- it's a zero-sum game.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Okay. I mean, so there are really three approaches: There's the
sales tax, there's bond issue, or there's reducing level of service.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or there's increasing taxes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or increasing property taxes, yeah. Got it. Thank you.
That's all I have on Category A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Anybody else have anything on Category A?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to Category B. And Category B, first item up is county
jail and correctional facilities. Does anyone anybody have any questions? Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems to me -- this is, again, a big-picture thing for the County
Commissioners obviously to decide, but my recommendation would be that law enforcement facilities and
EMS services really belong under Category A in terms of importance.
Now, I've been told, and I take it as a given, that under state statute Parks and Recreation has to be in
there; I understand. But when you think about prioritizing what is most important to citizens and taxpayers,
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 17 of 22
residents of the county, that right up there with removal of sewage, which is very important, education, very
importantly, would be law enforcement and emergency medical care.
And the Sheriff, I think, makes a case for the need to have a more modern evidence processing and
storage building. And I can see situations where if you don't have adequate storage and processing facilities
you're going to botch your chain of custody and you're going to have to release defendants without a trial
because of a lack of chain of custody. So, you know, potentially putting more criminals on the street. So, to
me, that's a pretty important thing.
And I'll speak about EMS when we come to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And I would just note that we have allocated in the 50 -- or the '20, '22 to '23 the
forensic evidence facility at 90,000 square feet has been allocated, so it's within the five-year capital
improvement or the five-year window of improvements which last year it was outside of it. So we have heard
the Sheriff's Office, and we're working with the facilities and our revenue office to try to align the needs of
the facilities -- or of the Sheriff's Office for the new facility and the cost associated with that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I understand that it's a priority and it's good, but to me it should
be a Category A priority.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, in order to help us understand that scenario, we certainly wouldn't be
able to expect that today. But next year when you come in for the AUIR, could you explain to us what the
advantages and disadvantages are to go from a Category A to Category B, what it means from an intensity
viewpoint and the benefits or negatives of it so we know why. We didn't put that Category B; the Board did.
So maybe there's a change of heart, and it's a good question to take a look at some research on, if you don't
mind.
MR. BOSI: Sure. And I can give you a short answer right off the bat. It means that you could deny
petitions related to the lack of available capacity within those systems. Petitions would be evaluated against
concurrency. It means that we would evaluate the capacity within EMS or law enforcement against the
demands that each individual petition was requesting, and it would be subject to that same type of analysis
that Roads and Parks and Public Utilities would be provided for.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Deferring the more detailed discussion to next year, as the Chairman
suggests, that's a good idea. But isn't it fair to say, though, that priorities or needs that are in Category A are
going to get taken care of first and at a higher level than those in B or C?
MR. BOSI: Those are policy decisions that the Board of County Commissioners make.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. Yeah.
MR. BOSI: But the inclination of -- that they do make the concurrency management system up, that
those would be the ones that would gain the attention of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have on Sheriff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything on county jail and correctional
facilities?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything on law enforcement facilities?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to libraries, library buildings and library material and
collections. Anybody have anything on those?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. You're free today. Thank you.
And then Emergency Medical Services. Ned, that's your specialty. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, my main concern is that it has been characterized or categorized at the B level rather than the
A. And I want to say -- this, I think, is going to be my last question, but it's going to come in the form of a
comment and a recommendation.
There are really three points I have to make with respect to what's been proposed: First, there's
a -- there is a huge projected shortfall here; a $6.4 million projected shortfall, and if this need isn't funded,
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 18 of 22
there is going to have to be a reduction of the level of service, I would think, unless some other funding
source can be found.
And with regard to EMS level of service, the level itself was already reduced back in 2007, I believe,
to take a more accurate account of the difference between the urban part of the county and the rural part and
being more realistic about response times on the rural side.
Now, there is a level-of-service standard of eight minutes for EMS response on the urban side and 12
minutes on the rural side. And so a further reduction to that would be a very negative thing, I think, for
emergency medical care on the rural side. And so, to me, that's reason number one that EMS should be
elevated to Category A. And I notice from one of the images that you have in here, I guess it's on Page 267
of the packet, it shows that the six million that we're falling short of right now, or not funded, would put three
new EMS stations on the urban side and two on the rural side based upon population, I'm sure.
So I think that's a very high priority. We have a county of aging population, and people should be, I
think, very concerned about how long it takes EMS to get to them after they call 911.
Second, there's something else very important than doesn't even show up in the AUIR materials, and
I know that there's a lot of discussion going on within EMS in an attempt to find a good solution to this
problem, but it still is a problem, and I think it needs to be voiced, and that has to do with the fact that Collier
County has no trauma hospitals. And it's probably not generally known by people that that's the case, but it is
the case.
And since we don't have trauma hospitals, patients who sustain traumatic injury, let's say, in a very
serious automobile collision, the best care that they're going to receive is going to involve being helicoptered
out to Lee Memorial or one of the trauma hospitals in Broward or Miami-Dade County so that they can get to
the Trauma Center and into a surgical suite as close as possible to within what's called the golden hour from
the time the accident occurs to the patient is actually in the surgical suite.
And in many cases the helicopter is not able to fulfill the golden-hour need for folks in Collier
County. Sometimes this is just a matter of how busy we are, and in some cases it really can't be helped. But
other cases, perhaps, it can.
We're taking in a new helicopter, a brand new helicopter soon, and there's an issue over what to do
about the helicopter we have now, whether we sell it, take the revenue, or keep it as backup.
It's interesting to know that our first-line helicopter, whether it's the one we have now or the one
we're going to get, needs significant maintenance annually, and maintenance at weeks at a time, and
frequently these several weeks of maintenance take place during the summer months which, of course, affects
those of us who are year-round residents. And if you don't have helicopter transportation available directly
from Collier County, then you have to ask for it from somebody flying in from Lee or flying in from one of
the other adjoining counties on the east side.
They can decline on the basis of they can't spare the helicopter, it's busy or whatever. So what you're
left with is a situation where the ground ambulance will be forced to take the patient who needs a Trauma
Center within the golden hour to a non-trauma center for stabilization, and frequently that level of
stabilization will not extend the golden hour because what the patient needs is to be opened up and fixed by
trauma surgeons.
So the patient gets stabilized to the extent that the medical hospital can and then transported
somehow to a trauma center for definitive care that the patient needs.
So what I'm hoping that will be considered, I guess, by the county commissioners is either that we
make an arrangement with the manufacturer of the new helicopter to supply us a backup during times of
maintenance, particularly while the warranty's in place and, second, that we don't -- that we don't sell or
otherwise dispose of our existing helicopter because it could be used for backup and be of assistance to the
Collier County patients in times where the primary helicopter isn't.
And my final point has to do with interlocal agreements that Collier County EMS and other Collier
County agencies are asked to enter into with other municipalities. And I'm intentionally not going to mention
any names of other municipalities because I want to keep this at the general level, because it's really a general
comment.
When Collier County is asked to supply additional resources in the area of EMS to another
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 19 of 22
municipality, it is exceedingly important that the county charge that municipality the fully loaded cost of the
additional resources. If it doesn't, the county will suffer by having to absorb those additional costs. And this
is particularly true where, in cases where, in the county's best judgment, that particular municipality is already
well served and doesn't need the additional resources.
So what I urge for staff, and I guess for the county commission, is that every effort be made in
making interlocal agreements with other municipalities to assure that fully loaded costs are recovered so as to
minimize any burden, any incidental burden to the Collier County taxpayers and the patients.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on EMS facilities? Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just kind of for Ned. How many helicopters are in Collier
County with all the different departments that have helicopters?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I don't know. The patient-transporting helicopters are composed
of one.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In an emergency, could you have other county helicopters
rigged to transport patients?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not able to comment on that. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with
the subject matter. I suppose given enough time you could re-equip, refit a helicopter to become an
ambulance helicopter, but it's not something that you could do right away, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on EMS?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you would suggest a change in the level of service?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, change in the level of service --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there would be more helicopters?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, just to have adequate backup I think is all I'm asking for at this
point. Plus an agreement with the manufacturer to -- you know, when it has to take our helicopter for
warranty maintenance that it supplies a backup helicopter for us particularly --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with you. I think one is not enough.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's another question, and one may well not be enough.
Unfortunately, there's no way that I know of that the county could force a private hospital to become a
Trauma Center and, sadly, trauma center medical care is a financial loss item for hospitals.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have all that, Mike?
MR. BOSI: Yes, most of that's operational discussion with EMS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You might just want to make a note that we've suggested having a
more detailed operational discussion on some aspects of EMS, and that will open up the door for Ned's issue
to be brought up under that agenda then. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one up is government buildings. Anybody have any issues on
government buildings? I notice our Sheriff's Department's here. You know, we already did you guys. It was
so complicated, it took hours, but we finished it.
And I don't have anything else other than where we're at, then. I think we've finished the review to
the point of the presentations. Mike?
MR. BOSI: If you'd like coastal, any questions on coastal zoning? Gary's here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary's been sitting here all morning. I don't have any questions on coastal
other than they ought to open up more areas for kayaking, but that's a whole 'nother program.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're wrapping it up, Mike. Where are we at next? I
think your motions --
MR. BOSI: I believe we're at the final slide of my presentation, which is the modified
recommendations, the modified actions that we would be seeking from the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read them into the record, and then however you-all want to discuss
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 20 of 22
them, amend them, or vote on them just holler.
First one is to accept the attached document as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on
public facilities. Is there a motion or discussion on that item?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second -- third.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Made by Patrick, seconded by Ned.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Second item, to accept the Category A, B, and C facilities relative to projects and revenue sources
with Category A facilities set forth for inclusion in the schedule of capital improvements of the annual CIE
update and amendment.
Any comments, discussion, or motion?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion made by Patrick?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'll call discussion. Anybody have discussion? Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: May it -- may the motion reflect my strong recommendation to the
county Board of Commissioners to reevaluate certain Category B items such as pertaining to Sheriff's Office
and EMS for inclusion in Category A?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. Patrick, as the motion maker, any problem?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay with you?
Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Number 3, to accept the CIE's schedule of improvement update and, by reference, the school
district's capital improvement plan and the district facilities work program. Is there a discussion or motion?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will that item be corrected before it goes to the BCC?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the corrections we've made on record, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That item either removed or number supplied to the columns.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 21 of 22
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll so move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
That gets us through the AUIR for this year, Mike. Thank you very much and, Corby, for all your
work.
Now we have one item of new business. Diane's last meeting was last time, so we definitely need a
new secretary. I didn't know if you-all had preferences for changes in the other positions, which is chairman
and vice chairman. I've been chairman, obviously, and Diane -- or Karen's vice chair.
So let's start with Diane's position first. Is there someone who wants to make a motion for somebody
to fill that position?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you guys are -- Ned would -- I mean, would you --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'd like to nominate Ned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned's nominated. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, you get the heavy responsibility of handling the names each meeting.
That's a tough one.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Stan's changing his name to Williams.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works perfect.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can say Chrzanoswki. I can say it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes in -- would anybody else like to see changes in the other two
officers' positions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd move that the existing officers be reelected.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
October 4, 2018
Page 22 of 22
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you-all. That wraps up our new business. I don't think there's any old business, and there's no
public here for comment, so that takes us to an adjournment. Would anybody wish to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you-all.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 10:17 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER
These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
5.A.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 10-4-2018 CCPC Minutes (7056 : October 4, 2018 CCPC minutes)
11/01/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.1
Item Summary: ***Note: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC
meeting.*** PL20170001729: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 90-292 (Development Order 90-3,
as amended) for the Halstatt/Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One,
amendments to Development Order by revising the Master Plan to relocate unbuilt access locations from
Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to access locations on Livingston Road for access only to the
areas of the PUD identified as FP&L easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive East; amendments to
Exhibit E, Development Order access conditions and Sub-Exhibit 1, project access locations and Sub-
Exhibit 2 project access conditions; Section Two, findings of fact; Section Three, conclusions of law; and
Section Four, effect of previously issued Development Orders, transmittal to Department Of Economic
Opportunity and effective date. The subject property is located a t the intersection of Golden Gate
Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD) [Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 11/01/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
10/09/2018 3:22 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
10/09/2018 3:22 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 10/10/2018 12:45 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 10/11/2018 10:06 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 10/15/2018 10:37 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 10/15/2018 12:23 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 10/15/2018 1:42 PM
Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 10/22/2018 10:04 AM
Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 11/01/2018 9:00 AM
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 27
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170001548, GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AND DOA-PL20170001729, GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
The petitions PUDA-PL20170001548, Grey Oaks PUD, and DOA-PL20170001729, Grey Oaks DRI
were continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC hearing to the October 4, 2018, CCPC hearing
and then to the November 1, 2018, CCPC hearing.
Staff has received a revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). (Please see Attachment F-Revised TIS.)
The revised TIS clarifies that the proposed 31-acre site will have a wholesale nursery and landscape
contracting land uses. The previously proposed land uses of commercial landscaping, retail nursery
comprised of outdoor sales and display area, and farmer’s market have been removed from the revised
TIS.
The Transportation Element contained in the September 6, 2018, CCPC Staff Report has been revised
to state:
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
GMP using the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
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
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
Page 2 of 3
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
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 PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable
2017 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the
proposed wholesale nursery and landscape contracting development will generate
approximately 173 PM peak hour two-way trips, which according to the TIS, represents the
same number of PM peak hour two-way trips remaining for retail use allowed by the existing
PUD. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed
capacities:
Roadway Link 2017
AUIR
Existing
LOS
Current Peak
Hour Peak
Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2017 AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Livingston
Road
Pine Ridge
Road to Golden
Gate Parkway
B 3,100/North 1,596
Livingston
Road
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
B 3,000/North 1,691
Golden Gate
Parkway
Airport-Pulling
Road to
Livingston
Road
C 3,300/East 1,100
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
Page 3 of 3
Golden Gate
Parkway
Livingston
Road to I-75
D 3,300/East 529
Based on the 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period.
Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of first development
order ((Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat(PPL)).
Attachment: Revised TIS, dated September 27, 2018
END OF MEMORANDUM
9.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
Supplemental Memo
October 19, 2018
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170001548, GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AND DOA-PL20170001729, GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
Through further discussions with the Transportation Planning Division and review of the most recent
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted for the application (dated 9/27/2018), the proposed
landscape nursery for which two access points are requested by the petitioner only generates 12 total
PM peak hour trips. This volume only warrants one access point onto Livingston Road. Based upon
this recognition, Staff is recommending the amendment be limited to a single access point off of
Livingston Road.
For further information, please see page 7 of the revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). (Please see
Attachment G-Revised TIS.)
END OF MEMORANDUM
9.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Supplemental MEMO to CCPC 10-19-18-bosi (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
Traffic Impact Statement
O’Donnell Nursery
Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA)
Collier County, Florida
09/27/2018
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Peninsula Engineering
2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Bonita Springs, FL 34105
Phone: 239-403-6700
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110
Phone: 239-566-9551
Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz
Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00 Fee
Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Major Study – $1,500.00 Fee
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2
Statement of Certification
I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate
supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation
Engineering.
Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E.
FL Registration No. 47116
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110
Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3
Table of Contents
Project Description ................................................................................................ 4
Trip Generation – Traffic Analysis .......................................................................... 6
Trip Distribution and Assignment........................................................................... 8
Background Traffic ................................................................................................11
Existing and Future Roadway Network .................................................................12
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis .....................................12
Site Access Turn Lane Analysis ..............................................................................13
Improvement Analysis ..........................................................................................15
Mitigation of Impact .............................................................................................15
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan ...................................................................16
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ............................18
Appendix C: Collier County Ordinance 2007-40 – Excerpt ....................................25
Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring Report – Excerpt.............................27
Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual Roadway Master Plan ..........................29
Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition ..................................31
Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary - Excerpt .............................36
Appendix H: Turning Movements Exhibit .............................................................38
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4
Project Description
The O’Donnell Nursey project is a proposed wholesale nursery development located on the west
side of Livingston Road approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of Livingston Road and
Golden Gate Parkway and directly south of the intersection of Livingston Road and Grey Oaks
Drive East, and is generally located within Section 24/25, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in
Collier County, Florida.
Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site
Plan.
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
The subject site consists of 2 parcels totaling approximately 31 acres in size and is currently zoned
Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
As allowed by the PUD commercial permitted uses, the project proposes 27 acres of wholesale
nursery and landscape contracting. Neither the nursery nor landscaping uses are available to the
general public and the only traffic accessing the site will be employees and their respective
commercial vehicles entering and exiting the site.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5
A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on August
24, 2016, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)). It
should be noted that the information included in the methodology was based on preliminary
information which has been updated and is reflected in this analysis.
For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the
Collier County 2023 planning horizon.
Consistent with the approved Collier County Ordinance #2007-40, the Grey Oaks DRI site is
currently allowed to be developed with up to 1,775 residential dwelling units, 1,303,091 sf of
office/retail/commercial and 72 golf course holes.
The approved development program associated with these land uses is shown in Table 1A,
Existing Approved and Built Development Program. For details, see Appendix C: Collier County
Ordinance 2007-40 – Excerpts and Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring Report –
Excerpts.
Table 1A
Existing Approved and Built Development Program
ITE Land Use
(Zoning Designation)
ITE Land Use
Code Approved Size Built to Date
Size
Single-Family Detached 210 1,775 du 1,341 du
General Office Bldg. 710 653,453 sf 0 sf
Shopping Center 820 649,638 sf 0 sf
Golf Course 430 72 holes 72 holes
The project plans to eliminate 2 commercial access locations (approved within the Grey Oaks DRI
Master Plan); one from Golden Gate Parkway and one from Airport Road, and proposes a new
driveway access location from Livingston Road to serve the proposed O’Donnell Nursery project
with a directional left-in/right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (north
access). There is an existing right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (south
access). The project would like to reconfigure this driveway to a right-out only access with an
option to maintain the existing access as is. For details, see Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI –
Conceptual Roadway Master Plan.
The Developer elected to construct none of the commercial square footage. T he analysis will
show that, from a traffic standpoint, this project is much less intensive than the approved
commercial and retail uses currently allowed in the PUD/DRI.
The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project’s proposed trip
generation. The proposed development program is illustrated in Table 1B.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6
Table 1B
Proposed Development Program
Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Code Total Size
O’Donnell Nursery Nursery – Wholesale 818 27 acres
Trip Generation – Traffic Analysis
The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The software program OTISS – Online Traffic Impact Study
Software (most current version) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the
project. The ITE rates or equations are used for the trip generation calculations as applicable.
The climate and demographic makeup of Collier County and the surrounding area create a large
year-round demand for landscape contracting services. In order to account for this unique
demand, a supplemental calculation was performed for anticipated additional traffic from the
landscape contracting activities. Based on client provided data, trip generation was calculated
to include employees arriving on site in the morning in personal vehicles, then departing in
company trucks (a total of 50) to their respective landscape contracting projects. Similarly, the
company trucks would return to the project site in the afternoon and the employees would leave
the site in their personal vehicles. It is assumed there are 5-man crews per truck and that some
carpooling will occur between employees, for an average of 3 personal vehicle trips per truck.
The majority of trips are assumed to occur during the AM and PM peak hour time periods as
applicable, however, it is understood that some trips will fall outside of the peak hour time
periods. As such, for this analysis, 80% of the landscape contracting trips are assumed to occur
during the peak hour time periods.
Based on ITE recommendations, no internal capture or pass-by reductions have been taken into
consideration for this development.
The proposed PUDA development trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. Detailed calculations
can be found in Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7
Table 2A
Trip Generation (Proposed PUDA Development) - Average Weekday
Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Nursery - Wholesale 27 acres 5 2 7 3 9 12
Landscape Contracting* N/A 120 40 160 40 120 160
Total External 125 42 167 43 129 172
*Manually calculated based on client supplied data.
In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines, significantly impacted
roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net
new total) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the
information contained in Collier County 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the
peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour.
A purpose of this analysis is to generate a traffic comparison between the proposed project and
the undeveloped retail land use within the Grey Oaks DRI. The projects total external PM peak
hour 2-way trip generation is used to determine the potential traffic of the project and provides
guidance as to the equivalent amount of retail square footage that would be required to produce
the same traffic impact.
The ITE LUC 820, shopping center, was used to model the trip generation for the commercial
portion of the DRI. As illustrated in the Halstatt DRI – Development of Regional Impact
Application for Development Approval dated May 26, 1989, Trip Generation Summary, trip
generation rates were developed and internal capture and pass-by reductions were calculated
for the various land uses comprising the DRI. The resulting reduction factors for commercial
land use at Livingston Road are 18% for internal capture and 50% for pass-by reductions (for
details see Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary – Excerpt).
Table 2B
Trip Generation Comparison – Shopping Center – PM Peak Hour
Development PM Peak Hour
Size (Rate) Enter Exit Total
Total Traffic 70,500 sf 202 218 420
Internal Capture (18%) 38 38 76
Total External 164 180 344
Pass-by (50%) 86 86 172
Net External 78 94 172
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8
Based on the results of the trip generation illustrated in Table 2B, 70,500 sf of shopping center is
required to produce the same traffic impact as the proposed project, as illustrated in Table 2C.
Table 2C
Trip Generation Comparison – PM Peak Hour
Development PM Peak Hour
Size Enter Exit Total
Proposed PUDA Development Per Table 2A 43 129 172
Proposed Retail Comparison 70,500 sf 78 94 172
Net Difference (35) 35 0
For the purpose of this TIS, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is
analyzed based on projected PM peak hour Total External traffic generated by the proposed
PUDA project. The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the Total External traffic
during the weekday AM and PM peak hour (as shown in Table 2A).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The new traffic generated by the O’Donnell Nursery project is assigned to the adjacent roadways
using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning
Staff.
The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour
and is graphically depicted in Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak
Hour.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9
Table 3
Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour
Roadway Link
Collier
County
Link No.
Roadway Link Location
Distribution of
Project Traffic
Enter/(Exit)
PM Peak Hour Project Vol.*
Enter Exit
Livingston
Road 54.0 South of project to Golden
Gate Parkway 50%/(100%) NB – 22 SB – 129
Livingston
Road 54.0 North of project to Pine
Ridge Road 50%/(N/A) SB – 21 N/A
Livingston
Road 55.0 Golden Gate Parkway to
Radio Road 15%/(30%) NB – 6 SB – 39
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston Road to I-75 20%/(40%) WB – 9 EB – 52
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1 Livingston Road to Airport
Road 15%/(30%) EB – 6 WB – 39
Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service
calculations.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10
Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11
Background Traffic
Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway
network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a
minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated
from 2008 through 2017), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is
to use the 2017 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without
Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected
background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2023.
Table 4
Background Traffic without Project (2017 - 2023)
Roadway
Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway Link
Location
2017 AUIR
Pk Hr, Pk
Dir
Background
Traffic
Volume
(trips/hr)
Projected
Traffic
Annual
Growth
Rate
(%/yr)*
Growth
Factor
2023 Projected
Pk Hr, Peak Dir
Background
Traffic Volume
w/out Project
(trips/hr)
Growth
Factor**
Trip
Bank
2023
Projected Pk
Hr, Peak Dir
Background
Traffic
Volume
w/out Project
(trips/hr) Trip
Bank***
Livingston
Road 54.0
South of project
to Golden Gate
Parkway
1,470 2.0% 1.1262 1,656 34 1,504
Livingston
Road 54.0
North of project
to Pine Ridge
Road
1,470 2.0% 1.1262 1,656 34 1,504
Livingston
Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
1,270 2.0% 1.1262 1,431 39 1,309
Golden
Gate
Parkway
20.2 Livingston Road
to I-75 2,770 2.0% 1.1262 3,120 1 2,771
Golden
Gate
Parkway
20.1 Livingston Road
to Airport Road 2,200 2.0% 1.1262 2,478 0 2,200
Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate - from 2017 AUIR, 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 6. 2023 Projected Volume=
2017 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2023 Projected Volume= 2017 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2023 Peak Hour
– Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as
applicable.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12
Existing and Future Roadway Network
The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory
Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year
Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled
to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital
Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such
improvements were identified in the Collier County 201 7 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are
anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway
conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions.
Table 5
Existing and Future Roadway Conditions
Roadway Link CC AUIR
Link ID #
Roadway Link
Location
Exist
Roadway
Min.
Standard
LOS
Exist Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Capacity
Volume
Future
Project
Build out
Roadway
Livingston
Road 54.0
South of project
to Golden Gate
Parkway
6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D
Livingston
Road 54.0
North of project
to Pine Ridge
Road
6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D
Livingston
Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to Radio
Road
6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston Road
to I-75 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1 Livingston Road
to Airport Road 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D
Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of
Service.
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis
The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for
the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project
impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon (2023). The Collier County
Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to
have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the
capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly
accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate
below the adopted LOS standard.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13
Based on these criteria, this project does not create a significant impact on any of the analyzed.
All links analyzed are projected to operate above the adopted LOS standard with or without the
project at 2023 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates
the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project.
Table 6
Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2023
Roadway Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway
Link Location
2017
Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Capacity
Volume
Roadway
Link, Peak
Dir, Peak
Hr (Project
Vol
Added)*
2023
Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Volume
w/Project
**
% Vol
Capacity
Impact
by
Project
Min LOS
exceeded
without
Project?
Yes/No
Min LOS
exceeded
with
Project?
Yes/No
Livingston Road 54.0
South of
project to
Golden Gate
Parkway
3,100
(NB) NB – 22 1,678 0.71% No No
Livingston Road 54.0
North of
project to
Pine Ridge
Road
3,100
(NB) N/A 1,656 N/A No No
Livingston Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
3,000
(NB) NB – 6 1,437 0.20% No No
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston
Road to I-75
3,300
(EB) EB – 52 3,172 1.58% No No
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1
Livingston
Road to
Airport Road
3,300
(EB) EB – 6 2,484 0.18% No No
Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2023 Projected Volume = 2023 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added.
Site Access Turn Lane Analysis
The project plans to eliminate 2 commercial access locations (approved within the Grey Oaks DRI
Master Plan); one from Golden Gate Parkway and one from Airport Road, and proposes a new
driveway access location from Livingston Road to serve the proposed O’Donnell Nursery project
with a directional left-in/right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (north
access). There is an existing right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (south
access). The project would like to reconfigure this driveway to a right-out only access with an
option to maintain the existing southern access as is. For details, refer to Appendix A: Project
Master Site Plan and Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual Roadway Master Plan.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14
Livingston Road is a 6-lane urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, and
has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project . Based on FDOT Index 301,
design speed of 45 mph – urban conditions – the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which
includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue.
Project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on Collier County Right -of-way Manual:
(a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided
roadways – right turn lanes shall always be provided; and c) when new median openings are
permitted, they shall always include left turn lanes.
Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning
vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period
for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 f eet
and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet.
Projected turning traffic movements are illustrated in Appendix G: Turning Movements Exhibits.
Left-in/Right-in/Right-out North Access and Right-out only South Access
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
The proposed project is expected to generate 63vph and 22vph right-turning movements during
the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 2 35 feet long
(which includes a minimum of 50 feet of storage). As such, a 235 foot right-turn lane is
recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated northbound left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
There is an existing northbound left-turn lane approximately 550 feet long. The proposed project
is expected to generate 62vph and 21vph left-turning movements during the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 260 feet long (which includes a
minimum of 75 feet of storage). As such, the existing 550 foot left-turn lane is adequate to
accommodate projected traffic at this location.
Left-in/Right-in/Right-out North Access and Optional Right-in/Right-out South Access
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane at the proposed north access is warranted as the project
meets the multi-lane criteria. The proposed project is expected to generate 38vph and 13vph
right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the minimum, the
turn lane should be 210 feet long (which includes a minimum of 25 feet of storage). As such, a
210 foot right-turn lane is recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated northbound left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
There is an existing northbound left-turn lane approximately 550 feet long. The proposed project
is expected to generate 62vph and 21vph left-turning movements during the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 260 feet long (which i ncludes a
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15
minimum of 75 feet of storage). As such, the existing 550 foot left -turn lane is adequate to
accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane at the proposed optional south access is warranted as
the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The proposed project is expected to generate 25vph
and 9vph right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the
minimum, the turn lane should be 210 feet long (which includes a minimum of 25 feet of storage).
As such, a 210 foot right-turn lane is recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this
location.
A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site
development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements as more accurate
parameters become available, as applicable.
Improvement Analysis
Based on the results of the comparison analysis included in this report, this project’s traffic
impact does not exceed the traffic generated by the approved PUD ordinance.
As illustrated in the link analysis and trip distribution, the projected traffic does not create any
significant impacts on the analyzed roadway segments of the study network.
None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without
the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway
capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent
roadway network level of service.
Consistent with the site access turn lane analysis results, southbound right-turn lanes are
recommended to accommodate traffic at build-out conditions. The existing northbound left-turn
lane is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
Mitigation of Impact
From a zoning perspective, given that access is eliminated on Golden Gate Parkway and Airport
Road due to less intensive established land uses there and this proposal does not create a net
increase in development external trips as compared to the original development parameters, the
prior established DRI mitigation should be deemed satisfactory.
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17
9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 48Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist
(Methodology Meeting)
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 23
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 24
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25
Appendix C: Collier County Ordinance 2007-40
– Excerpt
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 26
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 27
Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring
Report – Excerpt
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 28
9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 59Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 29
Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual
Roadway Master Plan
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 30
9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 61Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 31
Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations
ITE 10th Edition
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 32
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 33
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 34
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 35
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 36
Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary -
Excerpt
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 37
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 38
Appendix H: Turning Movements Exhibit
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 39
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 40
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 41
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 42
9.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6653 : PL20170001729-Halistatt/Grey Oaks DRI)
11/01/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.2
Item Summary: ***Note: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC
meeting.*** PL20170001548: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 07-40, the Grey Oaks MPUD, by relocating unbuilt access locations on
Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to Livingston Road for access only to the areas of the PUD
identified as FP&L easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive Eas t, and by providing an effective date.
The subject MPUD consisting of 1,601+/- acres is located at the northeast, northwest, and southeast
quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road (S.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Sections
24, 25, and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item
PL20170001729-Halstatt/Grey Oaks DRI) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 11/01/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
10/09/2018 2:42 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
10/09/2018 2:42 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 10/10/2018 12:46 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 10/11/2018 10:01 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 10/15/2018 10:58 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 10/15/2018 12:24 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 10/15/2018 1:41 PM
Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 10/22/2018 10:07 AM
Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 11/01/2018 9:00 AM
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 74
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170001548, GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AND DOA-PL20170001729, GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
The petitions PUDA-PL20170001548, Grey Oaks PUD, and DOA-PL20170001729, Grey Oaks DRI
were continued from the September 6, 2018, CCPC hearing to the October 4, 2018, CCPC hearing
and then to the November 1, 2018, CCPC hearing.
Staff has received a revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). (Please see Attachment F-Revised TIS.)
The revised TIS clarifies that the proposed 31-acre site will have a wholesale nursery and landscape
contracting land uses. The previously proposed land uses of commercial landscaping, retail nursery
comprised of outdoor sales and display area, and farmer’s market have been removed from the revised
TIS.
The Transportation Element contained in the September 6, 2018, CCPC Staff Report has been revised
to state:
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
GMP using the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
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
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
Page 2 of 3
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
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 PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable
2017 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the
proposed wholesale nursery and landscape contracting development will generate
approximately 173 PM peak hour two-way trips, which according to the TIS, represents the
same number of PM peak hour two-way trips remaining for retail use allowed by the existing
PUD. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed
capacities:
Roadway Link 2017
AUIR
Existing
LOS
Current Peak
Hour Peak
Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2017 AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Livingston
Road
Pine Ridge
Road to Golden
Gate Parkway
B 3,100/North 1,596
Livingston
Road
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
B 3,000/North 1,691
Golden Gate
Parkway
Airport-Pulling
Road to
Livingston
Road
C 3,300/East 1,100
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
Page 3 of 3
Golden Gate
Parkway
Livingston
Road to I-75
D 3,300/East 529
Based on the 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period.
Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of first development
order ((Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat(PPL)).
Attachment: Revised TIS, dated September 27, 2018
END OF MEMORANDUM
9.A.2.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: MEMO to CCPC 10-9-18 (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
Supplemental Memo
October 19, 2018
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2018
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170001548, GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AND DOA-PL20170001729, GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
Through further discussions with the Transportation Planning Division and review of the most recent
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted for the application (dated 9/27/2018), the proposed
landscape nursery for which two access points are requested by the petitioner only generates 12 total
PM peak hour trips. This volume only warrants one access point onto Livingston Road. Based upon
this recognition, Staff is recommending the amendment be limited to a single access point off of
Livingston Road.
For further information, please see page 7 of the revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). (Please see
Attachment G-Revised TIS.)
END OF MEMORANDUM
9.A.2.b
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Supplemental MEMO to CCPC 10-19-18-bosi (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
Traffic Impact Statement
O’Donnell Nursery
Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA)
Collier County, Florida
09/27/2018
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Peninsula Engineering
2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Bonita Springs, FL 34105
Phone: 239-403-6700
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110
Phone: 239-566-9551
Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz
Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00 Fee
Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Major Study – $1,500.00 Fee
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2
Statement of Certification
I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate
supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation
Engineering.
Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E.
FL Registration No. 47116
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110
Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3
Table of Contents
Project Description ................................................................................................ 4
Trip Generation – Traffic Analysis .......................................................................... 6
Trip Distribution and Assignment........................................................................... 8
Background Traffic ................................................................................................11
Existing and Future Roadway Network .................................................................12
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis .....................................12
Site Access Turn Lane Analysis ..............................................................................13
Improvement Analysis ..........................................................................................15
Mitigation of Impact .............................................................................................15
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan ...................................................................16
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ............................18
Appendix C: Collier County Ordinance 2007-40 – Excerpt ....................................25
Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring Report – Excerpt.............................27
Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual Roadway Master Plan ..........................29
Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition ..................................31
Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary - Excerpt .............................36
Appendix H: Turning Movements Exhibit .............................................................38
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4
Project Description
The O’Donnell Nursey project is a proposed wholesale nursery development located on the west
side of Livingston Road approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of Livingston Road and
Golden Gate Parkway and directly south of the intersection of Livingston Road and Grey Oaks
Drive East, and is generally located within Section 24/25, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in
Collier County, Florida.
Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site
Plan.
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
The subject site consists of 2 parcels totaling approximately 31 acres in size and is currently zoned
Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
As allowed by the PUD commercial permitted uses, the project proposes 27 acres of wholesale
nursery and landscape contracting. Neither the nursery nor landscaping uses are available to the
general public and the only traffic accessing the site will be employees and their respective
commercial vehicles entering and exiting the site.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5
A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on August
24, 2016, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)). It
should be noted that the information included in the methodology was based on preliminary
information which has been updated and is reflected in this analysis.
For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the
Collier County 2023 planning horizon.
Consistent with the approved Collier County Ordinance #2007-40, the Grey Oaks DRI site is
currently allowed to be developed with up to 1,775 residential dwelling units, 1,303,091 sf of
office/retail/commercial and 72 golf course holes.
The approved development program associated with these land uses is shown in Table 1A,
Existing Approved and Built Development Program. For details, see Appendix C: Collier County
Ordinance 2007-40 – Excerpts and Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring Report –
Excerpts.
Table 1A
Existing Approved and Built Development Program
ITE Land Use
(Zoning Designation)
ITE Land Use
Code Approved Size Built to Date
Size
Single-Family Detached 210 1,775 du 1,341 du
General Office Bldg. 710 653,453 sf 0 sf
Shopping Center 820 649,638 sf 0 sf
Golf Course 430 72 holes 72 holes
The project plans to eliminate 2 commercial access locations (approved within the Grey Oaks DRI
Master Plan); one from Golden Gate Parkway and one from Airport Road, and proposes a new
driveway access location from Livingston Road to serve the proposed O’Donnell Nursery project
with a directional left-in/right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (north
access). There is an existing right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (south
access). The project would like to reconfigure this driveway to a right-out only access with an
option to maintain the existing access as is. For details, see Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI –
Conceptual Roadway Master Plan.
The Developer elected to construct none of the commercial square footage. T he analysis will
show that, from a traffic standpoint, this project is much less intensive than the approved
commercial and retail uses currently allowed in the PUD/DRI.
The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project’s proposed trip
generation. The proposed development program is illustrated in Table 1B.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6
Table 1B
Proposed Development Program
Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Code Total Size
O’Donnell Nursery Nursery – Wholesale 818 27 acres
Trip Generation – Traffic Analysis
The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The software program OTISS – Online Traffic Impact Study
Software (most current version) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the
project. The ITE rates or equations are used for the trip generation calculations as applicable.
The climate and demographic makeup of Collier County and the surrounding area create a large
year-round demand for landscape contracting services. In order to account for this unique
demand, a supplemental calculation was performed for anticipated additional traffic from the
landscape contracting activities. Based on client provided data, trip generation was calculated
to include employees arriving on site in the morning in personal vehicles, then departing in
company trucks (a total of 50) to their respective landscape contracting projects. Similarly, the
company trucks would return to the project site in the afternoon and the employees would leave
the site in their personal vehicles. It is assumed there are 5-man crews per truck and that some
carpooling will occur between employees, for an average of 3 personal vehicle trips per truck.
The majority of trips are assumed to occur during the AM and PM peak hour time periods as
applicable, however, it is understood that some trips will fall outside of the peak hour time
periods. As such, for this analysis, 80% of the landscape contracting trips are assumed to occur
during the peak hour time periods.
Based on ITE recommendations, no internal capture or pass-by reductions have been taken into
consideration for this development.
The proposed PUDA development trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. Detailed calculations
can be found in Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7
Table 2A
Trip Generation (Proposed PUDA Development) - Average Weekday
Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Nursery - Wholesale 27 acres 5 2 7 3 9 12
Landscape Contracting* N/A 120 40 160 40 120 160
Total External 125 42 167 43 129 172
*Manually calculated based on client supplied data.
In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines, significantly impacted
roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net
new total) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the
information contained in Collier County 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the
peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour.
A purpose of this analysis is to generate a traffic comparison between the proposed project and
the undeveloped retail land use within the Grey Oaks DRI. The projects total external PM peak
hour 2-way trip generation is used to determine the potential traffic of the project and provides
guidance as to the equivalent amount of retail square footage that would be required to produce
the same traffic impact.
The ITE LUC 820, shopping center, was used to model the trip generation for the commercial
portion of the DRI. As illustrated in the Halstatt DRI – Development of Regional Impact
Application for Development Approval dated May 26, 1989, Trip Generation Summary, trip
generation rates were developed and internal capture and pass-by reductions were calculated
for the various land uses comprising the DRI. The resulting reduction factors for commercial
land use at Livingston Road are 18% for internal capture and 50% for pass-by reductions (for
details see Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary – Excerpt).
Table 2B
Trip Generation Comparison – Shopping Center – PM Peak Hour
Development PM Peak Hour
Size (Rate) Enter Exit Total
Total Traffic 70,500 sf 202 218 420
Internal Capture (18%) 38 38 76
Total External 164 180 344
Pass-by (50%) 86 86 172
Net External 78 94 172
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8
Based on the results of the trip generation illustrated in Table 2B, 70,500 sf of shopping center is
required to produce the same traffic impact as the proposed project, as illustrated in Table 2C.
Table 2C
Trip Generation Comparison – PM Peak Hour
Development PM Peak Hour
Size Enter Exit Total
Proposed PUDA Development Per Table 2A 43 129 172
Proposed Retail Comparison 70,500 sf 78 94 172
Net Difference (35) 35 0
For the purpose of this TIS, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is
analyzed based on projected PM peak hour Total External traffic generated by the proposed
PUDA project. The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the Total External traffic
during the weekday AM and PM peak hour (as shown in Table 2A).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The new traffic generated by the O’Donnell Nursery project is assigned to the adjacent roadways
using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning
Staff.
The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour
and is graphically depicted in Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak
Hour.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9
Table 3
Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour
Roadway Link
Collier
County
Link No.
Roadway Link Location
Distribution of
Project Traffic
Enter/(Exit)
PM Peak Hour Project Vol.*
Enter Exit
Livingston
Road 54.0 South of project to Golden
Gate Parkway 50%/(100%) NB – 22 SB – 129
Livingston
Road 54.0 North of project to Pine
Ridge Road 50%/(N/A) SB – 21 N/A
Livingston
Road 55.0 Golden Gate Parkway to
Radio Road 15%/(30%) NB – 6 SB – 39
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston Road to I-75 20%/(40%) WB – 9 EB – 52
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1 Livingston Road to Airport
Road 15%/(30%) EB – 6 WB – 39
Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service
calculations.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10
Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11
Background Traffic
Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway
network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a
minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated
from 2008 through 2017), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is
to use the 2017 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without
Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected
background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2023.
Table 4
Background Traffic without Project (2017 - 2023)
Roadway
Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway Link
Location
2017 AUIR
Pk Hr, Pk
Dir
Background
Traffic
Volume
(trips/hr)
Projected
Traffic
Annual
Growth
Rate
(%/yr)*
Growth
Factor
2023 Projected
Pk Hr, Peak Dir
Background
Traffic Volume
w/out Project
(trips/hr)
Growth
Factor**
Trip
Bank
2023
Projected Pk
Hr, Peak Dir
Background
Traffic
Volume
w/out Project
(trips/hr) Trip
Bank***
Livingston
Road 54.0
South of project
to Golden Gate
Parkway
1,470 2.0% 1.1262 1,656 34 1,504
Livingston
Road 54.0
North of project
to Pine Ridge
Road
1,470 2.0% 1.1262 1,656 34 1,504
Livingston
Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
1,270 2.0% 1.1262 1,431 39 1,309
Golden
Gate
Parkway
20.2 Livingston Road
to I-75 2,770 2.0% 1.1262 3,120 1 2,771
Golden
Gate
Parkway
20.1 Livingston Road
to Airport Road 2,200 2.0% 1.1262 2,478 0 2,200
Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate - from 2017 AUIR, 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 6. 2023 Projected Volume=
2017 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2023 Projected Volume= 2017 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2023 Peak Hour
– Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as
applicable.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12
Existing and Future Roadway Network
The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory
Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year
Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled
to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital
Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such
improvements were identified in the Collier County 201 7 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are
anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway
conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions.
Table 5
Existing and Future Roadway Conditions
Roadway Link CC AUIR
Link ID #
Roadway Link
Location
Exist
Roadway
Min.
Standard
LOS
Exist Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Capacity
Volume
Future
Project
Build out
Roadway
Livingston
Road 54.0
South of project
to Golden Gate
Parkway
6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D
Livingston
Road 54.0
North of project
to Pine Ridge
Road
6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D
Livingston
Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to Radio
Road
6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston Road
to I-75 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1 Livingston Road
to Airport Road 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D
Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of
Service.
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis
The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for
the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project
impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon (2023). The Collier County
Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to
have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the
capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly
accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate
below the adopted LOS standard.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13
Based on these criteria, this project does not create a significant impact on any of the analyzed.
All links analyzed are projected to operate above the adopted LOS standard with or without the
project at 2023 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates
the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project.
Table 6
Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2023
Roadway Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway
Link Location
2017
Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Capacity
Volume
Roadway
Link, Peak
Dir, Peak
Hr (Project
Vol
Added)*
2023
Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Volume
w/Project
**
% Vol
Capacity
Impact
by
Project
Min LOS
exceeded
without
Project?
Yes/No
Min LOS
exceeded
with
Project?
Yes/No
Livingston Road 54.0
South of
project to
Golden Gate
Parkway
3,100
(NB) NB – 22 1,678 0.71% No No
Livingston Road 54.0
North of
project to
Pine Ridge
Road
3,100
(NB) N/A 1,656 N/A No No
Livingston Road 55.0
Golden Gate
Parkway to
Radio Road
3,000
(NB) NB – 6 1,437 0.20% No No
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.2 Livingston
Road to I-75
3,300
(EB) EB – 52 3,172 1.58% No No
Golden Gate
Parkway 20.1
Livingston
Road to
Airport Road
3,300
(EB) EB – 6 2,484 0.18% No No
Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2023 Projected Volume = 2023 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added.
Site Access Turn Lane Analysis
The project plans to eliminate 2 commercial access locations (approved within the Grey Oaks DRI
Master Plan); one from Golden Gate Parkway and one from Airport Road, and proposes a new
driveway access location from Livingston Road to serve the proposed O’Donnell Nursery project
with a directional left-in/right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (north
access). There is an existing right-in/right-out access onto southbound Livingston Road (south
access). The project would like to reconfigure this driveway to a right-out only access with an
option to maintain the existing southern access as is. For details, refer to Appendix A: Project
Master Site Plan and Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual Roadway Master Plan.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14
Livingston Road is a 6-lane urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, and
has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project . Based on FDOT Index 301,
design speed of 45 mph – urban conditions – the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which
includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue.
Project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on Collier County Right -of-way Manual:
(a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided
roadways – right turn lanes shall always be provided; and c) when new median openings are
permitted, they shall always include left turn lanes.
Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning
vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period
for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 f eet
and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet.
Projected turning traffic movements are illustrated in Appendix G: Turning Movements Exhibits.
Left-in/Right-in/Right-out North Access and Right-out only South Access
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
The proposed project is expected to generate 63vph and 22vph right-turning movements during
the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 2 35 feet long
(which includes a minimum of 50 feet of storage). As such, a 235 foot right-turn lane is
recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated northbound left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
There is an existing northbound left-turn lane approximately 550 feet long. The proposed project
is expected to generate 62vph and 21vph left-turning movements during the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 260 feet long (which includes a
minimum of 75 feet of storage). As such, the existing 550 foot left-turn lane is adequate to
accommodate projected traffic at this location.
Left-in/Right-in/Right-out North Access and Optional Right-in/Right-out South Access
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane at the proposed north access is warranted as the project
meets the multi-lane criteria. The proposed project is expected to generate 38vph and 13vph
right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the minimum, the
turn lane should be 210 feet long (which includes a minimum of 25 feet of storage). As such, a
210 foot right-turn lane is recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated northbound left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria.
There is an existing northbound left-turn lane approximately 550 feet long. The proposed project
is expected to generate 62vph and 21vph left-turning movements during the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 260 feet long (which i ncludes a
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15
minimum of 75 feet of storage). As such, the existing 550 foot left -turn lane is adequate to
accommodate projected traffic at this location.
A dedicated southbound right-turn lane at the proposed optional south access is warranted as
the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The proposed project is expected to generate 25vph
and 9vph right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. At the
minimum, the turn lane should be 210 feet long (which includes a minimum of 25 feet of storage).
As such, a 210 foot right-turn lane is recommended to accommodate projected traffic at this
location.
A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site
development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements as more accurate
parameters become available, as applicable.
Improvement Analysis
Based on the results of the comparison analysis included in this report, this project’s traffic
impact does not exceed the traffic generated by the approved PUD ordinance.
As illustrated in the link analysis and trip distribution, the projected traffic does not create any
significant impacts on the analyzed roadway segments of the study network.
None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without
the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway
capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent
roadway network level of service.
Consistent with the site access turn lane analysis results, southbound right-turn lanes are
recommended to accommodate traffic at build-out conditions. The existing northbound left-turn
lane is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at this location.
Mitigation of Impact
From a zoning perspective, given that access is eliminated on Golden Gate Parkway and Airport
Road due to less intensive established land uses there and this proposal does not create a net
increase in development external trips as compared to the original development parameters, the
prior established DRI mitigation should be deemed satisfactory.
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17
9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 95Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist
(Methodology Meeting)
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 23
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 24
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25
Appendix C: Collier County Ordinance 2007-40
– Excerpt
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 26
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 27
Appendix D: Collier County PUD Monitoring
Report – Excerpt
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 28
9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 106Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 29
Appendix E: Grey Oaks DRI – Conceptual
Roadway Master Plan
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 30
9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 108Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 31
Appendix F: Trip Generation Calculations
ITE 10th Edition
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 32
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 33
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 34
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 35
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 36
Appendix G: Halstatt DRI Trip Generation Summary -
Excerpt
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 37
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 38
Appendix H: Turning Movements Exhibit
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 39
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 40
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 41
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
O’Donnell Nursery – PUDA TIS – September 2018
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 42
9.A.2.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Revised TIS - 09-27-2018R1--certified (6655 : PL20170001548-Grey Oaks MPUD)
11/01/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 9.A.3
Item Summary: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to
make changes consistent with Board direction, including revising the affordable housing definition,
updating the terminology and income levels associated with affordable housing categories, and increasing
the maximum affordable density bonus from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre, by providing for: Section
One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions,
including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section
2.06.01 Generally, Section 2.06.02 Purpose and Intent, Section 2.06.03 AHDB Rating System, Section
2.06.04 Limitations on Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Section 2.06.05 Affordable Housing Density
Bonus Monitoring Program, and Section 2.06.06 Violations and Enforcement; Section Four, Conflict and
Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six,
Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 11/01/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Eric Johnson
10/12/2018 10:29 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
10/12/2018 10:29 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 10/15/2018 9:13 AM
Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 10/15/2018 10:50 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 10/15/2018 10:59 AM
Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 10/16/2018 11:08 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 10/16/2018 4:57 PM
Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 10/17/2018 10:08 AM
Growth Management Department Kenneth Kovensky Review Item Completed 10/18/2018 11:44 AM
Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 10/22/2018 9:45 AM
Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 11/01/2018 9:00 AM
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 121
1
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018).docx
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20180002172
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This amendment simplifies the definition of affordable housing and
makes the terminology and income levels consistent with the Florida
Statutes and federal guidelines. It also increases the maximum available
affordable housing density bonus from 8 units to 12 units.
LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED
1.08.02 Definitions
2.06.00 Affordable Housing Density Bonus (multiple sections)
ORIGIN
Board of County
Commissioners (Board)
HEARING DATES
BCC
CCPC
DSAC
DSAC-LDR
12/11/2018
11/01/2018
09/05/2018
08/21/2018
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
Approval with Changes
DSAC
Unanimous Approval
CCPC
TBD
BACKGROUND:
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) held two affordable housing workshops, one in 2015 and
the other in 2016. These workshops served as the catalyst to form the Housing Stakeholders Group
(HSG). The HSG was tasked with creating a two-phase Community Housing Plan (CHP). The first
phase of the CHP consisted of the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) recommendations from their report titled
A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Collier County, Florida, January 29-February 3, 2017. The ULI
report indicated that Collier County has an affordability problem, and it may become a crisis if
unaddressed. The Board unanimously accepted the CHP (Item #11.A) on October 25, 2017 and directed
Staff to bring forward each suggestion in the report individually for discussions in workshops.
On February 27, 2018, the Board accepted elements of the CHP by voting in favor of the following:
1.Approve new affordable housing definitions in accordance with discussion at the meeting;
2.Accept the staff-recommended updates of the housing demand model and its methodology;
3.Adopt a resolution (i.e., 2018-38) to advocate support and authorize the county's lobbyists to
support current and future state and federal legislation;
4.Adopt a resolution (i.e., 2018-39) to consider housing that is affordable in future public land
acquisitions;
5.Accept the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program (AHDB Program) to increase the
affordable housing density bonus from eight extra units per acre to up to 12 extra units per acre; and
6.Adopt a resolution (i.e., 2018-40) to amend the expedited permitting and fast track procedure.
This code amendment represents the end-product of #1 (definition) and #5 (AHDB Program) above.
Under the definition there are five income levels detailed, ranging up to 140 percent Median Income
(MI) for Collier County. These income categories include the following: extremely-low-income, very-
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018).docx
low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and gap-income. Costs used to determine affordability
include the anticipated monthly rent/mortgage payment, property tax, insurance, and required fees (such
as mandatory condominium or homeowner association fees and assessments).
There are four income levels used in the AHDB Program, including very-low-income, low-income,
moderate-income, and gap-income. For purposes of the AHDB Program, the extremely-low-income
category is grouped together with the very-low-income category, which staff anticipates is sufficient to
address the full spectrum of housing to be built. Even though the extremely-low-income category is not
used in the Program, it is important to retain this threshold of household income in the Definitions,
because this category is used in other County programs and reports. In accordance with F.S. 420.9075
(4)(e) and to avoid duplicative efforts, staff also is proposing a provision in LDC section 2.06.05 B.6,
which would allow staff to accept annual reports from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation to help
developers demonstrate compliance with tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of the AHDB
Program.
This amendment would change the minimum number of required affordable housing units per
development, from 10 units to 10 percent of the total housing units. This change is consistent with
current Community and Human Services policy. This amendment would also change the upper limit of
the gap-income housing category, lowering it from 150% of median income to 140%, which is consistent
with the Board’s direction.
DSAC-LDR Recommendations:
1. Reword a portion of the affordable housing definition, in part, by creating two separate sentences
from what was one longer sentence.
2. Modify Table A. Affordable Housing Density Bonus to include the table’s title as the top row, re-
introduce a note under the table that was previously earmarked by staff for deletion, and renumber the
notes associated with the table.
3. Change the income verification provisions to allow the most recent year’s filed income tax returns.
DSAC Recommendations:
1. Incorporate the minor changes that staff mentioned at the DSAC meeting.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
There are no anticipated fiscal or operational
impacts associated with this amendment.
GMP CONSISTENCY
There is a related GMP amendment that proposes
to revise terminology and increase the affordable
housing density bonus from 8 to 12 dwelling units
per acre. That GMP amendment is necessary so
that this LDC amendment may be found consistent
with the GMP.
EXHIBITS: A- Explanation of Proposed Changes
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
3
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
Amend the LDC as follows:
1.08.02 Definitions 1
2
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 3
4
Affordable Housing: Housing is deemed affordable when the cost of a residential dwelling unit 5
does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median annual 6
gross income for the household. The calculation of such cost shall include the monthly rent and 7
utilities (for rental units) or monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, special assessments, 8
insurance, and other required condominium or homeowner association fees and assessments 9
(for owner-occupied units). 10
11
Affordable housing specifically includes the following income level targets for Collier County, 12
based on the income categories as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 13
Housing and Urban Development: 14
15
a. Extremely-low-income: Households whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of 16
the median income. 17
18
b. Very-low-income: Households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the 19
median income. 20
21
c. Low-income: Households whose incomes are greater than 50 percent but do not 22
exceed 80 percent of the median income. 23
24
d. Moderate-income: Households whose incomes are greater than 80 percent but 25
do not exceed 120 percent of the median income. 26
27
e. Gap-income: Households whose incomes are greater than 120 percent but do not 28
exceed 140 percent of the median income. 29
30
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 31
32
Approved Affordable Housing: Affordable Housing that includes a long-term affordability 33
restriction wherein the cost of housing and income of the household are known and monitored, 34
for a specific period of time. 35
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 36
Housing, affordable workforce: means residential dwelling units with a monthly rent or monthly 37
mortgage payment, including property taxes and insurance, not in excess of 1/12 of 30 percent 38
of an amount which represents a range of median adjusted gross annual income (median income) 39
for households as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 40
within the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (See section 2.05.02), specifically including 41
the following subsets: 42
Owner occupied workforce housing: 50 percent or less of median income, otherwise 43
considered to be "very-low income". 44
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
4
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
1
Owner occupied workforce housing: 51 percent—60 percent of median income, otherwise 2
considered to be "low income". 3
4
Owner occupied workforce housing: 61 percent—80 percent of median income, otherwise 5
considered to be "low income". 6
7
Owner occupied workforce housing: 81 percent—100 percent of median income, 8
otherwise considered to be "moderate income". 9
10
Owner occupied gap housing: 81 percent—150 percent of median income. 11
12
Rental workforce housing less than 50 percent of median income, otherwise considered 13
to be "very-low income". 14
15
Rental workforce housing from 51 percent—60 percent of median income, otherwise 16
considered to be "low income". 17
18
The term affordable housing is specifically intended to include affordable workforce 19
housing. 20
21
Housing, gap: means residential dwelling units with a monthly rent or monthly mortgage payment, 22
including property taxes and insurance, not in excess of 1/12 of 30 percent of an amount which 23
represents a range of median adjusted gross annual income (median income) for households as 24
published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development within the Naples 25
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (See section 2.05.02), specifically including the following 26
subset: 27
The term "gap housing: 81 percent—150 percent of median income" is specifically 28
intended to include similar categories, such as "Essential Personnel Housing", 29
"Professional Housing", and "Reasonably Priced Housing". Gap housing is intended to 30
provide housing for households falling above the federal and state assistance guidelines, 31
but still unable to afford market priced homes. 32
33
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 34
35
2.06.00 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUSES 36
37
2.06.01 – Generally 38
39
A. Within most of the coastal urban designated areas identified on the future land use map of 40
the Collier County GMP, a base density of four (4) residential dwelling units per gross 41
acre is permitted. However, the base density may be adjusted depending on the 42
characteristics of the development. One characteristic of a housing development which 43
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
5
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
would allow the addition of density bonuses in order to increase the density over the 1
base density is the provision of affordable housing in the development. The provision of 2
affordable housing units may add up to eight (8) 12 dwelling units per gross acre to the 3
base density of four (4) residential dwelling units per gross acre, for a total of twelve (12) 4
residential dwelling units per gross acre, plus any other density bonuses available, and 5
minus any density reduction for traffic congestion area that is required, pursuant to the 6
Collier County GMP. The total eligible density must not exceed the maximum density 7
allowed pursuant to the GMP a total of sixteen (16) dwelling units per gross acre, except 8
as allowed through use of transfer of development rights, as provided for in the growth 9
management plan. The program to accomplish this increase to provide affordable housing 10
is called the affordable housing density bonus (ADHB) program. 11
12
B. Within most of the Immokalee Urban area, as identified on the Immokalee area master 13
plan future land use map of the growth management plan, base densities are four or 14
six or eight residential dwelling units per gross acre. However, the base density may 15
be adjusted depending on the characteristics of the development. One characteristic of 16
a housing development that would allow the addition of density bonuses is the provision 17
of affordable housing in the development. The provision of affordable housing units 18
may add up to 12 eight dwelling units per gross acre to the base density of four, six 19
or eight residential dwelling units per gross acre, for a total of twelve, fourteen or 20
sixteen residential dwelling units per gross acre, plus any other density bonuses 21
available. The total eligible density must not exceed the maximum allowed pursuant to the 22
GMP a total of 16 dwelling units per gross acre. 23
24
C. Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Agricultural/Rural area, as 25
identified on the future land use map of the growth management plan, towns, villages, 26
hamlets and compact rural developments are allowed at a density range of one-half to 27
four dwelling units per gross acre. The allowed density may be adjusted depending on 28
the characteristics of the development. One characteristic of a housing development 29
that would allow the addition of density bonuses is the provision of affordable housing 30
in the development. The provision of affordable housing units may add up to eight 31
dwelling units per gross acre to the allowed density of one-half to four dwelling units 32
per gross acre, for a total of eight and one-half to twelve and one-half residential 33
dwelling units per gross acre, plus any other density bonuses available. 34
35
D. In order to qualify for the AHDB for a development, the developer must apply for and 36
obtain the AHDB from the County for a development in accordance with this section, 37
especially in accordance with the provisions of the AHDB program, including the AHDB 38
rating system, the AHDB monitoring program, and the limitations on the AHDB. 39
40
1. Preapplication conference. Prior to submitting an application for AHDB, a 41
preapplication conference may be scheduled with the County Manager or his 42
designee. If the proposed development is to include affordable housing, the 43
housing and urban improvement director, must participate in the 44
preapplication conference. The preapplication conference provides an 45
opportunity to familiarize the applicant with the AHDB program and provides an 46
opportunity for the county staff to obtain a clear understanding of the proposed 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
6
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
development. The AHDB rating system, the AHDB monitoring program, the 1
limitations, criteria, procedures, standard conditions, standard forms, and other 2
information will be discussed and made available to the applicant. Depending on 3
the type of development proposed, the application may be combined with an 4
application for a planned unit development (PUD), a rezone, or a Stewardship 5
Receiving Area. 6
7
2. Application. An application for AHDB for a development must be submitted to 8
the County Manager or his designee in the form established by the County 9
Manager or his designee. One additional copy of the application as otherwise 10
required must be provided for the housing and urban improvement director. 11
The application must, at a minimum, include: 12
13
a. Zoning districts proposed by the applicant on the property and acreage of 14
each; 15
16
b. The total number of residential dwelling units in the proposed 17
development, categorized by number of bedrooms and whether the unit 18
is to be rented or owner-occupied; 19
20
c. The total number of AHDB units requested, categorized by number of 21
bedrooms and whether the unit is to be rented or owner-occupied; 22
23
d. Total number of affordable housing units proposed in the development, 24
categorized by level of income, number of bedrooms (one bedroom, two 25
bedrooms, three bedrooms, or more), and rental units and owner-26
occupied units: 27
28
i. Gap-income Moderate income households (one bedroom, two 29
bedrooms, or three bedrooms or more). 30
31
ii. Moderate-income Low income households (one bedroom, two 32
bedrooms, or three bedrooms or more). 33
34
iii. Low-income Very low income households (one bedroom, two 35
bedrooms, or three bedrooms or more). 36
37
iv. Very-low-income Total affordable housing units (one bedroom, 38
two bedrooms, or three bedrooms or more). 39
40
e. Gross density of the proposed development; 41
42
f. Whether the AHDB is requested in conjunction with an application for 43
a planned unit development (PUD), an application for rezoning, SRA an 44
application for a Stewardship Receiving Area, or a conditional use 45
application for a Commercial Mixed-Use project as provided for within 46
LDC section 4.02.38 of the LDC; and 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
7
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
g. Any other information which would reasonably be needed to address the 1
request for AHDB for the development pursuant to the requirements set 2
forth in this section. 3
4
3. Determination of completeness. After receipt of an application for AHDB, the 5
County Manger or designee housing and urban improvement director shall 6
determine whether the application submitted is complete. If it is determined he 7
determines that the application is not complete, the County Manager or designee 8
housing and urban improvement director shall notify the applicant in writing of 9
the deficiencies. The County Manager or designee housing and urban 10
improvement director shall take no further steps to process the application 11
until the deficiencies have been remedied. 12
13
4. Review and recommendation by the County Manager or designee. After receipt 14
of a completed application for AHDB, the County Manager or designee must 15
review and evaluate the application in light of the AHDB rating system, the 16
AHDB monitoring program and the requirements of this section. The County 17
Manager or designee must coordinate with the Zoning Division development 18
services director or designee to schedule the AHDB application with the 19
companion application for a PUD, rezoning, SRA, or conditional use 20
planned unit development or stewardship receiving area, and must recommend 21
to the planning commission and the BCC to deny, grant, or grant with conditions, 22
the AHDB application. The recommendation of the County Manager or designee 23
must include a report in support of recommendation. 24
25
5. Review and recommendation by the planning commission. Upon receipt by the 26
planning commission of the application for AHDB and the written 27
recommendation and report of the County Manager or designee, the planning 28
commission must schedule and hold a properly advertised and duly noticed 29
public hearing on the application. If the application has been submitted in 30
conjunction with an application for a PUD, rezoning, SRA, or conditional use, 31
then the hearing must be consolidated and made a part of the public hearing 32
on the respective application for the PUD before the planning commission. 33
, and the The planning commission must consider the application for AHDB in 34
conjunction with the application for the PUD, rezoning, SRA, or conditional use. 35
If the application has been submitted in conjunction with an application for a 36
rezoning, then the hearing must be consolidated and made a part of the public 37
hearing on the application for rezoning before the planning commission, and the 38
planning commission must consider the application for AHDB in conjunction 39
with the application for rezoning. If the application has been submitted in 40
conjunction with an application for a stewardship receiving area, then the hearing 41
must be consolidated and made a part of the public hearing on the application 42
for stewardship receiving area before the planning commission, and the 43
planning commission must consider the application for AHDB in conjunction 44
with the application for stewardship receiving area. After the close of the 45
public hearing, the planning commission must review and evaluate the 46
application in light of the requirements of this section and the requirements for 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
8
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
a rezoning, PUD, rezoning, or SRA stewardship receiving area, or conditional 1
use, as applicable, and must recommend to the BCC that the application be 2
denied, granted or granted with conditions. 3
4
6. Review and determination by Board of County Commissioners. Upon receipt by 5
the BCC of the application for AHDB and the written recommendation and 6
report of the County Manager or designee and recommendation of the planning 7
commission, the BCC must schedule and hold a properly advertised and duly 8
noticed public hearing on the application. If the application has been submitted 9
in conjunction with an application for a planned unit development (PUD), 10
rezoning, SRA, or conditional use, then the hearing must be consolidated and 11
made a part of the public hearing on the respective application for the planned 12
unit development (PUD) before the BCC, and the BCC must consider the 13
application for AHDB in conjunction with the application for the planned unit 14
development (PUD), rezoning, SRA, or conditional use. If the application has 15
been submitted in conjunction with an application for a rezoning, then the 16
hearing must be consolidated and made a part of the public hearing on the 17
application for rezoning before the BCC, and the BCC must consider the 18
application for AHDB in conjunction with the application for rezoning. If the 19
application has been submitted in conjunction with an application for a 20
stewardship receiving area, then the hearing must be consolidated and made 21
a part of the public hearing on the application for stewardship receiving area 22
before the BCC, and the BCC must consider the application for AHDB in 23
conjunction with the application for stewardship receiving area. After the close 24
of the public hearing, the BCC must review and evaluate the application in 25
light of the requirements of this section and the requirements for a PUD, 26
rezoning, SRA, or conditional use, and must deny, grant, or grant with 27
conditions, the application in accordance with the AHDB rating system and the 28
AHDB monitoring program. 29
30
E. The procedures to request approval of a density bonus are described in Chapter 10 of 31
this LDC, along with requirements for the developer's agreement to ensure compliance. 32
33
2.06.02 – Purpose and Intent 34
35
A. Section 2.06.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 36
et seq. F.S, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH 37
Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for moderate-, low-, and very-low-income housing 38
through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential 39
dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby 40
decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. 41
42
B. This objective is accomplished by implementing an AHDB program which consists of an 43
AHDB rating system and an AHDB monitoring program. The purpose of the AHDB 44
rating system is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee 45
that a portion of their housing development will be affordable by households of gap-, 46
moderate-, low-, or very-low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for gap-, 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
9
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
moderate-, low-, and very-low-income households throughout the county. The purpose 1
of the AHDB monitoring program is to provide assurance that the program is properly 2
implemented, monitored, and enforced, and that useful information on affordable 3
housing may be collected. 4
5
2.06.03 – AHDB Rating System 6
7
A. The AHDB rating system shall be used to determine the amount of the AHDB which may 8
be granted for a development, based on household income level, type of affordable 9
housing units (owner-occupied or rental, single-family or multi-family), and percentage 10
of affordable housing units in the development. To use the AHDB rating system, Table 11
A below, shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated, if necessary, on an 12
annual basis by the BCC or its designee. 13
14
1. First, choose the household income level (50% of median income, 60% of 15
median income, or 80% of median income) of the affordable housing unit(s) 16
proposed in the development, and the type of affordable housing units (owner-17
occupied or rental, single-family or multi-family, where applicable) to be 18
provided, as shown in Table A. An AHDB based on the household income 19
level is shown in Table A. Table A will indicate the maximum number of 20
residential dwelling units per gross acre that may be added to the base 21
density. These additional residential dwelling units per gross acre are the 22
maximum AHDB available to that development. Developments with 23
percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages 24
shown on Table A shall receive an AHDB equal to the lower of the 2 percentages 25
it lies between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each 26
additional percentage of affordable housing units in the development. For 27
example, a development which has 24 percent of its total residential dwelling 28
units as affordable housing units, at the 80 percent MI level will receive an AHDB 29
of 2.4 residential dwelling units per gross acre for the development. 30
31
2. Where more than 1 type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income 32
shown in Table A) is proposed for a development, the AHDB for each type shall 33
be calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of 34
affordable housing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit 35
shall be added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum 36
AHDB available for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed eight 37
(8) dwelling units per gross acre. 38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
10
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
Table A. Affordable-Workforce-Gap Housing Density Bonus 1
(Additional Available Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) 2
3
Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable-4
Workforce-Gap Housing1 5
6
Product
(% of MI)
Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as
Affordable Housing1,2,3
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gap
(>120 - ≤140)4,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n/a n/a
Moderate
(>80 - ≤120)4 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Low
(>50 - ≤80) 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12
Very-Low
(≤50) n/a 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12
7
Product2 Household
Income
(% median)
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gap 81-150%
MI* **
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 6 6 n/a
Moderate
Workforce
61-80%
MI* 2 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Low 51-60% 3 4 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Very Low 50% or less
MI 4 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8
1 Total Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable Housing Density Bonus. In 9
no event shall the maximum gross density exceed that which is allowed pursuant 10
to the GMP. 11
12
2 Developments with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between 13
the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an AHDB equal to the lower of the 14
two percentages it lies between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross 15
acre for each additional percentage of affordable housing units in the development. 16
17
3 Where more than one type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income 18
shown above) is proposed for a development, the AHDB for each type shall be 19
calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of affordable 20
housing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit shall be 21
added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum AHDB available 22
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
11
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed 12 dwelling units per 1
gross acre. 2
3
4 * Owner-occupied only 4
5
5 ** May only be used in conjunction with at least 20 10% at or below 120 80% MI 6
7
Total Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable-Workforce-Gap Housing Density 8
Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density allowed exceed 16 units per acre. 9
10
B. The AHDB shall be available to a development only to the extent that it otherwise 11
complies and is consistent with the GMP and the land development regulations, 12
including the procedures, requirements, conditions, and criteria for "PUDs" and rezonings, 13
where applicable. 14
15
C. The minimum number of affordable housing units that shall be provided in a development 16
pursuant to this section shall be ten (10) percent of the total affordable housing units. 17
18
D. The ratio of number of bedrooms per affordable housing unit shall in general be equal to 19
the ratio of the number of bedrooms per residential unit for the entire development. 20
21
2.06.04 - Limitations on Affordable Housing Density Bonus 22
23
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, the following limitations and conditions shall apply to all 24
of the AHDB for a development: 25
26
A. Affordable housing density bonus development agreement required. The AHDB shall 27
be available to a development only when an AHDB development agreement has been 28
entered into by the developer/ applicant and the BCC, and such agreement has been 29
approved by the county attorney and the BCC pursuant to the public hearing process 30
established in this section prior to execution. Amendments to such agreement shall be 31
processed as a regular agenda item before the BCC unless there is a companion land 32
use petition in the same manner as the original agreement. The AHDB development 33
agreement shall include, at a minimum, the following provisions: 34
35
1. Legal description of the land subject to the agreement and the names of its 36
legal and equitable owners. 37
38
2. Total number of residential dwelling units in the development. 39
40
3. Minimum number of affordable housing units, categorized by level of household 41
income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner-occupied or rental), and 42
number of bedrooms, required in the development. 43
44
4. Maximum number of AHDB dwelling units permitted in the development. 45
46
5. Gross residential density of the development. 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
12
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
1
6. Amount of monthly rent for rental units, or the price and conditions under which an 2
owner-occupied unit will be sold, for each type of affordable housing unit in 3
accordance with the definition for each type of affordable housing rental unit– 4
(moderate, low-, and very-low-income). 5
6
7. The foregoing notwithstanding, any rent charged for an affordable housing unit 7
rented to a low- or very-low-income household family shall not exceed 90 percent 8
of the rent charged for a comparable market rate dwelling in the same or similar 9
development. Comparable market rate means the rental; amount charged for the 10
last market rate dwelling unit of comparable market rate dwelling in the same or 11
similar development. Comparable market rate means the rental amount charged 12
for the last market rate dwelling unit of comparable square footage, amenities, and 13
number of bedrooms, to be rented in the same development the amount published 14
by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for Collier County adjusted by income 15
level, family size, and number of bedrooms, and updated annually. 16
17
8. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be rented to a tenant 18
whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with 19
this division as a moderate, low-, or very-low-income household family . Such 20
verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the developer and 21
shall be submitted to the County Manager or his designee for approval. Tenant 22
income verification and certification shall be repeated annually to assure continued 23
eligibility. 24
25
9. No affordable housing unit that is to be sold, leased with option to purchase, or 26
otherwise conveyed in the development shall be sold, leased with option to 27
purchase, or otherwise conveyed to a buyer whose household income has not 28
been verified and certified in accordance with this section as a gap-, moderate-, 29
low-, or very-low-income household family. Such verification and certification shall 30
be the responsibility of the developer and shall be submitted to the County 31
Manager or his designee for approval. It is the intent of this section to keep housing 32
affordable; therefore, any person who buys an affordable housing unit must agree, 33
in a lien instrument to be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier 34
County, Florida, that if he sells the property is sold (to a non-income qualified 35
buyer, including the land and/or the unit) within 15 years after the his original 36
purchase at a sales price in excess of five percent per year of the his original 37
purchase price that he will pay to the county an amount equal to one-half of the 38
sales price in excess of five percent increase per year. The lien instrument may 39
be subordinated to a qualifying first mortgage. 40
41
10. For example, a person originally buys a designated affordable housing unit (a 42
house) for $60,000.00 and sells it after five years for $80,000.00. A five percent 43
increase per year for five years will give a value of $76,577.00. Deducting this 44
amount from the sales price of $80,000.00 gives a difference of $3,423.00. The 45
seller would then owe the county $1,711.50 (one-half of $3,423.00). Payment 46
of this amount would release the recorded lien first owner from the recorded 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
13
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
lien against the property. Such payment shall be maintained in a segregated 1
fund, established by the county solely for affordable housing purposes, and such 2
money shall be used solely to encourage, provide for, or promote affordable 3
housing in Collier County. 4
5
11. No affordable housing unit in any building or structure in the development shall 6
be occupied by the developer, any person related to or affiliated with the 7
developer, or a resident manager. 8
9
12. When the developer advertises, rents, sells or maintains the affordable housing 10
unit, it must advertise, rent, sell, and maintain the same in a nondiscriminatory 11
manner and make available any relevant information to any person who is 12
interested in renting or purchasing such affordable housing unit. The developer 13
shall agree to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and 14
fees. The affordable housing units in the development shall be identified on all 15
building plans submitted to the county and described in the application for 16
AHDB. 17
18
13. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the potential tenant, 19
buyer or lender of the particular affordable housing unit or units, which units in 20
the development are designated as affordable housing units. 21
22
14. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable housing units shall 23
be the same as market rate dwelling units in the development. 24
25
15. The AHDB agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the 26
growth management plan and land development regulations of Collier County 27
that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws and 28
policies shall apply to the AHDB agreement and the development to the extent that 29
they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable housing units and the 30
amount of AHDB approved for the development. 31
32
16. The affordable housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated 33
from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. 34
35
17. The conditions contained in the AHDB development agreement shall constitute 36
covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be 37
binding upon the property and every person having any interest therein at any time 38
and from time to time. 39
40
18. The AHDB development agreement shall be recorded in the official records of 41
Collier County, Florida, subsequent to the recordation of the grant deed pursuant 42
to which the developer acquires fee simple title to the property. 43
44
19. Each affordable housing rental unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained 45
as the type of affordable housing rental unit (moderate, low- or very-low-46
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
14
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
income) designated in accordance with the AHDB development agreement for 1
at least 30 15 years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such unit. 2
3
20. Each affordable housing owner -occupied unit shall be restricted to remain and be 4
maintained as the type of affordable housing owner-occupied unit (g a p -, 5
m o d e r a t e -, low-, or very-low-income) designated in accordance with the 6
AHDB development agreement for at least 15 years from the issuance of a 7
certificate of occupancy for such unit. 8
9
21. The developer and owner of a rental the development shall provide on-site 10
management to assure appropriate security, maintenance and appearance of the 11
development and the dwelling units where these issues are a factor. 12
13
B. Compliance with growth management plan and land development regulations. The AHDB 14
shall be available to a development only to the extent that it otherwise complies and is 15
consistent with the GMP and the land development regulations, including the procedures, 16
requirements, conditions and criteria for planned unit developments (PUDs) and 17
rezonings, where applicable. 18
19
C. Minimum number of affordable housing units. The minimum number of affordable 20
housing units that shall be provided in a development pursuant to this section shall be 21
ten 10 percent of the total affordable housing units. 22
23
D. Nontransferable. The AHDB is not transferrable between developments or properties. 24
25
E. Phasing. In the case where a development will occur in more than one phase, the 26
percentage of affordable housing units to which the developer has committed for the 27
total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as 28
part of each phase of the development on the property. For example, if the total 29
development's AHDB is based on the provision of ten percent of the total dwelling units 30
as affordable housing rental units for low-income households with two bedrooms per 31
unit, then each phase must maintain that same percentage (10 ten percent in this case) 32
cumulatively. 33
34
2.06.05 - Affordable Housing Density Bonus Monitoring Program 35
36
A. Annual progress and monitoring report. The AHDB for a development shall be subject to 37
the AHDB monitoring program set forth in this section. The developer shall provide the 38
County Manager or his designee with an annual progress and monitoring report regarding 39
the delivery of affordable housing rental/ownership units throughout the period of their 40
construction, rental, sale, and occupancy for each of the developer's developments which 41
involve the AHDB in a form developed by the County Manager or his designee. The 42
annual progress and monitoring report shall, at a minimum, require any information 43
reasonably helpful to ensure compliance with this section and provide information with 44
regard to affordable housing in Collier County. To the extent feasible, the County 45
Manager or his designee shall maintain public records of all dwelling units (AHDB and 46
affordable housing units) constructed pursuant to the AHDB program, all affordable 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
15
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
housing units constructed pursuant to the AHDB program, occupancy statistics of such 1
dwelling units, complaints of violations of this section which are alleged to have 2
occurred, the disposition of all such complaints, a list of those persons who have 3
participated as tenants or buyers in the AHDB program, and such other records and 4
information as the County Manager or his designee believes may be necessary or 5
desirable to monitor the success of the AHDB program and the degree of compliance 6
therewith. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the County Manager 7
or his designee within 60 days from the due date will result in a penalty of up to $50.00 8
per day per incident or occurrence unless a written extension not to exceed 30 days is 9
requested prior to expiration of the 60-day submission deadline. 10
11
B. Income verification and certification. 12
13
1. Eligibility. The determination of eligibility of gap-, moderate-, low-, and very-low-14
income households to rent or buy and occupy affordable housing units is the 15
central component of the AHDB monitoring program. Household income eligibility 16
is a three-step process: 17
18
(a) Submittal of an application by a buyer or tenant; 19
20
(b) Verification of household income; and 21
22
(c) Execution of an income certification. 23
24
All three shall be accomplished prior to a buyer or tenant being qualified as an 25
eligible household to rent or purchase and occupy an affordable housing unit 26
pursuant to the AHDB program. No person shall occupy an affordable housing 27
unit provided under the AHDB program prior to being qualified at the appropriate 28
level of income (gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income). 29
30
Eligibility. The determination of eligibility of moderate, low, and very low 31
income families to rent or buy and occupy affordable housing units is the central 32
component of the AHDB monitoring program. Family income eligibility is a three-33
step process: (1) submittal of an application by a buyer or tenant; (2) verification 34
of family income; and (3) execution of an income certification. All three shall be 35
accomplished prior to a buyer or tenant being qualified as an eligible family to rent 36
or purchase and occupy an affordable housing unit pursuant to the AHDB program. 37
No person shall occupy an affordable housing unit provided under the AHDB 38
program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (moderate, low 39
or very low income). 40
41
2. The developer shall be responsible for accepting applications from buyers or 42
tenants, verifying income and obtaining the income certification for its development 43
which involves AHDB, and all forms and documentation must be provided to the 44
County Manager or his designee prior to qualification of the buyer or tenant as 45
a gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income household family. The County 46
Manager or his designee shall review all documentation provided, and may verify 47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
16
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
the information provided from time to time. Prior to occupancy by a qualified 1
buyer or tenant, the developer shall provide to the County Manager or his 2
designee, at a minimum, the application for affordable housing qualification, 3
including the income verification form and the income certification form, and the 4
purchase contract, lease, or rental agreement for that qualified buyer or tenant. 5
At a minimum, the lease shall include the name, address and telephone number 6
of the head of household and all other occupants, a description of the unit to be 7
rented, the term of the lease, the rental amount, the use of the premises, and 8
the rights and obligations of the parties. Random inspections to verify occupancy 9
in accordance with this section may be conducted by the County Manager or his 10
designee. 11
12
3. Application. A potential buyer or tenant shall apply to the developer, owner, 13
manager, or agent to qualify as a gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income 14
household f a m i l y for the purpose of renting, or owning and occupying an 15
affordable housing rental unit pursuant to the AHDB program. The application for 16
affordable housing qualification shall be in a form provided by the County Manager 17
or his designee and may be a part of the income certification form. 18
19
4. Income verification. The County Manager or his designee or the developer shall 20
obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire 21
household) to verify all regular sources of income to the potential tenant/owner 22
(including the entire household). The written verification form shall include, at a 23
minimum, the purpose of the verification, a statement to release information, 24
employer verification of gross annual income or rate of pay, number of hours 25
worked, frequency of pay, bonuses, tips and commissions and a signature block 26
with the date of application. The verification may take the form of the most recent 27
year's federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the entire 28
household), a statement to release information, tenant verification of the return, 29
and a signature block with the date of application. The verification shall be valid 30
for up to 90 days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 90-day period, the 31
information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 32
30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original 33
verification. After this time, a new verification form must be completed. The income 34
verification may take the form of the most recent year’s filed income tax return for 35
each occupant who had filed and will occupy the affordable housing unit. 36
37
5. Income certification. Upon receipt of the application and verification of income, 38
an income certification form shall be executed by the potential buyer or tenant 39
(including the entire household) prior to sale or rental and occupancy of the 40
affordable housing unit by the owner or tenant. Income certification that the 41
potential occupant has a gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income household 42
income qualifies the potential occupant as an eligible household family to 43
buy or rent and occupy an affordable housing unit under the AHDB program. The 44
income certification shall be in a form provided by the County Manager or his 45
designee. 46
47
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
17
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
6. The Developer shall be deemed in compliance with the AHDB agreement if the 1
Developer has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of 2
the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by providing the County Community and 3
Human Services Division a copy of the annual Florida Housing Finance Corporation 4
compliance and program reports. 5
6
2.06.06 - Violations and Enforcement 7
8
A. Violations. It is a violation of section 2.06.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell 9
or occupy, an affordable housing rental unit provided under the AHDB program except 10
as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.06.00, or to knowingly give false or 11
misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the 12
County Manager or his designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is 13
delegated to them by section 2.06.00. 14
15
B. Notice of violation. Whenever it is determined that there is a violation of section 2.06.00, 16
a notice of violation shall be issued and sent by the County Manager or his designee by 17
certified return receipt requested U.S. mail, or hand delivery to the person or developer 18
in violation of section 2.06.00. The notice of violation shall be in writing, shall be signed 19
and dated by the County Manager or his designee or such other county personnel 20
as may be authorized by the BCC, shall specify the violation or violations, shall state 21
that said violation(s) shall be corrected within 10 ten days of the date of notice of 22
violation, and shall state that if said violation(s) is not corrected by the specified date that 23
civil and/or criminal enforcement may be pursued. If said violation(s) is not corrected by 24
the specified date in the notice of violation, the County Manager or his designee shall 25
issue a citation which shall state the date and time of issuance, name and address 26
of the person in violation, date of the violation, section of these regulations, or 27
subsequent amendments thereto, violated, name of the County Manager or his 28
designee, and date and time when the violator shall appear before the code enforcement 29
board. 30
31
C. Criminal enforcement. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon 32
conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation or by imprisonment 33
in the county jail for a term not to exceed 60 days, or by both, pursuant to the provisions 34
of F.S. § 125.69. Such person also shall pay all costs, including reasonable 35
attorney ’s fees, including those incurred on appeal, involved in the case. Each day 36
such violation continues, and each violation, shall be considered a separate offense. 37
38
D. Civil enforcement. In addition to any criminal penalties which may be imposed pursuant 39
to section 2.06.06 C. above, Collier County and the County Manager or his designee 40
shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any AHDB development 41
agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) 42
conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and 43
conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined 44
that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the 45
certificate of occupancy for all AHDB units within the development shall be withdrawn and 46
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
18
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-
2018).docx
the sanctions or penalties provided in the AHDB development agreement shall be 1
pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. 2
3
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 4
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
EXHIBIT A – EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
LDC
SECTION
DESCRIPTION
1.08.02 Simplified the definition so that the terminology and the varying income levels are
consistent with Florida Statutes and federal guidelines. The upper limit of the gap-income
housing category would be lowered from 150% of median income to 140%, consistent
with the Board’s direction. The opening paragraph specifically includes assessment and
fees, which were at the request of the Board of County Commissioners (Board) from their
hearing on February 27, 2018. Staff further clarified the definition to differentiate
between rental and owner-occupied units. The opening paragraph was divided into two
sentences too improve readability at the recommendation of the Development Services
Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee (DSAC-LDR).
2.06.01 Clarified, corrected, or abbreviated various terms, grammar, or processes throughout this
section, including deleting gender-specific terminology from the LDC. With respect to
the total allowable dwelling units per acre, the DSAC-LDR recommended eliminating a
specific number (of dwelling units per acre), to instead indicate that the maximum
allowable density should be based upon that which is allowed by the Growth Management
Plan (GMP).
Increased the maximum allowable density bonuses in accordance with the
recommendations of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) that were accepted by the Board
of Commissioners on February 27, 2018.
Eliminated references to specific job titles and processes that are subject to change
administratively and were deemed by staff to serve little value in the Land Development
Code (LDC).
Eliminated repeating terms.
Included gap-income household to include relevant income categories.
2.06.02 Updated the provisions to include relevant income categories.
2.06.03 Eliminated existing language that was deemed by staff to be an administrative process or
procedure that is unnecessary to be included in the LDC.
Clarified, reorganized, corrected, or abbreviated various terms, grammar, or provisions
throughout this section.
Increased the maximum allowable density bonuses in accordance with the
recommendations of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) that were accepted by the Board
of Commissioners on February 27, 2018.
Proposing a new table that will reflect the maximum allowable density bonus.
Increasing the minimum percentage of required moderate-, low-, or very-low-income
units needed to qualify for the density bonus for gap-income housing.
2.06.04 Clarified the appropriate procedure for presenting an affordable housing agreement before
the Board.
Updated the provisions to include relevant income categories.
Included the Florida Housing Finance Corporation as the authority by which to use as a
baseline for determining the maximum allowable rental prices.
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
EXHIBIT A – EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Updated the provisions to extend the periods of time for the AHDB development
agreement for rental units.
Clarified, corrected, or abbreviated various terms, grammar, or processes throughout this
section including deleting gender-specific terminology from the LDC.
Updated the provisions to differentiate between rental and owner-occupied units.
2.06.05 Updated the provisions to differentiate between rental and owner-occupied units.
Re-organized, clarified, or corrected various terms or grammar throughout this section,
including deleting gender-specific terminology from the LDC.
Clarified the provisions regarding income verification in accordance with the
recommendation from the DSAC-LDR.
Updated the provisions to include relevant income categories.
Included tenant eligibility and qualification requirements to be compliant with the
requirements of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
2.06.06 Updated text to avoid having gender-specific terminology in the LDC.
Corrected grammar.
Deleted the term rental because violations are not relegated to just rental units.
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\11-01-2018\Item 9.A.3 (7001) Exhibit A - Explanation of Proposed Changes
(10-19-2018).docx
9.A.3.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Affordable Housing (10-19-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
1
JohnsonEric
From:Anthony Pires <APires@wpl-legal.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 3:17 PM
To:StrainMark
Cc:AshtonHeidi; JohnsonEric
Subject:FW: Upcoming Public Meeting for LDC Amendments
INITIAL THOUGHT: Should also include asset verification/determination and not just income
verification on providing additional bonus density for “affordable housing”.
Anthony P. Pires, Jr., B.C.S.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A.
3200 North Tamiami Trail
Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34103
239-649-6555 Phone
239-649-7342 Fax
apires@wpl-legal.com
Firm Website: www.wpl-legal.com
This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error;
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmittal and/or attachments in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at 239-649-6555)
and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
From: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 3:07 PM
To: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Upcoming Public Meeting for LDC Amendments
LDC Amendments Update
Meeting Schedule Current Amendments Collier LDC News Releases
Public Meeting Date
Tuesday
9.A.3.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Exhibit B - (Email from Pires 10-11-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)
2
To Review Proposed
LDC Amendments
October 16, 2018
9:00 AM
Location
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Collier County
Development Services
Building
Conference Room
609/610
The Development Services Advisory Committee-
Land Development Review Subcommittee (DSAC-
LDR) will review multiple LDC Amendments listed
below.
Review
Agenda
Materials:
Affordable Housing
Commercial Landscaping
Airport Protection Overlay
Residential Lighting
We welcome your attendance and feedback.
Contact Us
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive | Naples, FL 34014
Call: (239) 252-2305 | Email: jeremy.frantz@colliercountyfl.gov
Not interested in e-mail updates? Unsubscribe from this list.
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.
9.A.3.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Item 9.A.3 (7001) Exhibit B - (Email from Pires 10-11-2018) (7001 : Affordable Housing Density Bonus LDC Amendment)