CCPC Agenda 10/08/2020 S
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/30/2020
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
October 8, 2020
5: 05 PM
Edwin Fryer- Chairman
Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair
Karl Fry- Secretary
Christopher Vernon
Paul Shea, Environmental
Joseph Schmitt, Environmental
Robert Klucik, Jr.
Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board
Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selecte d 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.
October 2020
Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/30/2020
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call By Secretary
3. Public Hearings
A. Advertised
1. PL20190001927: 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 establish the
Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD) and eliminate the Golden Gate
Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay (GGPPOCO) and the Golden
Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO), 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 1.08.01 -
Abbreviations; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07
Overlay Zoning Districts and Section 2.05.01 – Density Standards and Housing
Types; Chapter 4 – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section
4.02.26 - Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay District
(GGPPOCO)—Special Conditions for the Properties Abutting Golden Gate
Parkway East of Santa Barbara Boulevard as Referenced in the Golden Gate
Parkway Professional Office Commercial District Map (Map 2) of the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, Section 4.02.37 - Design Standards for Development in the
Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO), Section
4.05.02 – Design Standards; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, including
Section 5.05.04 – Group Housing and Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design
Standards; and Chapter 10 – Application, Review, and Decision-Making
Procedures, including Section 10.03.06 - Public Notice and Required Hearings for
Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion
in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
[Coordinator: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner]
4. Public Comment
5. Adjourn
6. Approval of Minutes
1. 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes
10/08/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 3.A.1
Item Summary: PL20190001927: 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 establish the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD) and eliminate
the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay (GGPPOCO) and the Golden Gate
Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO), 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 1.08.01 -
Abbreviations; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning
Districts and Section 2.05.01 – Density Standards and Housing Types; Chapter 4 – Site Design and
Development Standards, including Section 4.02.26 - Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office
Commercial Overlay District (GGPPOCO)—Special Conditions for the Properties Abutting Golden Gate
Parkway East of Santa Barbara Boulevard as Referenced in the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office
Commercial District Map (Map 2) of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Section 4.02.37 - Design
Standards for Development in the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District
(GGDCCO), Section 4.05.02 – Design Standards; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, including
Section 5.05.04 – Group Housing and Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; and
Chapter 10 – Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.03.06 - Public
Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section
Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
[Coordinator: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner]
Meeting Date: 10/08/2020
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Eric Johnson
09/25/2020 10:22 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
09/25/2020 10:22 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 09/25/2020 11:53 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/25/2020 11:58 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/25/2020 12:06 PM
Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 09/29/2020 7:34 AM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 09/29/2020 9:56 AM
3.A.1
Packet Pg. 3
10/08/2020
Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/30/2020 10:04 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/30/2020 10:11 AM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 10/08/2020 5:05 PM
3.A.1
Packet Pg. 4
1
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text (09-23-
2020).docx
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20190001927
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This LDC amendment (LDCA) creates the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay
District (GGPOD), which serves to implement several policies of the
recently adopted Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The GGPOD will be
comprised of two new subdistricts—the Activity Center subdistrict
(GGPOD-AC) and the Downtown subdistrict (GGPOD-DT). The
GGPOD shall supersede the current provisions of the Golden Gate
Downtown Center Overlay District and the Golden Gate Parkway
Professional Office Commercial Overlay.
ORIGIN
Board of County
Commissioners (Board)
HEARING DATES
Board TBD
CCPC 10/08/2020
DSAC 08/05/2020 LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED
DSAC-LDR 07/28/2020 1.08.01 Abbreviations
02/19/2020 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
01/07/2020 2.05.01 Density Standards and Housing Types
12/17/2019 4.02.26 Golden Gate Parkway Activity Center Overlay (GGPACO)
Building, Development, and Site Design Standards
4.02.37 Design Standards for Development in the Golden Gate
Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO)
4.05.02 Design Standards
5.05.04 Group Housing
5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards
10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
Approval
DSAC
TBD
CCPC
TBD
BACKGROUND
The Golden Gate City Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) was adopted on September
24, 2019. Modifications to the LDC, to support and implement residential and comme rcial redevelopment and
renewal initiatives, are required to be initiated within two years. New uses, development standards, and a deviation
process are introduced with this amendment. These initiatives are recommended by the GGAMP. More
specifically, the LDCA shall comply with the following policies:
Policy 2.1.3
Within two years, Collier County shall create development standards to guide the transformation of
Golden Gate Parkway and the Activity Center into destinations that are convenient, pleasant and safe for
pedestrians and cyclists, and maintain strong connections to transit service.
Policy 2.1.5
Collier County shall discourage new land uses along Golden Gate Parkway and within the Activity Center
that impede pedestrian activity and are solely auto-oriented, such as car washes, storage facilities, auto
dealerships and drive throughs. Land development regulations will be initiated within two years to ensure
compatibility of auto-oriented uses within the pedestrian environment.
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text (09-23-
2020).docx
Policy 2.2.2
Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate a community renewal plan to include economic
development strategies, urban design schemes, and infrastructure improvements. Renewal plans shall be
in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City and promote vibrant urbanism, improve aesthetics and
support walkability.
Policy 2.2.3
Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate the involvement of Golden Gate City residents
and business owners to consider amendments to the Land Development Code to support and implement
residential and commercial redevelopment and renewal initiatives. Amendments shall include incentives
for remodeling and renovation by creating criteria and standards for variances and/or deviations.
The proposed GGPOD-DT and GGPOD-AC are both consistent with the GGAMP. The GGPOD is intended to
work with the economic strategies and purpose of the County’s Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone
(see Exhibit B). The current provisions of the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay in
LDC sections 2.03.07 F. and 4.02.26 and the provisions of the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial
Overlay District in LDC sections 2.03.07 O. and 4.02.37 will be removed and replaced by the proposed provisions
of the GGPOD. One main facet of the GGPOD is to incentivize redevelopment within the Golden Gate
community by proposing new multi-family uses on parcels where they are not currently permitted. Also, a host
of new advanced manufacturing uses are proposed, consistent with what was adopted in the GGAMP. Staff used
information from The Brookings Institution and the Florida Dept. of Economic Opportunity as resource s when
choosing the appropriate Standard Industrial Classification associated with advanced manufacturing. These
advanced manufacturing uses are not allowed under the current zoning or existing overlay districts. In order to
be allowed in the GGPOD-AC, operators will need to demonstrate compliance with the new design standards that
have been specifically drafted for them. Lastly, the GGPOD introduces new development standards that are
aimed at promoting vibrant urbanism, improving aesthetics, and supporting walkability, which is consistent with
Policies 2.2.2 and 2.1.3 of the GGAMP.
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation:
On July 28, 2020, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee discussed making multiple changes throughout the document
but ultimately recommended approval, contingent upon the following two conditions:
• Subject to staff revising the Overlay relative to ensuring that no existing development rights are
intentionally or unintentionally contravened or eliminated—including building height and uses—and
to clarify that language where it exists or where there is confusion.
• Require a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to residentially zoned property.
DSAC Recommendation:
On August 5, 2020, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee discussed making multiple changes throughout the document
but ultimately recommended approval, contingent upon the following two conditions:
• Subject to staff revising the Overlay relative to ensuring that no existing development rights are
intentionally or unintentionally contravened or eliminated—including building height and uses—and
to clarify that language where it exists or where there is confusion.
• Require a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to residentially zoned property.
This space intentionally blank
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
3
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text (09-23-
2020).docx
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
No fiscal impacts are anticipated. However, the
workload of the Office of the Hearing Examiner
can potentially increase due to the creation of
the deviation process, resulting in an
operational impact. Notwithstanding the
potential benefits gained from relaxing certain
development standards and allowing a vast
array of new uses, there is a potential impact to
property owners if existing buildings become
non-conforming once the GGPOD is adopted.
GMP CONSISTENCY
The proposed changes to the LDC are consistent with
the updates in the recently adopted GMP amendment.
EXHIBITS: A) Proposed Adminstrative Code Section; B) Ordinance 2018-56
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
Amend the LDC as follows:
1.08.01 – Abbreviations 1
2
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 3
4
GGAMP Golden Gate Area Master Plan
GGPOD Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District
GGPOD-AC Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District-Activity Center subdistrict
GGPOD-DT Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District-Downtown subdistrict
GGPPOCO Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay District
GMP Collier County Growth Management Plan
5
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 6
7
2.03.07 - Overlay Zoning Districts 8
9
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 10
11
F. Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD) 12
13
1. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of these provisions is to implement 14
the goals, objectives, and policies of the GGAMP, specifically the Golden Gate City 15
Sub-Element. These provisions shall also be utilized in concert with the County’s 16
Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone, Ordinance 2018-56. 17
18
2. Applicability. 19
20
a. The use regulations of this LDC section and the design standards of LDC 21
section 4.02.26, shall apply to all properties as shown in Illustration 1 of 22
LDC section 2.03.07 F.4.b. 23
24
b. Property owners within the GGPOD may establish uses, densities, and 25
intensities in accordance with the underlying zoning classification or the 26
GGPOD. The design standards of the GGPOD pursuant to LDC section 27
4.02.26 shall apply. 28
29
c. Any PUD established prior to the effective date of this ordinance, including 30
amendments or boundary changes, may elect to utilize the use regulations 31
and design standards of the GGPOD. Any PUD proposed after the 32
effective date of this ordinance shall apply the provisions of the GGPOD, 33
unless a deviation is approved in accordance with LDC section 10.02.13 34
A.3. 35
36
d. Where a property or a PUD is partially located within the boundary of the 37
GGPOD, the provisions of the GGPOD shall only be available to that 38
portion of the property located within the GGPOD. 39
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
e. Conditional Uses approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance that 1
include design standards inconsistent with the provisions of the GGPOD 2
may elect to utilize the provisions of the GGPOD without the review of the 3
CU as required by LDC section 10.02.08 G.4. 4
5
3. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the GGPOD: 6
7
Mixed use: A single development project with a residential component and a 8
nonresidential component. The mix of uses may be arranged horizontally 9
(separate buildings with a common development plan) or vertically (in the same 10
building), or some combination of both. Examples include but are not limited to 11
the following: 12
13
14
15
16
4. Establishment of subdistricts. 17
18
a. Purpose and Intent. 19
20
i. The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (GGPOD-AC). This 21
subdistrict is intended to be mixed-use (commercial, residential, 22
institutional) in character. The concept is designed to concentrate 23
new and existing commercial zoning in locations where traffic 24
impacts can be readily accommodated, to avoid strip and 25
disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create 26
focal points within the community. The standard for intensity of 27
commercial uses are uses allowed in the C-1 through C-5 zoning 28
districts but with certain exceptions. In addition, uses that are 29
specifically intended to support economic development in Golden 30
Gate city are also allowed. 31
32
ii. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (GGPOD-DT). This 33
subdistrict is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate 34
Parkway in order to improve the physical appearance of the area 35
and create a vibrant and viable downtown subdistrict within Golden 36
Gate City. Emphasis shall be placed on the creation of a 37
pedestrian-oriented boulevard. The provisions of this subdistrict 38
Vertical mixed use
Horizontal mixed use
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
are intended to ensure harmonious development of commercial and 1
mixed use buildings at a pedestrian scale that are compatible with 2
residential development within and outside of the subdistrict. The 3
subdistrict allows the aggregation of properties in order to promote 4
flexibility in site design. The types of uses permitted within this 5
subdistrict are retail, office, personal services, institutional, and 6
residential. Non-residential development is intended to serve the 7
needs of residents within the subdistrict, surrounding 8
neighborhoods, and passerby. 9
10
b. Boundaries of GGPOD and subdistricts. The boundaries of the GGPOD 11
and subdistricts are identified in Illustration 1 below: 12
13
14
(map to be added) 15
16
Illustration 1 - GGPOD with subdistricts 17
18
19
20
21
22
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
5. Table of Uses. 1
2
a. The Table of Uses identifies uses as permitted uses (P) or conditional uses 3
(CU). Conditional uses shall require approval in accordance with the 4
procedures set forth in LDC section 10.08.00. 5
6
b. Table 1. 7
8
Use Category
Mixed Use
Activity
Center
Subdistrict
(GGPOD-
AC)1
Downtown
Center
Commercial
Subdistrict
(GGPOD-
DT)1
Residential Uses
1) Artist village. P P
2) Dwelling, Multi-Family, including townhouses. P P
3) Live-work units. P P
4) Any use listed as permitted in the underlying
zoning.
P P
5) Any use listed as a conditional use in the
underlying zoning district.
CU CU
Commercial Uses2
1) Any use listed as permitted in the underlying
zoning district.
P P
2) Any use listed as a conditional use in the
underlying zoning district.
C C
3) Any use listed as a permitted use in any of the C-
1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts, without size
limitations.
P P
4) Any use listed as a conditional use in any of the
C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts, without size
limitations.
P CU4
5) Any use listed as a permitted use in the C-4 or C-
5 zoning districts.
P
6) Any use listed as a conditional use in the C-4 or
C-5 zoning districts.
CU4
7) Hotels and motels (7011, 7021, and 7041). P P
Economic Development Uses2, 3
1) Aircraft and parts (3721-3728). P
2) Beverages (2082-2087). P
3) Communications equipment (3661-3669). P
4) Computer and office equipment (3571-3579). P
5) Construction, mining, and materials handling
(3531, 3534-3537).
P
6) Dental laboratories (8072). P
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
7) Drugs (2833-2836). P
8) Electrical industrial apparatus (3621-3629). P
9) Electric lighting and wiring equipment (3641-3646,
3648).
P
10) Electric transmission and distribution equipment
(3612-3613).
P
11) Electronic components and accessories (3671-
3679).
P
12) Engines and turbines (3511-3519). P
13) Farm machinery and equipment (3523-3524). P
14) Furniture and fixtures, not elsewhere classified
(2599).
P
15) General industrial machinery and equipment
(3561, 3563, 3565-3569).
P
16) Household appliances, not elsewhere classified
(3639).
P
17) Household audio and video equipment, and audio
(3651-3652).
P
18) Jewelers' findings and materials, and lapidary
work (3915).
P
19) Laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical,
measuring, and controlling instruments (3821-
3829).
P
20) Manufacturing industries, not elsewhere classified
(3999).
P
21) Metalworking machinery and equipment (3546
and 3548).
P
22) Miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment,
and supplies (3691-3692, 3695-3699).
P
23) Miscellaneous industrial and commercial (3593-
3599).
P
24) Ophthalmic goods (3851). P
25) Photographic equipment and supplies (3861). P
26) Refrigeration and service industry machinery
(3581-3582, 3586-3589).
P
27) Search, detection, navigation, guidance,
aeronautical, and nautical systems and
instruments (3812).
P
28) Special industry machinery, except metalworking
(3552-3559).
P
29) Surgical, medical, and dental instruments and
supplies (3841-3845).
P
30) Transportation equipment, not elsewhere
classified (3799).
P
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
31) Watches, clocks, clockwork operated devices,
and parts (3873).
P
32) Any other Economic Development use which is
comparable in nature with the list of permitted
uses contained herein and consistent with the
purpose and intent statement of the GGPOD as
determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of
Zoning Appeals, pursuant to LDC section
10.02.06.
P
Notes: 1
2
1 See LDC section 2.03.07 F.6. for specific prohibitions in the 3
GGPOD. 4
5
2 See LDC section 4.02.26 B.14. for pollution control standards. 6
7
3 See LDC section 4.02.26 C. for design standards specific to 8
Economic Development uses. 9
10
4 Vertical mixed use developments shall be permitted uses. 11
12
6. Prohibited uses. These uses are prohibited, except that uses existing as of 13
[effective date of Ordinance] may continue to operate as a permitted use until the 14
use ceases for a period of one year. This section does not apply to the uses 15
allowed in the underlying zoning district. 16
17
a. Prohibited uses in the GGPOD-AC and GGPOD-DT. 18
19
i. Ancillary plants. 20
21
ii. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, with outdoor 22
kenneling). 23
24
iii. Automobile dealers (5511 and 5599). 25
26
iv. Automobile parking (7521), tow-in parking lots only. 27
28
v. Automotive services (7549). 29
30
vi. Automotive repair services (7532-7539). 31
32
vii. Boat dealers (5551). 33
34
viii. Building construction (1521-1542). 35
36
ix. Car washes (7542). 37
38
x. Carpentry and floor work contractors (1751-1752). 39
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
xi. Communication towers. 1
2
xii. Concrete work (1771). 3
4
xiii. Correctional institutions (9223). 5
6
xiv. Electrical contractors (1731). 7
8
xv. Equipment Rental and Leasing, Not Elsewhere Classified (7359 – 9
airplane rental and leasing; industrial truck rental and leasing; oil 10
field equipment rental and leasing; oil well drilling equipment rental 11
and leasing; and toilets, portable: rental and leasing only). 12
13
xvi. Farm product raw materials (5153-5150). 14
15
xvii. Fuel dealers (5983-5989). 16
17
xviii. Gasoline service stations (5541). 18
19
xix. Glass and glazing work (1793). 20
21
xx. Golf courses, public (7992). 22
23
xxi. Heating and air-conditioning contractors (1711). 24
25
xxii. Heavy construction equipment rental and leasing (7353). 26
27
xxiii. Installation or erection of building equipment contractors (1796). 28
29
xxiv. Local trucking without storage (4212). 30
31
xxv. Marinas (4493 and 4499). 32
33
xxvi. Masonry, stonework, tile setting and plastering contractors (1741-34
1743). 35
36
xxvii. Mobile home dealers (5271). 37
38
xxviii. Motion picture theatres, drive-in (7833). 39
40
xxix. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225). 41
42
xxx. Motor vehicle dealers, new and used (5511, 5521). 43
44
xxxi. Motorcycle dealers (5571). 45
46
xxxii. Outdoor storage yards. 47
48
xxxiii. Packing Services (4783). 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
xxxiv. Painting and paper hanging (1721). 1
2
xxxv. Passenger car leasing (7515). 3
4
xxxvi. Passenger car rental (7514). 5
6
xxxvii. Plumbing contractors (1711). 7
8
xxxviii. Recreational vehicle dealers (5561). 9
10
xxxix. Roofing, siding and sheet metal work contractors (1761). 11
12
xl. Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified (1799). 13
14
xli. Structural steel erection contractors (1791). 15
16
xlii. Taxicabs (4121). 17
18
xliii. Truck rental and leasing, without drivers (7513). 19
20
xliv. Veterinary services (0741 & 0742, with outdoor kenneling). 21
22
xlv. Utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental (7519). 23
24
b. Additional prohibitions for the GGPOD-DT only. 25
26
i. No automatic food and drink vending machines located outside of 27
a building. 28
29
ii. Enameling, painting, or plating as a principal use is prohibited; 30
however, these are permitted if accessory to an artist or craft studio. 31
32
iii. Prisons, detention facilities, halfway houses, soup kitchens, 33
homeless shelters, and single-room occupancy hotels, which are 34
dormitory-style hotels with shared bathrooms and public space. 35
36
F. Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay (GGPPOCO). 37
38
1. The provisions of the "GGPPOCO" district are intended to provide Golden Gate 39
City with a viable professional office commercial district. The professional office 40
commercial district has two (2) purposes. (1), to serve as a bonafide entry way into 41
Golden Gate City. (2), to provide a community focal point and sense of place. The 42
uses permitted within this district are generally low intensity, office development 43
which minimize vehicular traffic, provide suitable landscaping, control ingress and 44
egress, and ensure compatibility with abutting residential districts. 45
46
2. These regulations apply to properties north and south of Golden Gate Parkway, 47
starting at Santa Barbara Boulevard and extending eastward to 52nd Terrace S.W. 48
in Golden Gate City as measured perpendicularly from the abutting right-of-way for 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
a distance of approximately 3,600 feet more or less and consisting of 1
approximately 20.84 acres. These properties are identified on Map two (2) of the 2
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Except as provided in this regulation, all other use, 3
dimensional, and development requirements shall be as required in the underlying 4
zoning categories. 5
6
a. Permitted Uses. 7
8
1. Accounting (8721). 9
2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 10
3. Advertising agencies (7311). 11
4. Architectural services (8712). 12
5. Auditing (8721). 13
6. Banks and credit Unions (6021-6062). 14
7. Bookkeeping services (8721). 15
8. Business associations (8611). 16
9. Business consulting services (8748). 17
10. Business credit institutions (6153—6159). 18
11. Commercial art and graphic design (7336). 19
12. Commercial photography (7335). 20
13. Computer programming services (7371). 21
14. Computer programming, processing, data preparation, information 22
retrieval, facilities management, and miscellaneous services (7371, 23
7374—7376, 7379). 24
15. Credit reporting services (7323). 25
16. Direct mail advertising services (7331). 26
17. Eating places (5812 except carry-out restaurants; contract feeding; 27
dinner theaters; drive-in and drive-through restaurants; fast food 28
restaurants, carry-out; restaurants, fast-food; submarine sandwich 29
shops). 30
18. Employment Agencies (7361). 31
19. Engineering services (8711). 32
20. Health services, offices and clinics (8011—8049). 33
21. Holding and other investment offices (6712—6799). 34
22. Insurance carrier, agents and brokers (6311—6399, 6411). 35
23. Legal services (8111). 36
24. Loan brokers (6163). 37
25. Management services (8741—8742). 38
26. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 39
27. Museums and art galleries (8412). 40
28. Personal credit institutions (6141). 41
29. Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 42
30. Professional Membership organizations (8621). 43
31. Public administration (9111—9199, 9229, 9311, 9411—9451, 44
9511—9532, 9611—9661). 45
32. Public relations services (8743). 46
33. Radio, television and publishers advertising representatives (7313). 47
34. Real estate (6512—6514, 6519, 6531—6553). 48
35. Research, development, and testing services (8732). 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
36. Secretarial and court reporting services (7338). 1
37. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 2
(6211—6289). 3
38. Surveying services (8713). 4
39. Tax return preparation services (7291). 5
40. Travel agencies (4724). 6
41. Veterinary services (0742, excluding outside kenneling). 7
42. Any other commercial use or professional service which is 8
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. 9
10
b. Accessory Uses. 11
12
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the 13
permitted uses. 14
15
3. For signage to be located along the Golden Gate Parkway, see sections 5.06.00 16
of the Collier County Sign Code and the Golden Gate Master Plan. 17
18
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 19
20
O. Reserved. Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO). 21
Special conditions for properties in the vicinity of Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate 22
City, as identified on the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Map of 23
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and as contained herein. 24
25
1. Applicability. These regulations apply to properties in Golden Gate City lying north 26
of Golden Gate Parkway, generally bounded by 23rd Avenue SW and 23rd Place 27
SW to the north, 45th Street SW to the west, and 41st Street SW and Collier 28
Boulevard to the east. South of Golden Gate Parkway, these regulations apply to 29
properties bounded by 25th Avenue SW to the south, 47th Street SW to the west, 30
and 44th Street SW to the east. These properties are more precisely identified on 31
the "Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict" map of the Golden 32
Gate Area Master Plan and as depicted on the applicable official zoning atlas 33
maps. Except as provided in this section and section 4.02.26, all other use, 34
dimensional and development requirements shall be as required or allowed in the 35
underlying zoning districts. 36
37
2. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this overlay district (see Downtown 38
Center Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment herein in 39
order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a viable 40
downtown district for the residents of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. 41
Emphasis shall be placed on the creation of pedestrian-oriented areas, such as 42
outdoor dining areas and pocket parks, that do not impede the flow of traffic along 43
Golden Gate Parkway. Also, emphasis shall be placed on the construction of 44
mixed-use buildings. Residential dwelling units constructed in this overlay district 45
are intended to promote resident-business ownership. The provisions of this 46
overlay district are intended to ensure harmonious development of commercial 47
and mixed-use buildings at a pedestrian scale that is compatible with residential 48
development within and outside of the overlay district. 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
3. Aggregation of Properties. This overlay district encourages the aggregation of 1
properties in order to promote flexibility in site design. The types of uses permitted 2
within this overlay district are low intensity retail, office, personal services, 3
institutional, and residential. Non-residential development is intended to serve the 4
needs of residents within the overlay district, surrounding neighborhoods, and 5
passersby. 6
7
4. Permitted uses. 8
9
a. Residential uses: As permitted by right in the existing residential zoning 10
districts, except as otherwise prohibited by this overlay, when: 11
12
1. In an existing owner occupied structure. 13
14
2. In an existing non-owner occupied structure, until such time as 15
cessation is required by subsection 4.02.37 A.1 16
17
b. Residential within a mixed use building 18
19
c. Commercial uses: 20
21
1. Accounting services (8721). 22
2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 23
3. Advertising Agencies (7311). 24
4. Apparel & accessory stores (5611-5699). 25
5. Architectural services (8712), limited to 5,000 square feet per floor. 26
6. Auto and home supply stores (5531). 27
7. Barber shops (7241). 28
8. Beauty shops (7231). 29
9. Building cleaning and maintenance services (7349). 30
10. Business associations (8611). 31
11. Business consulting services (8748). 32
12. Business services - miscellaneous (7397). 33
13. Business repair service. 34
14. Carpet and upholstery cleaning (7217). 35
15. Commercial art and graphic design (7336). 36
16. Commercial photography (7335). 37
17. Computer programming, data processing, rental, leasing, repair 38
and other services (7371-7379). 39
18. Computer and computer software stores (5734). 40
19. Credit reporting services (7323). 41
20. Department stores (5311). 42
21. Direct mail advertising services (7331). 43
22. Disinfecting and pest control services (7342). 44
23. Drug stores (5912), limited to 5,000 square feet per floor. 45
24. Eating establishments and places (5812 except commercial use 46
employing drive-up, drive-in, or drive-through delivery of goods 47
and/or services). 48
25. Electrical and electronic repair shop (7629). 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
26. Employment agencies (7361). 1
27. Engineering services (8711), limited to 5,000 square feet per floor. 2
28. Equipment rental and leasing (7359), not including heavy 3
construction equipment. 4
29. Essential services, see sec. 2.01.03; except that law enforcement, 5
fire, and emergency medical services uses are limited to 6
administrative offices only. 7
30. Food stores (groups 5411-5499). 8
31. Funeral service and crematories (7261). 9
32. General merchandise stores (5331-5399). 10
33. Glass stores (5231). 11
34. Hardware stores (5251). 12
35. Health services, offices and clinics (8011-8049). 13
36. Home furniture and furnishing stores (5712-5719). 14
37. Home health care services (8082). 15
38. Household appliance stores (5722). 16
39. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311-6399, 6411). 17
40. Labor unions (8631). 18
41. Landscape architects, consulting and planning (0781), limited to 19
5,000 square feet per floor. 20
42. Large Appliance Repair Service (7623). 21
43. Laundry and drycleaners agents, garment pressing, linen supply, 22
cleaning services (7212, 7213, 7219); no coin operated laundries 23
or drycleaners. 24
44. Legal services (8111). 25
45. Libraries (8231). 26
46. Management services (8741, 8742). 27
47. Medical equipment rental and leasing (7352). 28
48. Membership organizations - miscellaneous (8699). 29
49. Museums and art galleries (8412). 30
50. Musical instrument stores (5736). 31
51. Outdoor advertising services (7312). 32
52. Paint stores (5231). 33
53. Parks, public or private; limited to pocket parks only, generally 34
described as a small area accessible to the general public that often 35
includes plantings, fountains, seating areas, and other similar 36
passive open space features. 37
54. Personal services - miscellaneous (7299, babysitting bureaus, 38
clothing and costume rental, dating service, depilatory salons, diet 39
workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical 40
investigation service, and hair removal only). 41
55. Personnel supply services (7363, except labor pools). 42
56. Photocopying and duplicating services (7334). 43
57. Photofinishing laboratories (7384). 44
58. Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 45
59. Physical fitness facilities (7991). 46
60. Political organizations (8651). 47
61. Professional membership organizations (8621). 48
62. Public relations services (8743). 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
63. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (5731). 1
64. Radio, television and publishers advertising representatives (7313). 2
65. Record and prerecorded tape stores (5735). 3
66. Real estate (6512, 6531, 6541). 4
67. Retail - miscellaneous (5921-5963 and 5992-5999, excluding liquor 5
stores, pawn shops, retail firearm and ammunition sales), limited to 6
5,000 square feet per floor. 7
68. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261). 8
69. Schools - vocational (8243-8299). 9
70. Secretarial and court reporting services (7338). 10
71. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 11
(6211-6289). 12
72. Shoe repair shops or shoeshine parlors (7251). 13
73. Surveying services (8713), limited to 5,000 square feet per floor. 14
74. Tax return preparation services (7291). 15
75. United States Postal Service (4311, except major distribution 16
center). 17
76. Videotape Rental (7841), limited to 1,800 square feet of gross floor 18
area. 19
77. Wallpaper stores (5231). 20
78. Watch, clock and jewelry repair (7631). 21
22
5. Accessory uses. Accessory uses within the GGDCCO include the uses listed 23
below. 24
25
a. Caretaker's residence, accessory to commercial and mixed use projects 26
only. 27
28
b. Enameling, painting, or plating, accessory to an artist's studio or craft studio 29
only. 30
31
c. Play areas and playgrounds. 32
33
d. Recreational facilities. 34
35
6. Conditional uses. Conditional uses within the GGDCCO include the uses listed 36
below, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00. 37
38
a. Auctioneering Services, auction rooms and houses (5999, 7389); limited to 39
5,000 square feet per floor. 40
41
b. Community centers. 42
43
c. Dance studios, schools, and halls (7911). 44
45
d. Food stores (5411-5499), over 5,000 square feet. 46
47
e. Motion picture theaters (7832). 48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
f. Outdoor dining areas, not directly abutting the Golden Gate Parkway right-1
of-way. 2
3
7. Prohibited uses. Prohibited uses within the GGDCCO include the uses listed 4
below: 5
6
a. New residential-only structures. 7
8
b. Any commercial use employing drive-up, drive-in or drive-through delivery 9
of goods or services. 10
11
c. Sexually oriented businesses (Code of Laws, 26-151 et seq.). 12
13
d. Enameling, painting or plating as a primary use. However, these uses are 14
permitted if secondary to an artist's or craft studio. 15
16
e. Single-room occupancy hotels, prisons, detention facilities, halfway 17
houses, soup kitchens or homeless shelters. 18
19
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 20
21
2.05.01 - Density Standards and Housing Types 22
23
A. Where residential uses are allowable, the following density standards and housing type 24
criteria shall apply. 25
26
Housing Type:
Zoning District:
Single-
family
Duplex Townhouse Multifamily Mobile
Home
Cluster Guest
House
Caretaker
Units
(number
allowed)
Timeshare Recreational
vehicles1
Maximum
Density2, 17
(units per
gross acre)
* * * * * * * * * * * *
GGDCCO
GGPOD
Per the
GMP
and/or the
underlying
zoning
district
27
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 28
29
4.02.26 - Design Standards for the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD). 30
31
A. General. 32
33
1. Unless otherwise specified, the standards contained in this section shall be 34
applicable to all development, except for single-family dwellings (detached) and 35
two-family dwellings on residentially-zoned lots, group housing, public schools, 36
and any use listed as a prohibited use pursuant to LDC section 2.03.07 F.6.a. 37
These excepted uses shall comply with the dimensional standards for principal and 38
accessory uses in the underlying zoning district and all other applicable standards 39
of the LDC. 40
41
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
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\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
2. The provisions of LDC section 4.02.38 shall not apply to properties in the GGPOD. 1
2
3. LDC provisions of LDC section 5.03.02 H. shall not apply to properties in the 3
GGPOD. 4
5
4. The provisions of LDC section 5.05.07 shall not apply to townhouse development 6
in the GGPOD. 7
8
5. The provisions of LDC section 5.05.08 shall not apply to “vertical mixed use” 9
projects in the GGPOD, except for the following standards: 10
11
a. LDC section 5.05.08 D.8. (overhead doors); 12
13
b. LDC section 5.05.08 D.15. (neon tubing); 14
15
c. LDC section 5.05.08 E.8. (parking structures), which shall be in accordance 16
with LDC section 4.02.26 B.9. 17
18
d. LDC section 5.05.08 F.3. (pedestrian pathways); 19
20
e. LDC section 5.05.08 F.4. (service function areas and facilities); 21
22
f. LDC section 5.05.08 F.6. (drive-through facilities location and buffering 23
standards); and 24
25
g. LDC section 5.05.08 F.7. (lighting). 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
This space intentionally blank 37
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
19
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
B. Architectural, building, and site design standards. 1
2
1. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements in the GGPOD. 3
4
Residential Use Non-Residential Use
and Mixed Use
Min. Lot Area (square feet)
Townhouse: 2,000
(per unit);
Multi-Family: 10,000
10,000
Min. Lot Width (linear feet) Townhouse: 20
Multi-Family: 100 100
Max. Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.90 (hotels only)
Min. Floor Area (square feet
per unit)
Efficiency: 450
1 Bedroom: 600
2+ Bedroom: 750
N/A
Max. Building Coverage (%) 100
Required Yards
Min. Front Yard (feet) 01, 2
Max. Front Yard (feet) 15
Min. Side Yard (feet) 01
Min. Rear Yard (feet) 5
Max. Zoned Height (feet)
GGPOD-AC Townhouse: 45
Multi-Family: 75 75
GGPOD-DT Townhouse: 453
Multi-Family: 60 603
Notes: 5
6
1 No building, appurtenance, or site design element listed in LDC 7
section 4.02.01 D., or any outdoor seating areas shall project 8
beyond the property line or be placed into a right-of-way. 9
10
2 All projects providing a front yard setback greater than zero feet 11
must accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, or be designed with 12
combination of planting, seating, or hardscaped areas. 13
14
3 Or in conformance with the maximum height allowed by the 15
underlying zoning district, whichever is greater. 16
17
2. Terminating vistas. Buildings or projects that terminate a vista at the end or 18
turning point of any street or pedestrian path shall include design features to 19
emphasize the importance of the view. Examples of design features include but 20
are not limited to tower elements, porte-cocheres, and cupolas. 21
22
3. Blank walls. Building wall areas must be interrupted with a minimum of an opening 23
or relief work every 120 square feet, measured both horizontally and vertically. 24
Examples of relief work may include but not be limited to stucco reveals, foam 25
decorative banding, planted trellises, or other design treatments. 26
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
20
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
4. Roof material. Asphalt shingles are prohibited. 1
2
5. Exterior building façade materials. Corrugated or metal panels are limited to no 3
more than 33 percent of exterior building facades (not applicable to roofs). 4
5
6. Architectural massing. Transitional massing elements specified in LDC section 6
5.05.08 D.3. shall be provided on proposed buildings in the GGPOD that are twice 7
the height or more of adjacent residential development located external to the 8
GGPOD or twice the height or more of the maximum height allowed on adjacent 9
residentially-zoned properties that are external to the GGPOD. 10
11
7. Streetscape design of buildings. The standards contained herein are 12
applicable to all properties fronting on existing rights-of-way that are 60 feet in 13
width or greater or on new streets of any width platted after (the adoption date of 14
this ordinance) pursuant to LDC section 4.02.26 D. 15
16
a. Design features at intersections. Buildings located at the intersection 17
of two or more arterial, collector, or new streets platted after (the adoption 18
of this ordinance) shall include design features to emphasize their location 19
as gateways and transition points within the community. Examples of 20
required design features include but are not limited to tower elements, 21
public plazas, or courtyards. 22
23
b. Windows. The ground floor of non-residential buildings shall have at 24
least 60 percent of its façade designed with windows to provide visual 25
interest for pedestrians and to serve as a deterrent to crime. 26
27
c. Building entrances. Buildings located along public or private streets must 28
be designed with main entrances for pedestrians clearly defined and 29
oriented to the street. 30
31
8. Landscape. Landscaping and buffering shall be provided in accordance with LDC 32
section 4.06.00 at time of SDP or PPL, except as follows: 33
34
a. Buffers. No landscape buffer shall be required along the perimeter of any 35
lot line, except where such lot consists of a nonresidential use and is 36
adjacent to lands located outside the GGPOD and zoned for single-family 37
residential dwellings. In this instance, a minimum five-foot wide planting 38
strip with shrubs and trees shall be required. Shrubs shall be no less than 39
five feet in height and spaced a maximum of four feet on-center at the time 40
of planting. Trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet in height, four feet in 41
spread, 1-3/4-inch caliper, and spaced a maximum of one per 25 linear 42
feet. These landscape buffers may be interrupted to provide for pedestrian 43
access only. 44
45
b. Parking lots, vehicular use area, and service function areas. Landscaping 46
for off-street parking lots, vehicular use areas, and service function areas 47
shall be designed in accordance with LDC section 4.06.03, except for the 48
following: 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
21
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
i. Interior of parking lot. 1
a) A maximum of 30 percent of the landscape islands may 2
have a minimum width of five feet inside planting area. 3
4
b) Plantings within parking lots shall be a maximum of 25 5
percent turf grass. The balance shall be shrubs or 6
groundcover in planting areas appropriate to the design. 7
8
ii. Perimeter of parking lot, vehicular use area, or service function 9
area. The perimeter shall have a five-foot wide perimeter planting 10
area, exclusive of curbing. The perimeter planting area shall be 11
designed in accordance with the following: 12
13
a) Trees a minimum of 10 feet in height, four feet in spread, 1-14
3/4-inch caliper, and spaced a maximum of one per 25 linear 15
feet. 16
17
b) Shrubs arranged in a staggered pattern with a minimum size 18
of three gallons, spaced no more than three feet on-center 19
at the time of planting to provide year-round screening. 20
Where the perimeter planting area abuts lands outside the 21
GGPOD and zoned for single-family residential, the shrubs 22
shall be no less than five feet in height and spaced four feet 23
on-center at the time of planting. 24
25
c) Perimeter planting strips may be interrupted to provide for 26
driveway openings or for pedestrian access points. 27
28
c. Building foundation plantings. 29
30
i. Buildings, including parking structures with ground floor commercial 31
or residential along the front facade, shall be required to have 32
foundation plantings designed in accordance with LDC section 33
4.06.05, except for as follows: 34
35
a) The minimum required planting area shall be the equivalent 36
of 10 percent of the gross ground floor area of the building. 37
38
b) As an alternative to providing a continuous building 39
foundation planting width, the planting areas shall be 40
located within 25 feet of the building edge in the form of 41
landscaped courtyards and seating area landscaping. 42
43
c) It is unnecessary to provide foundation plantings along 44
facades where the building is setback less than five feet 45
from the property line; however, the minimum size of the 46
required planting area shall still be required and re-allocated 47
elsewhere on-site. 48
49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
22
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
d) None of the required foundation plantings shall be located 1
within perimeter buffers or within parking lot, vehicular use, 2
or service function areas. 3
4
ii. Stand-alone parking structures and parking structures designed 5
without ground floor retail or residential uses along the front façade 6
shall provide foundation landscaping in accordance with LDC 7
section 4.06.05 C., except that the minimum width of the planting 8
bed shall be 10 feet. 9
10
9. Signage. The sign standards of LDC sections 5.06.02 and 5.06.04 shall apply to 11
all mixed use and non-residential projects within the GGPOD. In addition, the 12
following provisions shall apply to all wall, awning, ground, blade, and menu signs 13
for all nonresidential and mixed use projects: 14
15
a. Signs on awnings can be combined and calculated with wall signs, to the 16
extent that signs on walls and awnings shall not exceed the maximum 17
square footage allowed for wall signs. 18
19
b. Graphic elements, logos, mosaic tiles, or names created in flooring 20
immediately outside the front entrance with a maximum size of six square 21
feet are allowed. 22
23
c. Non-illuminated plaques shall be allowed subject to the following: 24
25
i. Each business may mount a maximum of two plaques at their front 26
entrance with each plaque restricted to a maximum of two square 27
feet. Plaques must be flush or pin-mounted on the storefront or 28
façade. 29
30
ii. A plaque with a maximum size of two square feet may be mounted 31
at the exit door of each business. The purpose of this plaque is to 32
identify the business name or address for emergency response or 33
for the delivery of goods. 34
35
d. A wall sign not to exceed three square feet is allowed in connection with a 36
walk-up or take-out window. This sign shall not count toward the maximum 37
size or number allowed for wall signs. 38
39
10. Open space. 40
41
a. In order to promote a vibrant, walkable, urban community, the GGPOD 42
public open space standards are intended to concentrate open space in 43
structured, functional, and usable spaces that are nodes along connected 44
pedestrian paths or corridors that are accessible to the public. 45
46
b. The standards of LDC section 4.02.01 B. shall apply, except that a 47
minimum of 15 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to useable open 48
space as follows: 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
23
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
i. Residential developments on parcels 2.5 acres or greater; or 1
2
ii. Commercial, Economic Development, and mixed use projects on 3
five acres or greater. 4
5
c. Usable open space, as defined in LDC section 1.08.02, shall also include 6
publicly accessible site features, such as pedestrian and walking paths, 7
plazas, and passive furnishings. Passive furnishings include but are not 8
limited to benches, pavilions, and picnic areas. Pervious trail links 9
connecting within or across open spaces may count toward the 10
requirement of usable open space. Lakes, detention areas with publicly 11
accessible sidewalks or other impervious paths, and active recreation fields 12
or courts that are accessible to the public may be counted toward the 13
required public open space. 14
15
11. Pedestrian pathways. Pedestrian pathways required in accordance with LDC 16
section 5.05.08 F.3. shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 17
18
12. Exterior lighting. 19
20
a. Public paths shall be clearly marked by using design elements such as 21
landscaping and pedestrian lighting. 22
23
b. Illumination levels in the GGPOD shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles at 24
property lines where adjacent to residential development that is external to 25
the GGPOD or residentially-zoned property that is external to the GGPOD, 26
excluding where required pursuant to LDC section 6.06.03. 27
28
13. Public transit facilities. In addition to the off-site improvements required in LDC 29
section 6.06.02 A., where a bus stop is located immediately adjacent to the subject 30
property or where a property abuts a bus route, a landing pad, bicycle storage rack, 31
and bus stop identification sign, all of which approved by CAT, shall be provided 32
by Developer at no cost to the County in the adjacent right-of-way or within a 33
dedicated easement, for all new development and redevelopment projects 34
proposing more than 50 dwelling units or 10,000 square feet of a non-residential 35
use. If these CAT facilities exist, the County Manager or designee may waive this 36
requirement. 37
38
14. Pollution control. Any discharge from industrial, commercial, or manufacturing 39
processes to a stormwater or surface water management system is prohibited. 40
Wastewater from any industrial, commercial, or manufacturing process must be 41
contained within a building or disposed of through the Collier County Water-Sewer 42
District’s wastewater collection system pursuant to the Collier County Industrial 43
Pretreatment Ordinance, (Ord. No. 2003-18, as amended). 44
45
15. Service function areas and facilities. The provisions of LDC section 5.05.08 F.4. 46
shall apply, except that loading docks, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and 47
other services elements shall be placed to the sides or rear of the building. Service 48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
24
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
function areas shall be screened along rights-of-way in accordance with LDC 1
Section 4.02.26 B., where applicable. 2
3
16. Off-street parking and loading. Unless otherwise specified, all parking and loading 4
standards shall comply with LDC Section 4.05.00. In addition, the following 5
provisions shall apply: 6
7
a. Location of parking lots. The design of off-street parking lots shall comply 8
with the provisions of LDC section 5.05.08 F.2 except that parking lots, 9
vehicular use areas, and service function areas shall be located to the sides 10
or rear of buildings. 11
12
b. Driveways for single-family attached dwelling units. Where a lot abuts an 13
alley and the rear yard accommodates the driveway and unenclosed 14
parking of vehicles in accordance with LDC section 4.02.03 D., the 15
minimum length of such driveway shall be 23 feet. 16
17
c. Screening from abutting rights-of-way. Off-street parking lots and vehicular 18
use areas shall be screened along rights-of-way in accordance with LDC 19
section 4.02.26 B.8., where applicable. 20
21
d. Spaces required. 22
23
i. Hotels shall provide one space per hotel room. 24
25
ii. All other non-residential uses shall provide a minimum number of 26
parking spaces equal to one space per 1,000 square feet. 27
28
e. Reductions to the number of required spaces. 29
30
i. Off-street parking requirements shall be reduced cumulatively by 31
the following provisions, when applicable: 32
33
a) No additional off-street parking is required for outdoor dining 34
or outdoor restaurant seating areas. 35
36
b) For mixed use projects, the required number of residential 37
off-street parking spaces is reduced by 10 percent. 38
39
c) The minimum number of spaces required shall be reduced 40
by the County Manager or designee when it has been 41
determined that the reduction is necessary to preserve an 42
existing healthy tree or trees (with a 12-inch or greater 43
diameter at breast height) from being damaged or removed, 44
and where the SDP provides for the retention of said tree or 45
trees. 46
47
ii. Off-street parking requirements shall be further reduced by applying 48
only one of the following provisions: 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
25
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
1
a) If the subject property is located within the GGPOD-AC and 2
within 330 feet of an improved public transit facility, such as 3
a bus shelter, bus transfer facility, or park and ride site, the 4
required number of off-street parking spaces shall be 5
reduced by 20 percent; 6
7
b) If the subject property is located within the GGPOD-DT and 8
within 330 feet of an improved public transit facility, such as 9
a bus shelter, bus transfer facility, or park and ride site, the 10
required number of off-street parking spaces shall be 11
reduced by 10 percent; or 12
13
c) If a public transit facility, such as bus shelter, bus transfer 14
facility, or park and ride accommodation, is provided on-site 15
and in coordination with and accepted by the Collier Area 16
Transit, or if a bike-share station or ride-share pick up/drop 17
off zone is provided on-site, the facility shall substitute for a 18
portion of the standard required off-street parking spaces. 19
The total percentage of parking reduction shall only equal a 20
maximum of 30 percent of the minimum required off-street 21
parking spaces. The County Manager or designee may 22
approve an alternative parking credit if the applicant 23
provides a site-specific analysis of the projected frequency 24
of passenger or patron use demonstrating a greater off-set 25
of parking spaces is warranted. 26
27
f. On-street parking. Where on-street parking exists or is permitted, a 28
development shall count the spaces directly abutting the site's frontage 29
toward the minimum parking requirement; however, the on-street parking 30
spaces are considered public spaces and are not for the exclusive use of 31
the adjacent use. 32
33
g. Parking structures. 34
35
i. Parking structures shall comply with LDC section 5.05.08 E.8, 36
except that building foundation landscaping shall be provided in 37
accordance with LDC section 4.02.26 B.8.c.ii. 38
39
ii. Parking structure façades shall be designed to screen views of 40
automobiles by the general public from adjacent streets and 41
driveways. 42
43
iii. Freestanding light fixtures on the top level of the parking structures 44
shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height and setback from the 45
perimeter of the structure a minimum distance of twice the height of 46
the light fixture. Light fixtures shall be fully shielded to contain light 47
to the surface of the deck only. 48
49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
26
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
h. Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall apply to all commercial, mixed 1
use, and Economic Development uses. Bicyclists shall have access via 2
sidewalks, pathways, or driveways to the public right-of-way and be located 3
as provided below: 4
5
i. Parking structures. Required bicycle parking shall be located in 6
or near main entrances or elevators to provide for pedestrian safety, 7
visibility, and security of property. 8
9
ii. On site. Bicycle parking (not located within a parking 10
structure) shall be located on site within 50 feet of main building 11
entrances. Bicycle parking shall not obstruct walkways. 12
13
iii. Right-of-way. Bicycle parking may be located within the public 14
right-of-way of a new local street platted after (the adoption date of 15
this ordinance), provided a minimum clearance of five feet is 16
maintained for pedestrian access. 17
18
iv. Shared bicycle parking. Where there is more than one 19
building on a site, or parking is shared with an adjacent site, bicycle 20
parking shall be distributed equally to serve all buildings and main 21
entrances. 22
23
17. Drive-Up, Drive-In, or Drive-Through Delivery of Goods or Services. 24
25
a. A drive-up, drive-in, or drive-through facility is a design feature of a building 26
or site of a commercial use. A facility may include but is not limited to a 27
building opening, such as windows and doors, mechanical devices, and 28
vehicular stacking lanes. 29
30
b. This design feature shall be prohibited in the GGPOD-DT, pursuant to the 31
GGAMP. 32
33
c. In the GGPOD-AC, no use, except a bank, shall have a drive-up, drive-in, 34
or drive-through facility. 35
36
d. Existing drive-through facilities, as of [effective date of Ordinance] may 37
continue to operate until the use ceases for a period of one year. 38
39
e. Pedestrian walk-up windows located outside of the building are not 40
considered to be drive-through facilities and shall be allowed. 41
42
C. Additional design standards for the Economic Development uses in the GGPOD. The 43
following design standards shall be applicable to all Economic Development uses 44
identified in Table 1 of LDC section 2.03.07 F.5.: 45
46
1. Loading areas. All loading areas shall be oriented away from adjacent residential 47
uses, except for where obstructed by an intervening building. 48
49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
27
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
2. Outside storage and display. No outside storage and display shall be permitted 1
except when approved as part of a temporary/special event in accordance with 2
LDC section 5.04.05. 3
4
3. Operations. 5
6
a. All activity associated with the uses in this category shall be conducted 7
within a fully enclosed building. Activity includes but is not limited to the 8
following: 9
10
i. The use or storage of any fixed or movable business equipment; 11
12
ii. The use, storage, display, sale, delivery, offering for sale, 13
production, or consumption in any business, or by any business 14
invitee on the premises of the business, of any goods, wares, 15
merchandise, products, or foods; or 16
17
iii. The performance of any work or services. 18
19
b. All Economic Development use operations and equipment, including 20
accessory process equipment, such as compressors and air handlers, shall 21
be contained in an enclosed structure. 22
23
4. Noise. No Economic Development use shall produce noise exceeding the sound 24
level limits for Commercial or Tourist uses as set forth in the Collier County Noise 25
Control Ordinance No. 90-17, as amended. 26
27
5. Odors. No Economic Development use shall cause or allow the emission of odor. 28
29
6. Vibrations. No use shall operate to produce ground vibration noticeable by a 30
reasonable person with normal sensitivity, outside the building for single-use 31
buildings or outside the Economic Development use space inside mixed use and 32
multi-tenant buildings. 33
34
7. Smoke and particulate matter. No Economic Development use shall discharge 35
outside the building for single-use buildings or outside the Economic Development 36
use space inside mixed use and multi-tenant building any toxic or noxious matter 37
in such a concentration that will endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or 38
general welfare. 39
40
8. Electrical disturbance. No Economic Development use shall create any electrical 41
disturbance which interferes unduly with the normal operation of equipment or 42
instruments or which is reasonably likely to cause injury to any person located 43
inside or outside building. 44
45
9. Appearance. Industrial/factory buildings shall be designed in accordance with the 46
provisions of LDC section 5.05.08., excluding the exceptions, modifications, and 47
additions listed in LDC section 5.05.08 E.7.b through h. 48
49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
28
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
D. Design of new streets and alleys in the GGPOD. The standards contained herein are 1
applicable to all new streets and alleys in the GGPOD. 2
3
1. Streets. 4
5
a. Streets are intended to form a modified grid to provide continuous 6
pedestrian walkways. The street network corresponds to a mix of uses and 7
a higher level of building and site design standards, in order to promote 8
pedestrian comfort and movement of bicycles and to foster a vibrant urban 9
realm. 10
11
b. These standards shall apply to new streets in the GGPOD platted after (the 12
adoption date of this ordinance). Streets shall be a minimum of 66 feet in 13
width and comprised of the following: 14
15
i. Eight-foot wide sidewalks; 16
17
ii. Five-foot wide street tree planting zones containing cut-outs for 18
trees, located between the sidewalks and the Type F curbs. 19
Lighting fixtures shall be provided within the street tree planting 20
zone and located to avoid conflict with street trees. Any at-grade 21
surface area within the street tree planting zone that is not occupied 22
by a tree or light fixture shall be ADA compliant. Light fixtures shall 23
be consistent with the decorative lighting identified in the Golden 24
Gate Community Roadways Beautification Master Plan. If such 25
lighting is unavailable, similarly themed lighting shall be used. Tree 26
cut-outs shall be designed as follows: 27
28
a) Placed abutting the FDOT Type F curb; 29
30
b) Minimum at-grade dimension of five feet with a minimum 31
area of 25 square feet; 32
33
c) Contain sufficient volume of soil necessary to promote a 34
healthy tree and directing roots away from sidewalks 35
through the use of structural soils or modular suspended 36
pavement systems. If the option of structural soil is utilized, 37
a minimum of two cubic feet of structural soil per square feet 38
of mature tree crown projection shall be provided; and 39
40
d) Spaced 40 feet on center with trees having a minimum 41
average mature canopy spread of 20 feet and an eight-foot 42
vertical clearance for pedestrians. 43
44
iii. Type F curbs, designed in accordance with current FDOT Design 45
Standards; 46
47
iv. On-street parking areas containing eight-foot wide by 23-foot long 48
parallel parking spaces; and 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
29
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
v. Vehicular travel lanes 10 feet in width. 1
2
c. Public utility and drainage infrastructure may be placed in the right-of-way 3
of new streets platted (after the adoption date of this ordinance) in the areas 4
designated below and subject to the following restrictions: 5
6
i. Storm and sanitary sewers shall be located within the travel lanes. 7
Where both are present, parallel sewers shall be constructed with 8
junction boxes and manholes centered in either travel lane. Where 9
only one is present, structures may be located at the centerline of 10
the roadway or centered within either travel lane. On curves, 11
sufficient structures shall be provided to facilitate pipeline 12
alignments that achieve minimum horizontal separation criteria 13
found in FAC 62-555.314(1). Where feasible, sewer laterals and 14
storm drains shall connect to sewer mains at right angles to 15
facilitate perpendicular crossings with other utilities in the right-of-16
way and to minimize proximity to tree roots. 17
18
ii. Potable water and sanitary sewer force mains shall be located 19
between the travel lanes and the street tree planting zones, on 20
opposite sides of the roadway. The main shall be centered 21
underneath the on-street parking, four feet from both the gutter and 22
the travel lane. 23
24
iii. Other underground utilities shall be underneath the sidewalks. 25
26
iv. Above-ground structures and appurtenances shall be placed in the 27
street tree planting zone, outside the tree cut-outs and no closer 28
than five feet to any street tree. 29
30
2. Alleys. Alleys are intended to function as accessways to off-street parking lots, 31
vehicular use areas, and services areas. New alleys, including the width of the 32
paved area, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The standards related to the 33
streetscape design of buildings in LDC section 4.02.26 B.7. are not applicable 34
along alleys. 35
36
E. Deviation requests for projects in the GGPOD. 37
38
1. Purpose and Intent. Property owners in the GGPOD may request deviations from 39
certain standards, as established in LDC section 4.02.26 E.2., to allow for flexibility 40
in building and site design, and to support and initiate incentives for new 41
development on vacant property or redevelopment on existing sites. 42
43
2. Applicability. 44
45
a. The Administrative Code, Chapter 6.M. shall establish the process and 46
submittal requirements for deviation requests in the GGPOD. Deviations 47
in the GGPOD may be requested for new development or redevelopment 48
projects in connection with any of the following types of applications: 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
30
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
1
i. SDP, SDPA, or SIP as established in LDC section 10.02.03; 2
3
ii. Building permit for signs as established in LDC section 5.06.11; or 4
5
iii. PPL for townhouses developed on fee simple lots under individual 6
ownership, as established in LDC section 10.02.04. 7
8
b. Unless otherwise specified, property owners shall be eligible to seek a 9
deviation from the following code provisions: 10
11
i. Design standards for the GGPOD: LDC section 4.02.26. All 12
dimensional standards of this section, excluding building height, 13
may be considered for a deviation request. In addition, deviations 14
from non-dimensional provisions, such as from the design 15
standards for Economic Development uses in LDC section 4.02.26 16
C., are also allowed. Drive-through facilities, as described in LDC 17
section 4.02.26 B.17., are prohibited for uses in the GGPOD-DT, 18
pursuant to the GGAMP and ineligible for deviations. 19
20
ii. Loading space requirements: LDC section 4.05.06 B. 21
22
iii. Landscaping in vehicular use areas: LDC section 4.06.03 B. 23
24
iv. Landscaping requirements for industrial and commercial 25
development: LDC section 4.06.05 B.3. 26
27
v. Building foundation plantings: LDC section 4.06.05 C., including 28
Table inset. 29
30
vi. Development standards for signs in nonresidential districts: LDC 31
section 5.06.04. 32
33
3. Conflict with other relief processes. 34
35
a. This section is not intended to replace the current established process of 36
requesting deviations associated with the following: 37
38
i. Master plan elements of the respective PUD pursuant to LDC 39
section 10.02.13. However, the deviation process of LDC section 40
4.02.26 E. is available to PUD-zoned lands within the GGPOD 41
provided that such request is based on a specific dimensional or 42
design requirement described in LDC section 4.02.26 E.2., and 43
provided the request further promotes compliance with the purpose 44
and intent of the GGPOD. 45
46
ii. Site plan with deviations for redevelopment projects pursuant to 47
LDC section 10.02.03 F., unless such request is based on a 48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
31
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
dimension, site feature, or architectural standard listed under LDC 1
section 4.02.26 E.2. 2
3
iii. Deviations and alternate compliance pursuant to LDC section 4
5.05.08 G. 5
6
iv. Post take plan application pursuant to LDC section 9.03.07 A. 7
8
b. Deviations from the LDC which are not expressly provided for in this section 9
shall be processed as variances in accordance with LDC section 9.04.00. 10
11
4. Evaluation criteria. When evaluating a deviation, the following criteria shall be 12
considered: 13
14
a. Whether the proposed deviation is compatible with adjacent land uses and 15
achieves the requirements and/or intent of the regulations as closely as is 16
practicable; 17
18
b. Whether the proposed deviation is the minimum amount necessary to allow 19
for reasonable use of the property and/or address the issue necessitating 20
the deviation request; and 21
22
c. Whether the reduced or increased standard requested by the deviation is 23
mitigated for, either on the subject site or by providing a public benefit on 24
the subject site. Examples of such on-site mitigation include but are not 25
limited to: increasing setbacks from the adjacent road right-of-way when 26
proposing to deviate from sign size limitations; increasing plantings or 27
planting sizes or installing a fence or wall where a reduced buffer width is 28
proposed; providing public pedestrian and/or bicycle pathway easements 29
or other similar mobility improvements including transit enhancements; 30
providing public parking; providing beautification in the public realm, 31
including street trees, street furniture, lighting and other similar public 32
benefits. 33
34
5. Public notice. Public notice, including signage, notice to property owners, and an 35
advertised public hearing, is required for deviation requests and shall be provided 36
in accordance with the applicable provisions of LDC section 10.03.06 R. 37
38
Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay District (GGPPOCO)—Special 39
Conditions for the Properties Abutting Golden Gate Parkway East of Santa Barbara Boulevard as 40
Referenced in the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial District Map (Map 2) of 41
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan 42
43
A. The following standards shall apply to all uses in this overlay district. Where a specific 44
development criteria and standards also exist in the Golden Gate Master Plan, or the 45
Future Land Use Element of the GMP, they shall supersede any less stringent requirement 46
or place additional requirements on development. 47
48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
32
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
B. In support of the purpose and intent of the GGPPOCO a common architectural style is 1
required for all proposed development within the overlay district. During the site 2
development plan review process, architectural drawings shall be submitted indicating that 3
all proposed buildings will have an architectural style which is similar to that approved for 4
the existing PUDs within the district boundaries. Such architectural drawings shall depict, 5
at a minimum, the following: the use of stucco, except for trim; pastel colors; pedestrian 6
pockets, including benches and lampposts; tile roofs, except that where tile roofs are not 7
provided, decorative parapet walls shall be constructed above the roof line. 8
9
C. Projects shall be encouraged in the form of a PUD (there shall be no minimum acreage 10
requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that all requests for rezoning 11
must be at least 40,000 square feet in area unless the proposed rezone is an extension 12
of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). 13
14
D. Minimum project area shall be 2 acres. 15
16
E. Buildings shall be set back from Golden Gate Parkway a minimum of 40 feet and from 17
rear lot line a minimum of 25 feet. 18
19
F. Buildings shall have a maximum height of 25 feet plus 10 feet for under building parking. 20
21
G. Transportation. 22
23
1. Access to projects shall be provided exclusively via Golden Gate Parkway and 24
shall be limited to 1 per 450 feet commencing at the centerline of Santa Barbara 25
Boulevard but shall nonetheless comply with the Access Control Policy (Res. 01-26
247) in place at the time of development. 27
28
2. Projects shall be required to provide off- street parking and may make provisions 29
for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments. 30
31
3. Projects shall provide deceleration and acceleration lanes as may be determined 32
by the County Manager or designee or his designee based upon the requirements 33
of the "work within the right-of-way ordinance" (Ordinance No. 93-64) and sound 34
engineering practices. 35
36
4. Projects shall encourage pedestrian traffic by providing sidewalks. Adjacent 37
projects shall coordinate location of sidewalks. 38
39
H. Signage permitted in this overlay shall be restricted to those signs permitted under section 40
5.06.00 the Collier County Sign Code. 41
42
I. Landscaping. 43
44
1. Projects shall provide a ten (10) foot buffer between vehicular right-of-way and 45
required sidewalk and shall provide landscaping of one (1) shade tree per thirty 46
(30) linear feet. Such trees shall be minimum of eight (8) feet in height and one 47
and one-half (1½) inches in diameter at the time of planting that shall have a 48
minimum canopy of fifteen (15) feet at maturity. In addition, a hedge or berm 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
33
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
planting combination shall be planted along the entire length of this ten (10) foot 1
buffer consistent with section 4.06.00. 2
3
2. A minimum of ten (10) percent of the gross vehicular use area shall be landscaped 4
to provide visual relief. One (1) tree, as described in section 4.02.26 I.1., shall be 5
provided for each seventy-five (75) square feet of this landscaped area. This 6
landscaping shall be placed within the vehicular use area. 7
8
J. Central water and sewer facilities shall be available prior to development. 9
10
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 11
12
4.02.37 – Reserved. Design Standards for Development in the Golden Gate Downtown 13
Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO) 14
15
A. Development criteria. The following standards shall apply to all uses in this overlay district. 16
Where specific development criteria and standards also exist in the Golden Gate Area 17
Master Plan, or the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, these 18
standards shall supersede any less stringent requirement or place additional requirements 19
on development. 20
21
1. Cessation of residential uses. Existing, non-owner-occupied residential uses 22
located along Golden Gate Parkway shall cease to exist no later than seven (7) 23
years after the effective date of the adoption of the Downtown Center Commercial 24
Subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (adopted October 26, 2004; 25
effective January 14, 2005). This does not require the removal of residential 26
structures located on Golden Gate Parkway that are converted to uses allowed in 27
this overlay district within one (1) additional year; nor does this require the removal 28
of residential structures located elsewhere in this overlay district. 29
30
2. Multi-story buildings. 31
32
a. Only retail, personal service, and institutional uses are allowed on the first 33
floor. 34
35
b. All uses allowed by this zoning overlay, except restaurants and cocktail 36
lounges, are allowed on the second floor. 37
38
c. Only residential uses are allowed on the third floor. 39
40
3. Density. Density shall be as per the underlying zoning district. For mixed-use 41
projects, density shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. 42
43
4. Setbacks. 44
45
a. All development and redevelopment on lots abutting Golden Gate Parkway 46
shall have a front yard and setback of no more than 15 feet. All projects 47
providing a front yard setback greater than 0 feet must provide restaurant 48
seating, and/or open space areas such as other seating, planting areas, 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
34
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
and decorative landscape planters within such front yard , except that water 1
management retention and detention areas are prohibited. 2
3
b. All development and redevelopment on properties in the overlay area not 4
abutting Golden Gate Parkway must comply with the front yard setback 5
requirements of that property's underlying zoning. 6
7
c. Side yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet. 8
9
d. Rear yard setback shall be no less than ½ of the building height, with a 15-10
foot minimum. 11
12
5. Building footprint limits. 13
14
a. Minimum building footprint of 3,000 square feet. 15
16
b. Maximum building footprint of 12,000 square feet. 17
18
6. Minimum floor area—Residential. 19
20
a. Mixed use. Minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet. 21
22
7. Minimum height. The zoned height of buildings shall be no less than 34 feet. 23
8. Maximum height. The actual height of buildings shall not exceed 3 stories or 45 24
feet. 25
26
9. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Standards. The 27
Golden Gate community supports the CPTED philosophy as a way to reduce 28
crime, improve neighborhood and business environments, and increase overall 29
quality of life of its citizens. CPTED principles such as natural surveillance, natural 30
access control, and territorial reinforcement shall be incorporated into the overall 31
design of the project, consistent with the provisions in this overlay and as identified 32
below. 33
34
a. Public paths shall be clearly marked by using design elements such as 35
landscaping and pedestrian accent lighting. 36
37
b. Public entrances shall be clearly defined by walkways and signage, as 38
specifically provided in this overlay. 39
40
10. Common architectural style. In support of the purpose and intent of the GGDCCO, 41
all structures within the overlay district shall have a common Mediterranean 42
architectural style, with barrel tile roofs, stucco façades, ar ches and wood accent 43
members used as details. During the site development plan review process, 44
architectural drawings shall be submitted to demonstrate adherence to this 45
requirement. All commercial and mixed use buildings and projects shall be subject 46
to the provisions of section 5.05.08 of the Code, except as provided herein. 47
48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
35
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
11. Architectural standards. All buildings shall meet the requirements set forth in 1
section 5.05.08, except as otherwise specified below: 2
3
a. Buildings with frontage on Golden Gate Parkway shall have 60 percent of 4
the ground-floor façade finished with clear or lightly tinted glass. 5
6
b. The glazed area of the façade above the first-floor shall be at least twenty 7
(20) percent but shall not exceed 35 percent of the total area, with each 8
façade being calculated independently. 9
10
c. Design elements used to embellish the primary façade shall be similarly 11
incorporated into the rear façade of buildings. 12
13
d. The façades of buildings 5,000 square feet or larger shall use rooflines that 14
vary in height or architectural embellishments, such as cupolas, at least 15
every 80 feet. 16
17
e. Parapet roof treatments are prohibited. 18
19
f. Flat roofs must be screened with a mansard edge barrel tile roof extending 20
the length of all façades. 21
22
g. Building entrances shall be accentuated through architectural elements, 23
lighting, landscaping, and/or paving stones. 24
25
12. Outdoor display/sale of merchandise. 26
27
a. No automatic food and drink vending machines shall be located exterior to 28
buildings. 29
30
13. Access. Those aggregated lots developed under these overlay provisions and 31
fronting on Golden Gate Parkway must provide site access from abutting local 32
streets and may not obtain site access from Golden Gate Parkway, and where one 33
such commercial or mixed use development provides site access at the project 34
boundary abutting other lots, whether aggregated or not for commercial or mixed 35
use development. Such developments must provide for joint or cross access with 36
the abutting property or properties in order to share access and minimize the 37
number of points from Golden Gate Parkway. 38
39
14. Parking standards. All commercial and mixed-use projects shall meet the parking 40
requirements as set forth below: 41
42
a. A minimum of 3 public parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of 43
commercial floor area. 44
45
b. A minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for each residential unit. 46
47
c. No parking is allowed in the front yard of lots abutting Golden Gate 48
Parkway. 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
36
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
1
d. There shall be no parking requirement for outdoor restaurant seating areas. 2
3
e. Shared parking is required, where possible and feasible. 4
5
f. Interconnection between adjacent parking lots is required, where possible 6
and feasible. 7
8
g. Parking facility lighting shall be consistent with the pedestrian/accent 9
decorative lighting fixtures illustrated in Fig. 29, page 5-9 of the Golden 10
Gate Community Roadways Beautification Master Plan, as amended, and 11
shall be maintained at a light level of 3.0 foot candles, and arranged and 12
shielded in a manner that protects roadways and neighboring properties 13
from direct glare or other interference. 14
15
h. All projects that are adjacent to residential development within the district 16
and/or residentially zoned properties outside the district shall provide 17
lighting fixtures with full-cutoff optics that direct the light source downward. 18
19
i. The overnight parking of commercial vehicles, with a rated load capacity of 20
one ton or more, is prohibited. 21
22
j. The overnight parking of commercial vehicles shall be limited to 1 vehicle 23
per 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area, not to exceed 6 commercial 24
vehicles per building. 25
26
15. Project standards. In addition to the site design elements described in section 27
5.05.08 F.1, all projects shall provide: 28
29
a. Two accept or specimen trees, above the minimum landscape code 30
requirements, for every 100 linear feet along both the front and rear 31
façades, at a minimum height of 18 feet at planting, except that projects 32
with frontage along Golden Gate Parkway shall only be required to provide 33
the planting along the rear façade. 34
35
b. Decorative landscape planters or planting areas, a minimum of 5 feet wide, 36
and areas for shaded seating consisting of a minimum of 100 square feet. 37
38
16. Landscaping. All commercial and mixed use projects shall meet the landscape 39
requirements in section 4.06.00 of the Code, unless otherwise specified in this 40
zoning overlay. 41
42
a. Project Perimeter Buffering. All projects that are located adjacent to 43
residential zoning external to the district boundaries shall provide a 6-foot 44
wide sidewalk and a minimum 19-foot wide landscape planting area, except 45
that the project's frontage along Golden Gate Parkway shall be exempt 46
from this requirement. 47
48
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
37
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
The planting area shall be landscaped with: 1. shrubs and ground cover; 1
shrubs shall be planted in a double row and be no less than 24 inches in 2
height at time of planting; and, 2. Trees, planted one per 30 linear feet and, 3
at time of planting, shall be a minimum height of 22 feet. 4
5
b. Internal Project Buffering. All projects that are located adjacent to a 6
residential use within the district boundaries shall provide an Alternative B 7
buffer per section 4.06.02 C.2. except: walls and berms are prohibited, a 8
freestanding hedge must be 6 feet in height, if a fence is provided it must 9
be accompanied by a hedge 3 feet in height with a 2 foot spread at time of 10
planting. The project frontage along Golden Gate Parkway shall be exempt 11
from this requirement. 12
13
c. Building Foundation Planting Areas. Building foundation plantings shall be 14
required for all projects, except for buildings adjacent to Golden Gate 15
Parkway and the rights-of-way abutting the district's external boundaries. 16
17
d. Project Vehicular Use Areas. Mountable curbs shall be provided for all 18
terminal landscape islands as depicted in Figure 3, Section 4.06.03.B.3. 19
20
17. Golden Gate Parkway Right-of-Way Improvements. Right-of-way improvements 21
required for properties/lots with frontage along Golden Gate Parkway. 22
23
a. Curbing. All projects/lots shall provide Type "F" non-mountable curbing per 24
F.D.O.T. "Roadway and Traffic Design Standards" Index 300, the latest 25
edition. 26
27
b. Landscaping. All projects/ lots shall be required to provide an 8 foot wide 28
landscaping strip between the curb and sidewalk. This planting area may 29
be reduced between tree spacing to 5 feet wide, for a maximum of 50 30
percent of the buffer area, to accommodate street furnishings and fixtures, 31
consistent with the Golden Gate Community Roadways Beautification 32
Master Plan. 33
34
The landscaping strip shall be landscaped with: 1. Turf, not to exceed 50 35
percent of the planting area; 2. Shrubs and ground cover, at a minimum of 36
50 percent coverage, not to exceed a mature height of 24 inches; and, 3. 37
Canopy trees, planted one per 30 linear feet and, shall be at time of 38
planting, a minimum 4-inch caliper with 8 feet of clear trunk and 22 feet in 39
height. 40
41
All planting materials in the public right-of-way shall be consistent with 42
those identified in the Golden Gate Community Roadways Beautification 43
Master Plan. Installation and maintenance shall be consistent with the 44
Collier County Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within the 45
Right-of-Way. 46
47
Where right-of-way plantings above are not practicable, a planting area 48
and/or a decorative planter(s) may be provided consistent with the Collier 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
38
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
County Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within the Right-of-1
Way. 2
3
Property owners shall be required to enter into a Landscape Maintenance 4
Agreement with the County for the installation and maintenance of the 5
required right-of-way plantings. Landscape Maintenance Agreements shall 6
require a signed and sealed landscape and irrigation plan(s), review by the 7
appropriate Transportation Division staff, approval by the Board of County 8
Commissioners, and recording of said agreement with the Clerk of Courts. 9
Plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 10
11
i. Existing conditions inventory. 12
13
ii. Proposed plantings/details of planting methods and 14
maintenance specifications. 15
16
iii. Location of utilities. 17
18
iv. Location of drainage facilities. 19
20
v. Irrigation proposal, including water connections. 21
22
c. Sidewalks. All projects/lots shall provide a ten foot wide sidewalk between 23
the required landscape strip identified in "b." above and the property line. 24
Sidewalks shall be constructed pursuant to the Land Development Code 25
and the "Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within the Right-of-26
Way". Decorative pavers (consistent with the approved pavers identified in 27
the Golden Gate Community Roadways Beautification Master Plan) may 28
be substituted for portions of sidewalk, subject to approval by the County 29
Manager, or designee. 30
31
Where a portion of the required sidewalk cannot be constructed in the 32
public right-of-way, the property owner shall locate such portion on their 33
private property and grant the County an easement. 34
35
18. Address numbers. Address numbers shall be 8 inches in vertical height and shall 36
be located on the primary building façade. Numbering materials shall be reflective 37
and have a contrasting background. 38
39
19. Signage. As required, allowed, or prohibited in section 5.06.00 of the Code. 40
41
20. Lighting. As described and provided in the Golden Gate Community Roadways 42
Beautification Master Plan or as identified below: 43
44
a. Internal Project Lighting. All projects shall use architectural decorative 45
lighting. Such lighting shall be the same decorative lighting as identified in 46
Figure 29 on page 5-9 of the Golden Gate Community Roadways 47
Beautification Master Plan. If such lighting becomes unavailable, similarly 48
themed lighting shall be used. Light fixtures must light all public use areas 49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
39
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
adjacent to the building (e.g. entryway, courtyards, etc.) to a recommended 1
0.5 candle level of illumination. Lighting shall be arranged in a manner that 2
protects roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or other 3
interference. 4
5
b. Street/Roadway Lighting. Architectural decorative lighting shall be used 6
along Golden Gate Parkway within the public right-of-way. Such lighting 7
shall be a variation of the decorative lighting identified as Figure 29 on page 8
5-9 of the Golden Gate Community Roadways Beautification Master Plan, 9
more specifically identified as the Lumec Domus Series (DMS50-250MH-10
SG3-480-LD-DL-CRL72-1A/U.S. 41 East lighting fixture). If such lighting 11
becomes unavailable, similarly themed lighting shall be used. The 12
installation and maintenance of lighting shall be consistent with the Collier 13
County Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within the Right-of-14
Way. 15
16
21. Dumpsters. Dumpsters shall be screened and positioned out of view from public 17
rights-of-way and pedestrian walkways. 18
19
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 20
21
4.02.38 - Specific Design Criteria for Mixed Use Development within C-1 through C-3 Zoning 22
Districts 23
24
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 25
26
B. Applicability. All properties zoned C-1, C-2 and C-3, excluding where located in the 27
GGPOD. These regulations shall apply to all mixed-use projects proposed within these 28
zoning districts, subject to the design criteria set forth in this section. The design criteria 29
address the relationship of buildings, parking, vehicular, and pedestrian movement to 30
create a pedestrian oriented experience. Buildings are encouraged to be built close to the 31
vehicular and pedestrian way to create a continuous active and vibrant streetscape 32
utilizing the architecture, landscaping, lighting, signage, and street furnishings. Vehicular 33
travelways support two-way traffic and on street parking. A logical 34
pedestrian pathway system is provided throughout that connects the pedestrian 35
movements from one use to another or within use areas. Building arcades and awnings 36
are allowed to extend over the sidewalk to create shade and encourage pedestrian 37
activity. Signage design shall be carefully integrated with site and building design to 38
create a unified appearance for the project. Creativity in the design of signs is encouraged 39
in order to emphasize the unique character of the project. Projects utilizing these design 40
criteria will be developed in compliance with the LDC, except as specified herein. 41
42
C. Commercial Mixed Use Design Criteria. Projects utilizing the Commercial Mixed Use 43
option within a C-1, C-2, or C-3 Zoning District shall comply with the following standards 44
and criteria: 45
46
1. These design criteria are applicable to the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts, 47
excluding where located in the GGPOD. 48
49
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
40
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 1
2
4.05.02 - Design Standards 3
4
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 5
6
E. Access shall meet the following standards: 7
8
1. Be arranged for convenient and safe access of pedestrians and vehicles. 9
10
2. Off- street parking areas must be accessible from a street, alley or other public 11
right-of-way. 12
13
3. Access via a rear property right-of-way shall be required if available in lieu of direct 14
access. 15
16
4. Except for properties located in the GGPOD, For any nonresidential development 17
which abuts an alley, a maximum of ten (10) parking spaces, not to exceed thirty 18
(30%) percent of the required parking for the proposed use, may be accessed 19
solely from the alley. Said parking spaces shall be clearly marked and arranged 20
in such a manner so that each parking space meets the minimum size required in 21
section 4.05.02 of this LDC. Additionally, these spaces shall be arranged in a 22
manner which allows for full compliance with any required landscaped buffer 23
requirement. These spaces shall be for the exclusive use of employees and 24
service vehicles and shall be clearly designated as such by appropriate signage. 25
26
F. Be arranged so that no vehicle shall be forced onto any street to gain access from one 27
aisle to another aisle. All off- street parking facilities must be so arranged that no motor 28
vehicle shall have to back onto any street, excluding single-family and two-family 29
residential dwellings and churches, and for townhouses and multi-family dwellings in the 30
GGPOD where access is provided from the rear yard from an abutting alley. 31
32
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 33
34
5.05.04 - Group Housing 35
36
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 37
38
C. Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities: 39
40
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 41
42
Special setback requirements
for property abutting roadways
25 feet of a road right-of-way line1
43
1 For properties located in the GGPOD, the front setback shall be in 44
accordance with LDC section 4.02.26 B.1. 45
46
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted
41
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Oct 08\Meeting Materials\Backup\GGPOD\Proposed Text
(09-23-2020).docx
D. All other care housing environments as defined in this Code, including, but not limited to, 1
care units , assisted living units, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes, 2
and dwelling units that are part of an aging-in-pace living environment shall adhere to the 3
following standards in addition to those established by the underlying zoning district. 4
5
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 6
7
2. No structure shall be erected within twenty (20) feet of any abutting lot or parcel 8
which is zoned residential, nor within twenty-five (25) feet of a road right-of-way, 9
except for properties within the GGPOD, the front setback shall be in accordance 10
with LDC section 4.02.26 B.1. 11
12
5.05.08 - Architectural and Site Design Standards 13
14
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 15
16
E. Design standards for specific building uses. 17
18
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 19
20
7. Industrial/factory buildings. 21
22
a. Applicability. All standards listed in LDC section 5.05.08 are applicable 23
with the following exceptions, modifications, and additions. However, the 24
provisions contained in LDC section 5.05.08 E.7.b. through h. below shall 25
not be applicable to industrial/factory buildings located within the GGPOD. 26
27
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 28
29
10.03.06 - Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 30
31
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 32
33
R. Site Plan with Deviations for Redevelopment, pursuant to LDC secti on 10.02.03 F and 34
deviations in the GGPOD, pursuant to LDC section 4.02.26 E. 35
36
1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 37
38
a. One Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner hearing. 39
40
b. If heard by the Planning Commission, one BZA hearing. 41
42
2. The following notice procedures are required: 43
44
a. Newspaper Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 45
accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 46
47
b. Mailed Notice prior to the advertised public hearing. 48
49
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 50
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: LDCA-PL20190001927 - GGPOD (13371 : Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD))
10/08/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Planning Commission
Item Number: 6.1
Item Summary: 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes
Meeting Date: 10/08/2020
Prepared by:
Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission
Name: Diane Lynch
09/29/2020 11:52 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
09/29/2020 11:52 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 09/29/2020 11:52 AM
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/29/2020 1:36 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/30/2020 9:59 AM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 09/30/2020 10:06 AM
Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/30/2020 10:03 AM
Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/30/2020 10:05 AM
Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 10/08/2020 5:05 PM
6.1
Packet Pg. 46
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, September 9, 2020
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in
and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in
SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
Edwin Fryer, Chairman
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Paul Shea (via teleconference)
ABSENT:
Patrick Dearborn
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. FRANTZ: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the September 9
meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll.
COMMISSIONER FRY: In no particular order, because we are all discombobulated
today.
Mr. Eastman?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here.
Chairman Fryer?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dearborn?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of five.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That's some complicated math. Thank you for your patience.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're to be congratulated for that rapid calculation.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I should probably figure that out in advance, shouldn't I?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Addenda to the agenda. Do we have any?
MR. FRANTZ: I did just want to talk through one potential upcoming meeting. I think
that there was some discussion of a possible meeting on September 25th. And staff reached out to
you all, but I wanted to bring that discussion up here for your --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead.
MR. FRANTZ: Well, that's really all that I have for you. We're proposing a special
meeting for the September 25th at -- it would be at 9:00 a.m. This is because we have several
items which could potentially be continued on the 17th. And so I just want to find out if we would
potentially have a quorum for that date.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's check right now. I indicated that I will be there, and I
will be there.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I can be there.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commission Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Friday, the 25th?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It might get into my tee time. Well, I'm just kidding.
Not tea; this tee.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Isn't that a fishing day?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm available. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I should be able to be here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good, okay.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Commissioners Shea, are you available on the 25th?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I'll be there.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're set.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I ask, but the 17th we're starting off with
continuation of where we left off.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me make an explanation to that, because there's some
last-minute changes afoot.
In order to accommodate the schedule of a fire chief, who is a witness in the matter, we're
going to lead off with the Yahl Air Curtain matter, which I think we can dispatch fairly quickly,
and then after that we'll go right into RLSA, and then from there we'll go to the Immokalee Estates.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the 17th, then, we start with the Yahl.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will. But my guess is that the entire day thereafter will be
spent on RLSA. I could be wrong.
Any other things that need to be announced about meetings?
MR. FRANTZ: That's all that we had. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you.
Oh, one other thing, I guess, to bring everyone up to speed. I -- and this is not to talk
substantively about a matter that is not scheduled but simply to set out some logistics so that people
are aware of what is coming. I have undertaken to do a proposed redraft of staff's August 3rd
RLSA recommended amendments, and as soon as I complete them, I'm going to send them to staff,
and staff and I will be meeting to have a drafting session of sorts on Monday. Then we're going to
want to output the results of that to the Planning Commission and to the County Attorney's Office,
who can be involved earlier if they wish, so that Planning Commission will have a few days before
our meeting on the 17th to review and consider any changes that staff and I have come to closure
that we want to recommend to you-will, so...
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question again on procedure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In order to do that, then, would that not have to go public
and advertise all those changes so that the public is aware of the changes that you're proposing?
I'm also puzzled because you're interjecting yourself into what is typically a staff function, and I
think that's above and beyond your role as chair. I -- so I question how you are taking it upon
yourself to amend -- or work on an amendment or changes to something that's already been
advertised and publicly advertised and advertised for public hearing.
I turn to the County Attorney for the guidance on the procedure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, before we ask the County Attorney for that, let me simply
say that I agree with you that ordinarily that that would not be a desirable practice, but I'm trying to
expedite this, and I'm trying to lay before the Planning Commission my thoughts in a -- in as clear
a format as can be achieved so that it can be considered and not delayed any further, perhaps, than
the 17th.
But I take your point, and ordinarily I wouldn't do that, but I'm just trying to expedite this.
And if it be the wish of the Planning Commission or the advice of the County Attorney that I not
do it, then I won't.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I do have some concerns with your phrasing it as a rewrite,
because these amendments have gone through years and years and years of vetting through
stakeholders. There's, like, the five-year report, and there's been a lot of analysis into it.
I think that if there are certain sections that you think substantively don't capture what it
should do, then staff and I can certainly work with you to come up with some alternative proposed
language, but if you're --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's what it is. My suggested revisions are fairly few in
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
number. I think they're consequential, but the vast majority of the material that staff's put in front
of us I don't have suggested changes on. But on some points -- and I would be glad to get together
with your office and staff, or I would be glad to wait until Thursday and simply expose my
suggested changes to the Planning Commission and everyone at the public meeting.
But I know you're not, Heidi, telling us that our action on the staff material has got to be all
or nothing. I know you're not saying that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, no, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that you referred to it
as a rewrite, and staff's going to need time to review what you're proposing and determine whether
that's what they're going to recommend or if they're going to make a recommendation on your
language. And if you're going to release that on Monday, it doesn't give the Planning Commission
a lot of time to take a look at your revisions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand that. And I'm just finding a way to move this along
so that we can perhaps get it completed by the 17th. And I realize that procedure's unusual. And
I am quite willing to either meet with staff and your office or not and, simply, I will distribute a
redline that shows the relatively few changes that I'd like to put before the Planning Commission
for its consideration. I can do it at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, this is a legislative matter. It's not
quasi-judicial. But it does landowners and the property owners.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And as you just alluded to, it seems to circumvent the
process that the staff has gone through for, what, five years now where this thing has been -- well,
even since the restudy back in 2007. I have no problems entertaining your suggestions. We've
done this in the past on legislative as far as changing language, but all parties involved know and
understand what we're doing.
This is sort of being done -- and then being done between you and staff and then sprung
upon the rest of the public, and I think it bypasses all interested parties. I don't think it's quite
fair -- and you can certainly present it, but then we owe it to the Conservancy, the League of
Women Voters, and the property owners an opportunity to review what is written rather than do
that in a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to do what the Planning Commission wants done with
respect to this. I wish to be heard on these points, but I don't mind doing it in the format of a
public meeting for first exposure. It's just that it might result in a bit of a delay. But whatever the
Planning Commission wants for me to do on this timing-wise, I will do it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Have you spoken to staff on what the changes are that you're
interested in? Are they substantive changes that you want to see done or wordsmithing, improving
the clarity or --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's really not too much wordsmithing. They have to do with
the six or so points that I made in my introductory remarks at the last meeting. And I wanted staff
to have the opportunity to see these before we got into Thursday's meeting just as a courtesy. Staff
may reject all of them, but at least they won't be blindsided or surprised, and that's what I had in
mind; that plus expediting. But, honestly, I am willing do whatever my colleagues want me to.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Anita, do you have any input on how you'd like to see this?
MS. JENKINS: (Shakes head.)
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
COMMISSIONER FRY: If you do not meet with staff and then you just bring these
changes to the meeting on Thursday, how would they be presented? What would the logistics be
of you presenting the alternate language, I think alternate -- you had some substantive
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
disagreements with the --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- with what was presented. So I guess I'm just curious.
Would you then lay them out as potential changes during the meeting that we would then vote on
the fly to adopt or not?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I would expect that we would go through staff's material
page by page, and staff's material would be the main document that we would continue to be
looking at, but the Planning Commission would have mine alongside it. So when I said -- and this
is a -- this is a real one of mine. I want to change the words "encourage" and "discourage" to
"require" and "prohibit." And that's a substantive change, but it only requires a few words, and
it's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I didn't bring it up when you discussed that but,
again, that is a significant change to "require," because --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, I don't think we can talk about the
substance of this because it's not on the agenda for tonight. I just want to know if you want me to
work with staff or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's a slippery slope. But you can go -- if you
want to do this, but, in fact, I think you need to clearly understand the zoning already exists, and it's
already zoned. And it could be a taking if you decide to go with "required." But I'll defer to the
attorney.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, my recommendation is go ahead and meet with staff, and
you can give them your feedback and elect whether you want to have something prepared that
you're going to bring to the meeting, but some of them are going to be policy decisions that you'll
need to get input from the fellow members on --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- your Planning Commission. So you might need to either
continue it or continue it to consent once those policy decisions are made and staff receives the
direction on how to implement the changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. And in no respect whatsoever am I attempting to
use my role as chairman as a way of getting more than just the one vote that I have, and that's all I
have. And so if I were sitting over here next to Mark Strain, I would want to do the same thing,
because I've got very strong feelings about this. And, incidentally, I'm talking only about new
sending areas, not stuff that's already been done.
And I do want to be heard on it, and I may get voted down, but at least I will have done
what I think is partly -- well, one-half of my full responsibility. I'm a recommender, and I'm a
record maker, and I will have recommended and made a record, and then the Planning Commission
can vote as it wishes and then, of course, the big commission can do what they want, and that's
what really matters.
So does the Planning Commission want to give me any further directives on this?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm comfortable with Heidi's suggestion that you meet with
staff and then figure out whether it's presented --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You can --
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- at the meeting or not.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- give, you know, staff the heads-up so they'll have the ability to
respond if the Commission seeks their input or wants to proceed with any of the concepts.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was really what was motivating --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's nothing unusual. I mean, the planning
commissioners have met with staff to discuss recommendations. And this is legislative; it's not
quasi-judicial. So I just want to make sure that the County Attorney's Office makes sure that we're
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
within the proper statutory limits that we can be in regards to notification of the public and making
sure that all parties are aware of what's being proposed rather than the day of the meeting just
springing it on them and saying "these are my proposed changes." That could be very
problematic. And if that's the case, we would just have to continue the items.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Joe, are you comfortable with that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair, are you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea? Paul, are you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question, because I have -- like you, I have a lot of
questions and a lot of concerns. Do we -- should I wait till the meeting, or should I try and set up
a meeting with staff as well, because some of these might just require an explanation, but nobody
would have benefit of the answer except me if I was -- if I was in a separate meeting. I'm fine
doing it with staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for staff, but staff has always
encouraged me, not just since I've been Chairman, but any time I wanted to come in and talk about
things, to do so. I think staff is very receptive to that, but I'll let staff speak for itself.
MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, this is Jeremy. Commissioner Shea, if you would like to meet
with us, we can reach out to you after the meeting today, or tomorrow, and get something
scheduled with you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I would. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good.
MR. FRANTZ: And the same goes to any commissioner for this or any item. Staff is
always more than happy to meet and discuss the items prior to the meetings.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I think -- and I appreciate that you've enabled
me to do that for many weeks, and I encourage all planning commissioners who have the same
desires to reach out to staff, and I'm sure they will make themselves available. It's very helpful.
Okay. Let's see. We've got one set of minutes before us for approval. Those are the
minutes of our August 20, 2020, meeting. Are there any corrections, changes, or additions to
those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They carry; pass unanimously.
Let's see. Chairman's report: I was going to mention the Yahl Mulching matter, but
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
we've already covered that, so I don't have anything further.
Consent agenda: There is -- there is no consent agenda.
So we go to public hearings, and the first item as advertised, one of six proposed LDC
amendments for our consideration this evening.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a question on Yahl. Will there be a new staff
report issued in our notes, or do we have to refer back to what we have? That's the only question I
have in regards to -- I don't know if there's any supplementary information that would be -- is being
provided, or do we just refer back to our packet that we had?
MR. BELLOWS: There will be a supplemental staff report with the latest information,
since it was continued.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Ray, will the original staff report also be included as part of the
Accela backup?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe, if you already received your packet, we don't normally reload
the same information in. You should have it from previously, but if you don't we'll get you some
more.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They all review the materials electronically now.
MR. BELLOWS: All right. We'll just load it in again.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Sounds great.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Okay. All right. The first matter is PL20200003509. This
is an ordinance to allow enclosed indoor air-conditioned self-storage as a permitted use in the
general commercial district to C-4 when such use is combined in the same building with another
permitted commercial use and to provide additional design standards.
With that, I'll turn it over to staff for presentation, please.
MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Eric Johnson, principal planner
in the Zoning Division.
So self-storage facilities, this subject has had some history with the Board of County
Commissioners, and what we're doing tonight is a Land Development Code amendment that
proposes to allow indoor air conditioned self-storage use as a permitted use when combined in the
same building with other uses that are permitted in the C-4 zoning district.
I think for this particular amendment, it's important to know where we've been in order to
know where we're going, and I could give you a very, very brief history of that if you'd like.
So back in -- back in December of 2016 the Board was concerned about certain uses
proliferating on a certain segment of U.S. 41. And so in February of 2017, the Board directed staff
to develop a corridor study, and that's exactly what happened.
The corridor study was brought to the Board of County Commissioners in April of 2018,
and it recommended, in part, a separation between self-storage facilities. And so as part of
that -- that initiative, staff drafted a Land Development Code amendment that had separation
requirements between self-storage facilities, and that was brought to this commission. Not every
commissioner here had reviewed that, but it was brought to Planning Commission in May of 2019,
and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Well, in September of 2019, staff brought that forward to the Board of County
Commissioners in the form of a request for advertise, and the Board voted against that. Instead,
they -- in December of 2019, the Board directed staff to incentivize rather than having separation
requirements. Incentivize maybe a mix of uses. Not mixed use, because that -- I don't think the
Board wanted residential and commercial and self-storage all in one. I think the idea was that the
desire was for neighborhood-serving uses to come into the C-4 zoning district, that the self-storage
facilities would block -- would block that. And so we tried to incentivize self-storage with other
permitted commercial uses in the C-4 zoning district, and that's what you have here tonight.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
And just, you know, as an FYI, yesterday the Board of County Commissioners approved
the waiver of a nighttime hearing, and we're seeking a recommendation from you tonight, and
we're looking forward to going to the Board of County Commissioners on October 13th with the
first hearing.
So, really, in a nutshell, this -- this would change the permitted use list of the C-4 zoning
district to allow the self-storage buildings, the enclosed air conditioning, as a permitted use
provided that less than 50 percent of the ground floor is the self-storage facility. And also, if the
building square footage is comprised of a permitted use or other permitted uses in the C-4 zoning
district on the ground floor, then it would also have to comply with the development standards of
Section 5.05.08, and that's the architectural site design standards, specifically the -- where is
it? -- the primary facade design features.
So we're looking to modify two different sections of the code, LDC Section 2.03.03 and
LDC Section 5.05.08.
And so that's it in a nutshell. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So on the surface, this would seem to be, instead of
restricting and separating indoor self-storage units, this would seem to expand the potential for
more. You're not -- there was a quarter-mile separation that was proposed, but that has not gone
through, so they could be side by side. And now we've introduced them as a possible use within
another C-4 use, as part of another C-4 use. So aren't we -- isn't that actually expanding the
opportunity for mini-self-storage units?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, it is expanding the opportunity for self-storage but only permitted.
I mean, it's still conditional in the C-4 zoning district. We're not changing the conditional aspect
of it. If 51 percent or more -- you know, greater than 50 percent of the ground floor is not
self-storage, then it's conditional; it requires conditional-use approval.
What we're doing is we're changing the permitted use list so that if the ground floor
is -- less than 50 percent of the ground floor is self-storage, then it's permitted.
So, yes, in answer to your question, we are allowing more self-storage facilities, but we're
also trying to achieve a greater initiative here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you anticipate that instead of applicants going for
conditional uses for dedicated self-storage units, that they now start to integrate them in other C-4
uses so they're really somewhat, I guess, more -- what's the term -- not as noticeable, not standing
out as much on their own?
MR. JOHNSON: I think the incentive --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Discrete.
MR. JOHNSON: If I could answer that question in a roundabout way. I think the
incentive here is for self-storage operators to be able to move into a C-4 zoning district countywide,
not just in that area that we talked about before, but countywide. They could avoid the
conditional-use process, which has inherent risk in it. It's not a given that you're going to request a
conditional-use application and be approved by it.
Well, this, if you design it the way we're proposing it right now, it's a permitted use, and
you're basically entitled for that as long as you comply with code.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's a path of less resistance for them is to get self-storage
approved without going through the conditional-use process?
MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. And we feel that that's an appropriate incentive.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm not sure if I saw a contradiction, but on Page 7 of our packet
in 91.A. -- and this is -- I'm sorry. Which section are we in here? 2.03.03.D.1.A.91, it says, as
you said, shall occupy less than 50 percent of the total floor area. And then on the following
page -- and I may not -- let me see if I can find this. I may backtrack on this if I can't find it and
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
come back to you if you do find it.
MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Commissioner Fry, just --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, I can't find it.
MR. JOHNSON: If you can and, eventually, just identify the page that we're supposed to
be looking at.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I personally think this is a great idea. To use the
term, it was kind of a no-brainer. We did have a proliferation of storage facilities because,
apparently, the public is demanding the storage space, which is bizarre, but we have them
appearing.
The neat thing about this is, we're still going to be able to use the bottom floor, typically,
you can, for commercial endeavor, correct, office space or some other type of space?
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form relieve any of the
requirements for architectural standards. So the buildings that are going to be built will have the
appearance of -- typically of an office building or some type of facade that is not strictly just a big
box.
My only real question is is as far as, are there going to be any complications? I don't think
there will be, but as far as traffic counts and traffic determination, you're going to still look at the
use. Of course, there's low traffic count when we're talking about self-storage, but now we're
intermixing with other type of uses, so the traffic count will still have to encapsulate the total usage
of the facility. So I just want to make sure that we're not, in any way, allowing a
get-out-of-jail-free card, so to speak, for the developer to circumvent the traffic and the, you know,
certificate of adequate public facilities.
MR. JOHNSON: Sure, Commissioner Schmitt. Let me address that.
If -- you know, with the list of permitted uses in the C-4 zoning district, we're not adding
any other high-traffic users into the C-4 zoning district. So if an SDP is required, a Site
Development Plan is required, the review analysis of traffic impacts are required and done at that
time during the SDP process for concurrency purposes. It's my understanding, a Traffic Impact
Statement would be needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, it should.
MR. JOHNSON: Now, you know, I'm not sure if the SDP covers every type of -- you
know, the traffic review is covered under every different type of application, but certainly through
the SDP is.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For the Board to understand, it's a permitted use so,
therefore, it doesn't not -- would not come back to any type of zoning application. It's a straight
zoning permitted use then.
MR. JOHNSON: That's true, yes. It has nothing to do with PUDs.
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask Commissioner Schmitt a question. It sounds like
you have a great faith that this is a -- you said a no-brainer. Are you -- is it your belief that it will
then limit the proliferation of stand-alone mini-storage units, that they will more and more become
part of integrated C-4 uses?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To answer your question, yes. I think a lot of this was a
result of the 41 study. And there's two -- are there two going up right now on 41? I believe there
are, two -- on the East Trail, two different storage facilities.
I think it would have been pretty interesting had one of them or two of them had the
bottom floor with some commercial space. They're just buildings there now. They're designed
nicely, but I think it offers an opportunity to allow for redevelopment, yet at the same time creating
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
an opportunity for businesses to use the bottom floor, because right now they can't. It's strictly
storage.
MR. FRANTZ: And if I could add a little bit to this conversation. I think the -- a lot of
what the objection to these buildings has been is the use of commercial space that, you know, we'd
like to see become more of a neighborhood-serving type of commercial use.
And so while this might not necessarily limit self-storage buildings, it does ensure that, you
know, if they want to get a self-storage building as easily as possible, we also get, along with that,
some of that more neighborhood -- potentially more neighborhood-serving commercial uses.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably the better way to say it, because the storage
facilities were taking up what I would consider desirable space for other type of services to the
community. But, for some reason, the desire was to put these storage facilities up because, of
course, they're marketable, and they're doing quite well. But it doesn't offer anything to the
community other than those who come down here and store their stuff for the summer. It opens
the door for more opportunity for businesses to use storefronts, whether it be a gym or a legal
office or whatever it could be. I think it's just -- it does allow an opportunity, and I think it would
be -- it would have been interesting to see this on a couple of the ones that are being built on the
Trail right now.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So, I mean, it's an alternative to the stand-alone storage units.
It does not limit the stand-alone storage units, but it gives them an easier way to go. So it's -- I
guess it's an educated assumption that the incentive -- it will incentivize them to come forward with
less -- fewer conditional uses and occupy more shared space with other C-4 uses.
What I'm struggling with is that we're -- the intent was to limit them, and now we're not
limiting them. We're actually expanding the capability of them. It seems to make sense, but
that's what I'm struggling with is that: Did we want to limit them, or did we want to expand their
use?
MR. FRANTZ: Well, I think the Board changed their tactic when we brought that first
LDC amendment to them that had the separation standard.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. FRANTZ: That was the feedback that we got from the Board at that time that,
actually, no, we don't necessarily want to have a restriction, but we'd rather incentivize a better type
of development that we would like to see.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So this is really in response to direct Board direction?
MR. FRANTZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have some things I want to say about it, but before I do,
Commissioner Shea, do you have -- do you want to weigh in on it?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I think the market's going to really determine where
it's needed. And what I like about this, at least it provides a more aesthetically-pleasing
alternative. I mean, nobody's going to put these up if there isn't a demand for them in the
community. And I like this approach with the mixed use in there much better than the
stand-alone. So I want support it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair, anything to say?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This will -- could be used for redevelopment, too, existing
buildings, right, that are empty?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm trying to think of -- how. I'm processing that question.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's C-4.
MR. JOHNSON: It's C-4.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's C-4 zoning.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As written, it would apply to redevelopment.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, okay. That would be a good thing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one's lit up, and Commissioner Shea has spoken, so I'll speak
now, if I may.
Of the six that we have before us this evening, this is the one that I had most trouble with,
and I'll tell you why. Self-storage units, in the last several years that I've been looking closely at
this stuff and observing Board of County Commissioners and listening to the public,
there's -- certainly, there is going to continue to be considerable demand for these spaces because
people retire and they move down here and they want to store their stuff. They're just not ready to
acknowledge that maybe their kids don't want it; just give it away. So I get that. I'm in that
position myself right now.
So we've got to facilitate meeting that demand, and I understand that completely. But on
the other hand, in the past, if you look at some of the storage facilities that were done less recently
than the ones that I've looked at the last few years, they're not as aesthetically pleasing. They're
not as attractive as the more recent ones are.
And I looked back at the Valley Stream one, which came to us a few months ago. And I
don't know if you-all recall it, but I thought it was very aesthetically pleasing. It was four stories
inside, but it looked like it had only three stories on the outside, which I thought was a clever way
of making it look less intensive.
And then I asked myself, well, why -- why did they go to those extremes in order to
achieve such aesthetics? And it occurred to me at the time and it occurred to me again that when
it's a conditional use, I think that we and the Board of County Commissioners have more latitude,
perhaps more bargaining power, if you will, to insist upon stricter adherence to a higher level of
aesthetics than we would if it were an absolute permitted use, and that's why I would -- I would be
reluctant to see this become a permitted use. It's going -- if it were, it would be, then, something
that developers can get as of right. I think there would be less oversight capability on the part of
us and on the part of the Board of County Commissioners to insist upon the higher aesthetic
standards that we get now when it's merely a conditional use.
So I like the idea of the 50 percent. I mean, I think that's all going in the right direction,
but I'm not willing to give up -- personally, I don't see myself voting for giving up the
conditional-use latitude that we have in exchange for only the 50 percent and the thematic
consistency that also, I think, is a good thing.
But I would just rather see this remain as a conditional use where we continue to exercise
the closer oversight. So those are my thoughts.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, do you mind if I butt in for just a second?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
MR. JOHNSON: You know, we had this amendment reviewed by our staff architect.
And, you know, the question that I had for him was, well, are self-storage facilities reviewed
differently architecturally than, you know, nonself-storage? And Section 5.05.08.E.2 is
architectural design guidelines, or standards, rather, for self-storage facilities. And the way we
structured this proposed language is that if -- if we're getting what we want, and that's more
commercial use, yeah, it's going to be permitted, and so we don't have that ability to restrict, but it
would still -- the primary design -- primary design features would still have to comply with what is
normally required for a commercial building.
So if you feel that the architectural standards are sufficient for a standard commercial
building, then it surely should be sufficient for this. And that's how I would address that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, I know you're lit up, but let me, if I may, respond.
I think we were able to accomplish more when this was a conditional use. I think when
the Valley Stream people came in, they were very well tuned into aesthetics. And I looked back at
the pictures that they displayed for us, and then I compared them to the pictures that we have in our
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
materials of various other places in Florida where you have 50 percent commercial or something
like that, and you just don't achieve the same high quality of aesthetics that we got in Valley
Stream.
And I remain concerned that if we make this a use as of right, there's going to be less effort
on the part of developers to achieve the high aesthetics that I personally would like to see on what
is, at base, a controversial use. There's a huge demand out there, but it is controversial.
So, Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I'm along that same line. I'm trying to figure out if -- it
sounds like a tradeoff, right? We are -- we don't have the conditional use give-and-take, the
latitude, to insist on certain standards. But I'm unclear. The standards for development for a C-4
use, a building that might entertain less than 50 percent of the first floor for self-storage, are they
less strict? Would we end up with eyesore projects that have mini-storage in it, or is it a tradeoff
that is worth it because the design standards will be roughly the same but we'll have less of those
stand-alone mini-storage units?
MR. JOHNSON: Not knowing all the intricacies of the design standards, I think it would
be safe to say that the design standards for a stand-alone self-storage facility is less than for, you
know, the primary facade design requirements for a commercial building. So I think it's an
upgrade to go from self-storage -- only self-storage to a combination with requiring the primary
design standards of Section 5.05.08.D.2.B.
Does that make any sense?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, you had seemed to be putting Chairman Fryer's
concerns, I guess, at ease a little bit in saying that it actually might look better.
MR. JOHNSON: That's what I was attempting to do. And, you know, the conditional --
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think that's an important consideration, though. It's an
important question.
MR. JOHNSON: I mean, the way I understand a conditional-use application is there's, if I
recall correctly, four criteria about a conditional-use application. We could bring it up -- we could
bring MUNI code up on the screen. But you're dealing with the use itself when reviewing a
conditional use, so...
I don't know if I'm answering that adequately, but, you know, I tried to say, you know, the
design standards of 5.05.08.D.2.B should apply, and if that's insufficient, then maybe we need to
reevaluate 5.05.08.D.2.B.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just personally think that we have more clout, if you will, to
achieve higher aesthetics if it's a conditional use.
Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Unlike the city, the city has a design review
committee --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Board, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- for all architectural submittals. The county talked
about it at one time, but just never did it just because of how cumbersome the process is. We have
a pretty demanding standard set for architectural standards.
So -- but I -- I appreciate the Chairman's view on this, and I understand his viewpoint, but
typically, other than if the petitioner volunteers, we cannot require anything that is above and
beyond the code. But we can -- but typically when we get into a conditional use, we talk about
lighting, we talk about other type of things. But 99.9 percent of the time, what we talk about is
already in the code. Those -- all those standards exist. The down -- shading of lighting, all the
other types of things that we've dealt with in the past, the applicant agrees to it, but it's in the code
already.
I don't know, is it that beneficial to force the applicant to go through the conditional-use
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
process for maybe -- for something like this, then we would -- I think we're pretty much going to
get the same result if it were just going through the straight zoning. It's still a staff review, and it's
still a review of the architectural standards unless -- unless this Board of County Commissioners
wants to implement a design review committee to review design standards, we're tied to the design
standards within the LDC.
MR. FRANTZ: I just want to interject that the Board did direct us to bring back an LDC
agreement that would incentivize this type of mixed-use self-storage and commercial uses. If the
objection to the draft that you see today is about architectural standards and maybe a comparison of
some of the recent self-storage buildings that you've reviewed compared to the typical architectural
standards in our architectural code, if there's some particular elements of that particular self-storage
building that you're referring to that we maybe could add to this amendment, we could go that
route.
I'm just trying to find a way that we can continue to bring forward something that the
Board asked us for but meet the concerns that this group is having.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not, at this point, prepared to identify specific aspects of the
design code and compare it to, you know, what -- what we have before us. So I suppose -- I like
the idea of incenting the commercial use. Possibly there would be another way of doing it.
I wonder if the Planning Commission would be willing to entertain the possibility of a
continuance of this one for some more staff work, and perhaps that would involve only reassurance
on the part of staff that -- and go back and look at Valley Stream, for instance, and tell me
if -- well, I have a lot of personal experience driving in areas where self-storage facilities look
terrible. In Eastern Long Island, New York, they just look awful. And I know that's
entirely -- it's like apples and oranges. I get that.
But I feel as a conditional use, the things that -- the discretion that we have -- and, of
course, you know, we can't require more than the law requires, but I think it has -- it has incented
developers who want to do this to make this as physically attractive as possible aesthetically to win
our vote. And I'd like to keep it that way if we could, but I don't want to be unreasonable.
MR. FRANTZ: As Eric mentioned at the beginning of his statement, we have scheduled
this amendment to be heard by the Board in October. So as long as we can continue to meet those
deadlines, we're going to continue to bring that -- bring the amendment forward on these hearings
on those days.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the first hearing. Doesn't this have to come back
again for another hearing?
MR. FRANTZ: It only requires one for the CCPC. It will require two before the BCC.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two before the BCC.
MR. JOHNSON: We have both hearings set for the BCC in October. I think in October,
I mentioned before -- I wrote it down. But there's two meetings in October, and we had -- we had
them going forward for first reading and second reading both in October.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So what's the pleasure of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would yield to others, but, I guess, to me they seem like
apples and oranges, in that a storage unit that's dedicated has fake windows and, as you mentioned,
the appearance of three stories -- it's really four inside. But an actual C-4 use that has uses on
those above floors would have windows and floors and it would have, I think, less latitude to
disguise what it is, and I'm not sure I would see the need to disguise -- I mean, you wouldn't really
know there's self-storage. From the pictures they provided of examples, I wouldn't have known
they were self-storage unless it said self-storage on it.
So I don't know. I'm not quite sure if it's a grave concern or not. I'm certainly willing to
go with whatever the Board's consensus is.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would propose we call the question. I recommend that
this be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed?
No.
Okay. That passes 4-1.
***All right. The next matter before us is Petition PL20190000389, and this is to revise
and clarify the procedures and approval process for comparable-use determinations. Staff?
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner.
So this item that's on the agenda, yes, we're talking about an item that's related to the
comparable-use determination, but there are actually five different LDC amendments in this
item -- in this item, what is it, 9A2 or something like that. And it would be my recommendation
for the Planning Commission to vote separately on each one.
And just for your edification, the comparable-use determination starts on Page 13 of your
packet. The SRA designation staff review time frames starts on Page 30 of your packet. The
RMF6 density calculations start on Page 35 of your packet, and the special events and
rights-of-way is on Page 41 in your packet. Finally, the TDR early entry bonus credits is on
Page 58 of your packet, so -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Each of those, though, has a separate PL number, and I was
expecting that we would vote on them separately.
MR. JOHNSON: Very good, very good. Okay. Thank you.
So the one -- the comparable-use determination is intended to revise and clarify the
procedures and approval process for comparable-use determinations. Status quo, a
comparable-use analysis is conducted at the time when someone submits for a zoning verification
letter, and so we're looking to remove that type of analysis into its own separate application.
That's it in a nutshell. I can get into more specifics or answer some of your questions if you have
any.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions, comments?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This amendment is really a procedural amendment. Right now
zoning verification letters are requested through staff. Staff writes the opinion, and it's subject to
affirmation by either the Hearing Examiner or the Board of County Commissioners. So how this
would change is that they would be presented for -- currently, they're proposing either the Hearing
Examiner or the Board of County Commissioners to make the decision. So staff will present a
staff report, and then the decision is going to be made by the body instead of, you know, the staff
giving their opinion and then having it be affirmed. So it's a procedural change primarily.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Am I correct that this is the first time we've really had a
definition, if you will, of "comparable"?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. It's in the current Land Development Code. They did go
through and clarify the language so that there wasn't inconsistent terminology within the body of
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
the particular provision. So a lot of it is cleanup. Most of it is the change in the process.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Klatzkow, I did have a conversation with him, and he said
one option to consider would be for the planning commissioners to be the deciding vote, like a boat
dock extension, because you're the body that reviews the Planned Unit Developments, and so you
would be familiar with -- you might have the history on how the, you know, PUD was established
in the first place.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does staff have a position on that?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what Heidi had to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That the Planning Commission -- that it would be like a boat dock
extension.
MR. FRANTZ: I think that staff's position is that the Hearing Examiner provides a fairly
simple and straightforward process for this type of review. We don't have an objection to having it
coming to the Board, you know, from a conceptual standpoint. But thinking of the applicant's
process, they currently go to the Hearing Examiner, and we don't really have a reason to change
that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So currently if the Hearing Examiner can't hear it, it would go to
the Board of County Commissioners, so the alternative would be that it would go to the Planning
Commission, and the Board would hear it as an appeal like a boat dock extension.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for clarity, this does replace the zoning
verification process?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to the comparable-use determination, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only for the comparable use?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There would still be ZVLs. If I'm a property owner, I
could submit -- because you said something that confused me, because typically a zoning
verification letter, staff writes it, does the analysis, it's -- if I recall, it's publicly advertised, is it not?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For comparable-use determinations, yes, but for other zoning
verification letters, you know, they want to know what they can do in their zoning district. You
know, that does not go to hearing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So then it's advertised -- I don't remember them going to
the Board. They go to the Board?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They go to the Board -- they did several years ago, but when we
wrote the process for the Hearing Examiner, it went to the Hearing Examiner. Only to the Board
if the Hearing Examiner couldn't hear it.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it's -- so the ZVL is still in place, but that's only for
comparable use.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do like the proposal that we act as the intermediary prior
to the Board. If it doesn't go to the Hearing Examiner, I think it should come to the Planning
Commission, and then they would appeal to the Board based -- same thing with boat dock
extensions. Is that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct, you could make that recommendation and --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Otherwise, it goes either to the Hearing Examiner, right
to the Board.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I happen to agree.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The reason it wouldn't go to the Hearing Examiner would be
because, I assume, when Mark was both things, he would not hear something that had considerable
amount of public opposition --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or was a larger, more controversial issue. He'd just kick it over
to --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or a conflict of interest.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or a conflict of interest. It seems to me the same thing should
apply for this.
MR. JOHNSON: It would -- the way it's proposed, it would be the same thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I like that idea because it removes the burden from the
Board, and the Board uses us as the adjudicator to make a recommendation.
MR. FRANTZ: I think to clarify, what Heidi is suggesting, what Mr. Klatzkow has
suggested, is on the screen here, it indicates that the comparable-use determinations go through one
BCC or Hearing Examiner hearing. And I think the suggestion is that that would change to one
CCPC or Hearing Examiner hearing.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. All right. Well, before -- let's see if we can get Planning
Commission action on that change. I've got a couple of others, but -- so we would insert "the
Planning Commission" in the event that, for whatever reason, the Hearing Examiner was unable to
hear it or decided not to hear it.
Is there any further -- is there a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion based on what we discussed, change the
BCC to the Collier County Planning Commission. So I make a motion that that -- with that
language, make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? If not --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, just to clarify.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So that means that the Planning Commission would be the final
word on that? It would not -- it would not -- since -- it would not go to the County Commission?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They would only hear the appeal.
COMMISSIONER FRY: They would be an appeal. They'd hear the appeal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's really just a matter of form, because you always have the right
to question either the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission by taking an appeal to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. What this does is if they went to the Board and
the Board turned it down, then the next step is the court.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go to court. Yeah, exactly.
All right. So have we voted on that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: We have not.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Okay. Further comments or questions. Joe, you're still -- do you have more?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nope, that's it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else have questions or observations on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it's definitely a step in the right direction. I'd like to
propose some language options here and see what the Planning Commission thinks of it. And I'm
looking at Section K, the comparable-use determination, which is really in the nature of a
definition, the steps that would be taken to determine if the use is comparable, and it's on Page 24
of 100 in our material.
And section capital --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman, so the motion that you just took, was that just a
motion on changing it to the Planning Commission?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. That was just -- that was not approving the whole thing.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So then on K, which is definitional in nature, I think it gives good
direction, but I think, perhaps, it could be polished up just a little bit, and I want to offer some
suggestions for this group to consider.
First of all, under A where it says a comparable-use determination may be used, I would
recommend that we change that language to "the following comparable-use determination shall be
used" whether it's by the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission; that this is -- these are the
steps that we recommend be taken in determining comparability. So that's -- that would be the
first suggested change.
And then in 2, lowercase B, where it starts by saying the effect of the proposed use, noise,
glare or, odor effects shall be comparable to. And I don't think we want to have a definition of
comparable that includes the word "comparable." I think that gets to circular.
And so I would propose that we change the "expression comparable" to "no greater than
that of." So it would say, "the effect of the proposed use would have on the neighboring properties
in relation to the noise, glare, or odor effects shall be no greater than that of other permitted uses in
the zoning district," et cetera.
And then the final change I'd like to suggest for your consideration is that we -- that we add
a new sub D and move what is sub D to sub E, and the new sub D would read as follows: "The
proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other permitted uses in the zoning district
overlay or PUD." So I would offer up those changes for discussion and comment to the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second that excellent suggestion, and I suggest -- I
second that proposal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommend approval with those changes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Staff, you want to react to that?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm going to look to Ray just to make sure that he's happy with those
changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Solid.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MR. BELLOWS: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good evening, Ray.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I've been involved with this LDC amendment, and the purpose
really is to help establish some criteria when we review those items previously to the Hearing
Examiner and hopefully in the future before the Planning Commission.
The ideas were, a PUD has a list of uses, and somebody comes in for an occupational
license, and that use isn't specifically listed, this gives them an avenue to pursue to get that use
approved within a PUD, and it makes sense that we have some standards to help evaluate some of
those requests.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree, completely. I think it's -- I've always been troubled by
the word "comparable" because when you think about it, without a definition like this, any item in
the universe, any two items are comparable no matter how different they are, one from the other,
but now we're defining the term so it has good meaning.
My question is, is staff comfortable with my proposed amendments?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Any further discussion, then, on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good suggestion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor,
please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
I did not have anything more in this, and since we've kind of been dealing with it
piecemeal, does anybody else have any -- I might have gotten myself into a conundrum here. Is it
the consensus of the Planning Commission that the vote we just took was for all the rest of this
particular LDC amendment capping on to the addition of the Planning Commission into the
process, which we did with the previous vote so that the intent of the vote that we just had was to
approve the entirety of this with the changes I'd suggested; is that the consensus of the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Not what I -- not the way I took it, but I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would vote the same.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Commissioner Shea, are you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, sir, I'm good with that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got tied up in a knot there, and I apologize for that. So thank
you all for bailing me out.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Not at all. You added some excellent context.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that one is in the
history books.
And we now move on to PL20190002647, which is an amendment that modifies the time
frames and procedural review requirements for Stewardship Receiving Areas designations.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Staff.
MR. HENDERLONG: Good evening. My name is Rich Henderlong, principal planner
with the Zoning Division.
As you adequately stated, it's a very simple amendment. This is to establish consistency
with the new statutory limits for development permits and orders that were passed by the Florida
Legislature back in June 28th, 2019.
So it's a pretty straightforward and simple amendment to be consistent with Florida
requirements, or statutory requirements.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission comments.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion. Recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
I have just a question. I'm not -- I don't have a problem with this, but it's going to take me
a moment to get where I need to be. I apologize.
Oh, in -- this is on Page -- Packet Page 32, Section 2. It starts, application package
submittal, and we're striking -- or, rather, we're adding language to the effect that it shall be in
accordance with a section of Florida law. Is that -- I mean, do we need to do that? I mean, it is
because Florida law is superior to county ordinances.
MR. HENDERLONG: I would have to yield to the County Attorney on that, but it was
vetted and talked about, and it was recommended that we add that language.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It helps for the reviewers of our Land Development Code to then
have this cite so they know what their review periods are, and we're taking them out of the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think it's fine the way it is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. I have no other questions, then, about it.
Any further discussion on this? If not, all those -- do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I made a motion; recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Karen seconded it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. All those -- all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
All right. Moving right along here.
MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. Commissioner, before you begin with this next item, an
issue's come up on this item among the staff members, and we'd like to ask that the Commission
delay taking action on this amendment and continue it, and we'll bring it back at a later date after
we work out some internal issues.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is the RFMUD?
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, RFMUD-6 density calculation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does any Planning Commission member have an
objection to this being continued at the request of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No objection.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No, sir.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Without objection, it will be continued. Do you want to
continue to a specific date or indefinitely?
MR. HENDERLONG: Indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what we'll do, then.
I believe that concludes our business.
MR. HENDERLONG: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We've got one other.
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do we have?
MR. HENDERLONG: ***It's Petition 20190002819, special events in right-of-ways.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, that's right. Right.
MR. HENDERLONG: That's your next one. And I'll just briefly explain to you that this
amendment codifies the Board direction to clarify for special events that require the use of public
right-of-ways and the application submittal requirements and review criteria and approval process
for when a special event is conducted in the right-of-ways.
And the amendment narrows itself to arterial roads and collector roads in terms of the
specific amendment. In general, the text adheres to the original LDC amendment that the Board
vetted on October 22nd, 2019, and the applications that are currently being processed under these
new proposed standards. So there are petitions that have gone forward based upon the Board
direction on here. The Board did direct us to bring it back and vet it through the process.
So, therefore, the recommendations at the DSAC Committee were considered, and the
yellow highlighted text that you have before you today represent those changes that the
Board -- since the Board's direction. So staff is in agreement with this, and if you want further
clarifications, I can go into each section of the three different sections of the amendment. But it
basically is establishing a new process for temporary events in county right-of-ways.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I have a question on Page 44 of our packet, but it
is actually Paragraph 5C, and it's Roman numerals 1 through 6. It lists the various agencies. And
I think that's good you list them, but this is no different than any other type of special-events
permit; is that correct? If I were going to erect a tent to sell fireworks or whatever else, do I not
still have to go through this process?
MR. HENDERLONG: It depends upon the specific event. For example, if it's a circus
and so forth, it does go through this entire process, okay. It narrows it to the events in a particular
right-of-way. The problem that had been in the past was that when right-of-ways were being used,
these agencies were not coordinating and working together to make sure that all the safety
protections were in place.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I would also believe if it's going through Growth
Management Department, is that --
MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- inclusive of the Building Department or --
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- if they're going to do a temporary electrical connection,
that they still have to get the required permits for -- and the required inspections?
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So that's inclusive when we say "Growth
Management."
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Building Department as well?
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fry?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich -- and I'm not sure this would apply to Mr. Shea, but I
certainly am not yet a student of the LDC. I'm not as well versed as some of our other planning
commissioners up here. Can you give a couple of real-life examples of these right-of-way
permits, what kind of events, and what the issues were that were occurring that have been
addressed here.
MR. HENDERLONG: A good one would be the Immokalee Cattle Parade where it closes
down, in Immokalee, the state highway. The Florida Department of Transportation has very
specific requirements that requires the County Manager and the county board to authorize that.
There are actually design sheets that go along with signage and requirements and distance
separations and how that sign works for the duration of that permit. It just doesn't occur. It
requires a lot of coordination. That's one example.
Another example would be the Everglades Seafood Fest that would take a temporary road
if it's partially closed. Golf tournaments are a very common example where, if they need to close
a lane -- I think in the years in the past, I think it was out at Tiburon, they took one of Airport
Road's and U.S. 41. They had to use a lane for the buses to come pick people up for off-street
parking that were off site. There is temporary marking and closures that need to be done there.
What this is forcing them to do is to plan ahead in advance 90 days and -- so that they just
can't come walking in. This has been a major concern for the business operations center; that
they'll come in, like, 30 days before and say, we want this permit. They've got a lot of marking
and a lot of people behind that. And this is backing it up and saying, you have to follow a
procedure here for 90 days.
And as a result, it also brings all the forces together to integrate and make sure those events
occur.
There were some issues in the past with a -- I guess there was a triathlon that involved
multiple problems with traffic coordination and so forth, and that's really one of the key impetuses
behind why the Board decided they wanted to come up with a new section that deals strictly with
events in right-of-ways.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's instilling a time frame and a strict procedure for these
types of events?
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Particularly interesting is the fact that when a -- the traffic
hours in the code here, there's an advertised public hearing that has to go out in conjunction with
these events. That's new. In the sense that when you close down from 7:00 a.m. in the morning
to 9:00 a.m. if you're going to occupy, close that road or a lane -- partial closure of that road or
from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. at night, those are your peak hours; therefore, it's got to go back through an
advertised notice for the adjacent property owners to let them know that this is going to be
happening. It makes everybody aware of the event well in advance, and it also requires a Hearing
Examiner to take a look at it as well, too.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. I'm very glad I asked that question; appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend approval as written.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good proposal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indeed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How about -- you said this was the last one. Isn't there
another one?
MR. HENDERLONG: There is one more.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: There is one more.
MR. HENDERLONG: ***Yeah. This is PL2020000268. It's TDR early entry bonus
credits. This amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It extends the time period for
early entry TDR bonus credits. It's coupled with a Growth Management Plan amendment that has
been reviewed by this body and is going forward before the Board. This is cleaning it up. It
extends it to September 27th, 2022, and it's consistent with that amendment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Heidi, legally, why wouldn't we do this in some kind of
an ordinance from the Board and make this a little bit more open in the LDC? I only ask that
because it's extending it out to 2022. Will we face another amendment in 2021 to send it to 2024?
So I just -- procedurally, would it be easier just to have the Board --
MR. HENDERLONG: That's a very good question.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- do it by ordinance?
MR. HENDERLONG: And, actually, the GMP is proposing to remove that eventually so
that it can be done automatically and you don't have to come back here every three years.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It wouldn't have to come back then?
MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just concerned, we put these dates in the LDC, and
then we're forced to make changes because we passed the date, Rich, so...
MR. HENDERLONG: Great observation.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're ahead of me on this one. You get a pay raise.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion on this one?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend approval as written.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. Beat you, Karen.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Thank you. All right. Now, that really does bring us to the end of these, and so I'm going
to call for new business. And I know that Secretary Fry has something that he'd like to say.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Just general clarification and a request of staff.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
First clarification: So as the Chairman, you know, we weren't sure whether there were
more amendments to look at, and in looking at our package, there's only one item in the agenda on
the left. There's only one link, and I wondered why -- in a list of LDC amendments, would it be
possible to have a link for each one so that we -- you know, we can see each individual item on the
left bar, which are our shortcuts to those items?
MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We can format that a little differently for you next time.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would appreciate that, thank you.
And the second thing is, we used to get emails from staff every time a packet was posted
for a meeting, and I haven't been seeing those lately. So for me it's very helpful to be able to look
for that email and know that the packet is final, I can go out there, and I can look at it, download it
and work with it. Have I missed something, or can we return to that if it's not still occurring?
MR. FRANTZ: I think that that is what we're supposed to still be doing. If you're not
getting those emails, we can look into what the reason is for that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, there are a lot of emails these days regarding a few of our
issues that are upcoming, so perhaps it's gotten buried. Who do they -- who do those emails come
from so I know to look -- what's changed?
MR. FRANTZ: Typically, it would come from either Diane Lynch or Trish Mills, so...
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. FRANTZ: But if you don't see those when you're expecting them, feel free to reach
out to one of us, and we'll also look into whether or not you did or did not receive those and make
sure that we correct them.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be great. I need a tickler to know when it's ready
for me to look at. So I would appreciate that.
MR. FRANTZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I had.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've been typically getting email on the, what,
Wednesday -- Tuesday or Wednesday prior. So I've been getting it. Maybe if you check to make
sure you've got the right email. Because I actually get it on my home email. Now I finally got
the fob for the -- for the county email again.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you get one for tonight, like when this was posted?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For this meeting, yes. I got one last week telling me that
the LDC amendments were posted. But I do agree with your --
COMMISSIONER FRY: I will check.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I do agree with your recommendation. I would have
liked to have tick marks for every one of the amendments rather than just the one that -- we would
have had a hot link to each amendment, but I went through and said, oh, there's only two, and then
I'm scrolling down and go, oh, no, there's a lot more than two.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. Good.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there any old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on a matter not already dealt with by this
group?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we're adjourned.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 6:19 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN
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.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 09-09-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, September 17, 2020
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:
Edwin Fryer, Chairman
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair
Patrick Dearborn
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative
ABSENT:
Paul Shea
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the September 17,
2020, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here.
Chairman Fryer?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I struggle with that math every time, don't I?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're getting it right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm getting it right. That's the important thing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right.
Agenda addenda. Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. On today's agenda we have a
continuance of Agenda Item 9A5, 9A6, 9A7, and the last one, 9A8, and that's going to the
September 25th, a special meeting day on Friday.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. And, of course, that's so that those applicants don't have
to wait around here all day for a .001 percent chance that they would be reached, so I think that
makes good sense.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a motion by the Planning Commission to --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion as stated.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Motion carries. Thank you.
Other announcements, sir.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MR. BELLOWS: And are you going to announce a time-certain on 9A3?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will or you will.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. Why don't I do that now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Perfect.
MR. BELLOWS: Agenda Item 9A3 is scheduled to be a time-certain at 3:00 today. And
that's 9A3.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have --
MR. BELLOWS: Or 4, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 9A4.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9A4 is 3:30.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, 9A4.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: 3:30.
MR. BELLOWS: 3:30?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yep. And that's to accommodate the applicant's need otherwise
to have gotten a readvertising. So we don't want to put them through that. They'll be able to start,
and then we'll be able to continue it to a day certain upon their completion of whatever they can
complete before 4:00 p.m., and we have a hard break at 4:00 p.m. because the Board of County
Commissioners comes in at 5:00 for a budget hearing.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
Planning Commission absences. On your screen you see that we've got a meeting on
September 25 for the continued items from today. So please let me know, anyone know that they
will not be available on that date?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That means we will have a quorum. That's a good thing.
Then October 1 is our first regular October meeting. Does anyone know whether they will
not be in attendance for that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Once again, we'll have a quorum. Then we have a
5:05 p.m. meeting on October 8 for an LDC matter. And for your information -- and I'll look at
the vice chair and ask her if she will be here in person for that.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good, because I will be participating electronically for that.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So under the ordinance you'll need to preside.
Okay. All right. Approval of the minutes -- approval of the minutes. We don't have any
minutes to approve.
Chairman's report: I have none at this point.
Consent agenda: Once again, none.
***Advertised hearings: First matter to come before us is the Yahl Mulching small-scale
Growth Management Plan Amendment adoption hearing. This is PL20190001052, the air curtain
incinerator matter, and it is companion to the conditional-use application numbered 20190000948.
And this item had been continued from our June 16, our July 16, and our August 20 meetings.
We've already heard what I assume will be most of the evidence. But all those wishing to
testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission, and
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
I -- County Attorney, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to disclose anything
except what's happened since our last meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Okay. Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing new to add.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Karl?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Nothing other than an email from Planning Commissioner Shea
that we all received.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I also received that one-way communication, and I've
had conversations with staff and communications with applicant's counsel.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just email.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, likewise, no discussions with anyone other than an
email that Nancy forwarded which was a letter from the applicant's attorney. I believe -- was it the
attorney?
MS. GUNDLACH: I forwarded an email from Paul Shea this week.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I got the email from Paul Shea as well that
you forwarded. He was not communicating directly with us. It was something you had
forwarded.
MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: There was also a rebuttal email forwarded; is that what you're
referring to?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the one I was citing. There was a rebuttal email.
I can't remember -- I believe that either came from one of their -- the applicant's professional --
MS. GUNDLACH: Came from the agent, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- agent, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the public record.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Eastman.
Okay. We're going to begin by asking staff in the person of Ms. Gundlach to update us a
little bit since it's been a while since we've thought about it, although I hope everyone's done their
homework. But, please, Ms. Gundlach, if you'd give us a quick precis.
MS. GUNDLACH: For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning
Division.
And a lot's happened since this was heard back in June, and I have a quick presentation to
share with you. We'll begin that right now.
Okay. At our petition on June 16th, there was some requests made of you for us to
address, and the first one was to contact the Greater Naples Fire District, and Chief Shawn Hanson
should be here this morning -- we're expecting her -- to answer any questions you might have
related to fire issues.
And you also had requested a trip count based on the current AUIR, and that is in the
Transportation Impact Statement, also known as a TIS. And you also requested -- I believe it was
you, Commissioner Schmitt -- some information on the history of no open burning at the landfill,
and we did receive a memo that there's been no open burning at the landfill from the director.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: And also you had requested that additional sprinklers be added to the
site. As part of your CCPC package, there was a site plan showing the additional sprinklers.
And the next request is no charging shall take place when winds are greater than 15 miles
per hour for a period of 20 minutes. And also, along with F, the fire alert system shall be in place
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
during evening hours. That has been added to the emergency action plan. And also public access
times, and that has been shared with us as well, and that was part of your packet.
And -- okay. And then just to share with you, staff did meet with Chief Hanson via
teleconference, and we have some additional conditions of approval that we're recommending, and
that is, No. 1, that the property owner shall comply with any and all applicable codes with an
approved emergency plan agreement as determined by the Greater Naples Fire District and the
Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services.
Number 2, the ACI shall be properly installed and anchored per the Collier County Land
Development Code, the Florida Building Code, and the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
And, Number 3, the ACI facility requires an insubstantial change to a Site Development
Plan approval.
And that concludes our presentation. If you should have any questions, we have our
subject-matter experts here from staff. And I'm looking for Chief Hanson. I'm hoping she's out
there. But she did confirm she's coming, so maybe she got tied up somewhere.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Please let us know when she arrives.
MS. GUNDLACH: We will.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I do.
Nancy, just for clarification, the Florida Building Code is actually the International
Building Code, IBC, adopted by the State of Florida. But it is the IBC, just for clarification.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Would you like us to change that reference?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because Florida doesn't create its own building code.
They adopt based on the IBC, which the county adopts as well.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have one for Mrs. Gundlach. When we considered this last,
there was an Exhibit C called conditions of approval that had seven points on it. The last -- oh, I
see Chief Hanson. Thank you. The last point, just so that we know we're talking about the same
thing, was a continuous minimum 6-foot height mulch or topsoil pile. All that -- all those
conditions are still a part of the staff's approval?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to be sure.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then we will ask the applicant to continue with his
presentation.
By the way, Ms. Gundlach, thank you for the slides as well. That's always especially
helpful.
MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the
Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. We have our team with us: Jim
Golden and Bruno Ferraro from Grow Scientific, and Jeff Ekis, the site manager.
Just to overview the procedural posture, in June, the case was heard, a hearing was held,
public speakers were heard. And one of those public speakers, surprisingly, I think, to everyone
here was the Solid Waste Department. And despite having a recommendation of approval from
staff, Solid Waste expressed concerns about a potential for a fire risk at the nearby landfill.
So the matter was continued so staff could evaluate those solid waste concerns and to see
whether or not it would change their recommendation of approval to a recommendation of denial or
whether it could be properly conditioned.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Well, thankfully, staff has concluded that they're still recommending approval but it's going
to be more heavily conditioned than the original proposal that we brought to you in June.
As I mentioned in June, the -- and the Chairman just alluded to, there are seven original
conditions that we brought forward. Those seven were the result of our neighborhood information
meeting, and one of those conditions incorporates a 44-page rulebook that has additional
restrictions and mandates for operations on site.
As Commissioner Schmitt pointed out last time, those conditions in a conditional-use
resolution are enforceable by Code Enforcement. So what we really have is the seven that we
started with that incorporate the rulebook that has literally, I'd say, 50 to 100 additional conditions
incorporated into that rulebook, and after those seven that we offered as a result of our
neighborhood meetings and since June, as Nancy pointed out, we have added eight more. So we
have 15 new conditions with this application.
One of those conditions, I have to point out, incorporates the prior conditional-uses
condition, and there were 13 of those. So when I add it up, there's 28 conditions. And as I
mentioned with that rulebook, I think this is the most heavily conditioned conditional use I've ever
seen. And I worked at the county for 10 years, and I've been practicing for quite a few years as
well.
Now, we want to be good neighbors. We want to get along with Solid Waste, and we did
everything we could to address their concerns. I reached out via email to Dan Rodriguez, who I
believe is here. I talked to him before the hearing, and he said he hadn't gotten my email. I sent it
in June promptly after this hearing.
We've also gotten a letter from Solid Waste where they put their concerns in writing. We
tried to address those concerns by adopting an additional condition, which we've incorporated into
this proposal today, and we never heard back from them. So we felt the need to submit our written
rebuttal to their written opposition.
Now, as I mentioned, there were eight new conditions since we last saw you. Three of
those were prompted by the fire district, four by the Planning Commission, and one, as I
mentioned, was from Solid Waste. And I have to compliment Nancy. She did a great job
summarizing those conditions in her memo. And I understand that you may have questions of us.
We have our experts here. I also notice that Dan Rodriguez is here in the crowd. So we just want
to have an opportunity to respond to whatever Solid Waste might have.
With that, that's it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Mr. Wright?
Go ahead, Secretary.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, good morning.
MR. WRIGHT: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Just reiterate for us what the benefits of the ACI, the air curtain
incinerator, are for Collier County and the residents.
MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, we do have our experts here, and they're very well versed
in this technology, but I'll give you a quick list, and if we need more, we can always rely on them.
It's a logical evolution of this site. This site already has mulching and recycling and
transfer site for waste. And this is a new modern technology. And at the last hearing we put a lot
on the record. It boils down to, it's modern. It's green. It's efficient. It's safe. It's quiet. It
will create less dust and noise than mulching and less traffic than currently exists at the site. And,
of course, less horticultural waste and also a valuable byproduct, excellent fertilizer.
I think the big thing is, mulch fires are a problem here, and by relying less on mulch and
relying more on ACI, they remove a fire threat as well. So, like I said, we have our experts here to
elaborate further.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I believe the Solid Waste Department had a -- the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
impression, as I recollect, was there was some threat to their revenue from this air current
incinerator operating versus them handling the waste. What is an update on that?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, like I said, we want to be good neighbors. They're in the same
business as we are, and that's really -- you know, there's -- the term "competitor,"
"competitiveness" came up at the last hearing. And Solid Waste made a comment that currently
the volume of horticultural debris that Yahl processes on site, the county gets credit for that, and
that's fine. But without that, they lose that credit. So that's one thing that Solid Waste had a
problem with.
There's also a -- you know, I'd leave it to them to make their case, but -- yeah, the biggest
problem that we have with Solid Waste is we feel that they're acting out of fear and not out of
science, and that's why we have, literally, a combustion expert here who teaches combustion to
other operators of these machines and to go through the facts and the science versus the fears,
because the science shows that there's zero threat to the landfill, and we're happy to present that
testimony right now.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Last question. There were, I believe, public speaker
neighbors that had concerns about fires, you know, that despite all the planning and prevention
measures -- and I see a bunch of new conditions that are related to fire prevention and emergency
management plans and such. I believe we'll have public testimony again today; is that correct,
Chairman Fryer?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What are we likely to hear today? And has there been any
progress in addressing their fears of fire spreading from this site?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, my understanding was that the public hearing had been closed.
Now, obviously, you have the prerogative to call anybody up that you want to hear from, but -- so I
wasn't expecting the public to have a portion of this meeting.
Now, if they were to speak, I think they would say the same thing that they said before.
There's an individual with a respiratory condition, and we have a condition within our resolution to
address the wind direction. Solid Waste's condition that we recently added was also related to
wind direction.
So I expect that they will express fear over the potential for fire. And if I were in their
shoes, I might, too, because I'm not an expert in fire or combustion.
But Bruno is, and he'll tell you that there's no risk. So they're likely to express fears about
fire. And I think this spring they had a recent event that probably makes -- it's fresh in their mind.
Also noise. And we established at the last hearing that this engine's small. It's an 85-horsepower
engine. And I think our expert testified they'll hear the trucks. We won't see the -- they won't
hear the ACI. And the one way you can tell if it's running or not is to see if there's heat waves
coming from it, because there's no visible emissions when it's operating.
So I would expect noise, odor, dust control, all those types of things that any reasonable
neighbor might raise. And I think that we've addressed every single one of those. And if you
look at our operating plan, which is one of the conditions, incorporated in one of the conditions,
there's details on dust suppression, wetting the area around the facility, and making sure that it's
safe for everybody.
Now, these wind limitations that we've put in there are designed, in the unlikely event that
there's an ember, that the ember won't travel because the wind won't allow it to. And we have a
buffer around the whole site. That's why we picked three acres for this thing. It's not three acres
large. It's a small -- not much bigger than a semi-truck, but we have three acres so we can have
adequate buffering and sprinklering and a berm there all intended to protect the neighbors and
address their concerns.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I've got. Thank you.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Any other Planning Commissioners with questions, comments, please?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I just have a couple.
First of all, I have it in my recollection, but I don't believe I have it in my notes, that a
commitment of some kind might have been made on behalf of your client that in the event of a
hurricane or other disaster, the need to dispose of all of the loose waste that would be brought about
by the high winds and other characteristics of the hurricane. Would -- it's indicated that your
client would be willing to receive that material. My question is is that, would there be a tipping
fee charged to the county?
MR. WRIGHT: I'm not sure that we've looked that far ahead as to whether there would be
a tipping fee. Now, I have -- Jeff Ekis is here, the site manager. And the first half of that inquiry
is, of course, we're there, and we want to be good neighbors. We're here to help.
I was at the county. I saw some of the contracts that they have to let for cleaning up
debris, and millions of dollars. So we're there. We're neighbors. We want to help. We want to
be part of the team.
So -- now, as to whether or not a tipping fee would be charged, this goes to the competitive
question, because right now you have two facilities that both process horticultural waste. And one
of them, we hope, will be able to do it more efficiently and more cheaply than the other, and that's
the Yahl Mulching site. So the idea there is if there is a tipping fee, it would be, presumably,
substantially less than what the county would have to charge. And I will tell you right now -- and
I'll defer to Jeff in case he's got a -- Jeff Ekis, that is, that we would do everything we can to avoid
charging a tipping fee.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So as not to tread anywhere near close to the concept of
an exaction, I won't ask for anything further. But I just wanted to know what the spirit was on the
part of your client, so thank you.
And I believe those are all the questions that I have of you, sir. You're going to -- are you
going to call upon Chief Hanson, or do you want us to?
MR. WRIGHT: I'd be happy to. I don't want to treat her as a hostile witness or anything.
I just want to hear what they have to say.
My understanding is -- first of all, I want to say thanks to Great Naples Fire Department,
because Chief Hanson and her team, they traveled to another off-site location out of this county to
go look at one of these things and get a first-hand observation on how they work, so I wanted to
thank her for that. But other than that, I just wanted to -- we have their support. We have their
conditions incorporated into our approval. And I'm just anxious to hear her say the same, but we
don't need to call her. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'll ask her, please, if she would, to come up and give us that
confirmation. And we that know you're busy today, Chief, so we won't take up a lot of your time.
Chief, have you been sworn in?
CHIEF HANSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you mind.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHIEF HANSON: I do.
Hi, good morning.
Yes. To address what Jeff just said is, so I have been to another site just north of Tampa,
so I have gotten to witness an ACI firsthand. I have gone out to the Yahl Mulching site, so I can
actually factor in all conditions.
And what I can say is -- at this point is that all of the staff at Yahl Mulching's been super
cooperative. They do know that they have work to do to become code compliant, which is really
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
what our main concern is. In addition to the Florida Fire Prevention Code, they do have certain
parameters that they have to meet for the Florida Forest Service as well as DEP. So all of those
things have to combine and be there before we can say, yeah, you-all are good to go with your
ACI, because there are two pieces we have to look at. One is their normal operations and then
bringing in the ACI.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So, Chief, in your opinion as an expert in this area,
which, of course, you are, you would not consider -- if we were to approve this project, you would
not consider that to be an unreasonable action on our part, would you, without -- that we haven't
duly regarded the safety issues and factored those in?
CHIEF HANSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
CHIEF HANSON: As long as they meet all the conditions that we put forth, including the
emergency operating plan and any code requirements, that is -- that's really what we would be
looking at.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CHIEF HANSON: You're very welcome.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does any other planning commissioner have questions for Chief
Hanson?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Secretary Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Chief Hanson, thank you for being here.
CHIEF HANSON: You're very welcome.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Just curious, Mr. Wright mentioned there are 28 conditions on
this -- on this application right now, and I know a lot of those -- many of those -- and I think some
of the more important ones to a lot of people in this room would be those that prevent the chance of
fire spreading from this facility.
Can -- the number of conditions and requirements that are put in place, can those be
effectively managed, and can we have reasonable certainty that that -- even though -- a lot of
conditions appears complex to me to manage. Should we have certainty that we can effectively
manage those things and that all those requirements will be met?
CHIEF HANSON: I can't speak to the requirements that are outside of my purview. I
can only speak to what's going to be required within our emergency plan and anything that's
required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code. I can say that we would not allow any type of
burning if they are not 100 percent code compliant and we're not comfortable with what the layout
ends up being.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Would your organization be monitoring their compliance
periodically?
CHIEF HANSON: Yes. Absolutely, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: How often would that occur?
CHIEF HANSON: Well, that's going to depend upon how often they plan on doing their
actual burning, and it may come down to the time of the year. One of the things that we would be
looking at is daily burn authorizations, whether that comes from the Florida Forest Service or
whether they notify us. If the conditions aren't so, that we're concerned that it's an excessively
windy day and it could potentially break the air curtain within the incinerator, which is when you
see a little bit of combustion, you know, that would be one of those things where we'd say, yeah,
can you not burn today.
And, again, just with my interactions with them, I'm confident that they're willing to
cooperate and go with that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you saying that they will need approval every day to run
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
the incinerator?
CHIEF HANSON: As what is typical with any type of open burning, any open burning,
whether it's land clearing, whatever it is, is required to get a burn authorization through the Florida
Forest Service, and that is a daily burn authorization, and that is one of the conditions that we
would put within our emergency operating plan with them that they would have to do.
COMMISSIONER FRY: And so I would assume that would be subject to the weather,
what's occurring, the fire danger --
CHIEF HANSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- as well as previous compliance --
CHIEF HANSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in following all of the conditions that you've required?
CHIEF HANSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHIEF HANSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions for the Chief?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you so much, Chief, for being here. We appreciate
it.
CHIEF HANSON: You're very welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
I just have a couple more questions, and then I've also been asked to read an email. First
of all, with respect to hazardous waste, at the NIM I believe it was mentioned that that just wasn't
going to happen. I don't know if that's a 100 percent guarantee or what the real likelihood is that
some hazardous waste might like being burned. I'd like to have a little more of a record made on
that point, please.
And, of course, the hazardous waste we're most concerned about is something that is covert
or not visible, because I know you're not -- you don't intentionally receive hazardous waste. But
what steps are taken to avoid some sneaking through?
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I have Bruno Ferraro to answer that question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. FERRARO: Good morning, everyone.
To answer the question about hazardous waste, hazardous waste is a very specific type of
contaminant. And we're dealing with large pieces of trees and brush and things like that. If there
was -- there's also going to be spotters that will separate things that are not allowed to be burned at
an air curtain incinerator. And there is a list of those in the Department of Environmental
Protection permit that will say what you can and can't burn.
So if there's anything suspicious that doesn't look like a tree or branch or something that's
vegetative, it's going to be pulled out. So if there's a container like a gasoline can or something
like that that's in it, it's going to be readily noticeable, and the spotters that go through these waste
piles will pick them out. So that's what prevents any kind of stuff; plastic, paper, things like that,
also.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What about wood from a demolition job that has been
painted with lead-based paint?
MR. FERRARO: That's a very good question. C&D material is not going to be burned
in an air curtain incinerator. It's not considered clean wood, so they would not allow C&D to even
be part of that pile. It's just clean vegetative waste.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: D -- the D is demolition, and what's the C?
MR. FERRARO: Construction and demolition debris.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MR. FERRARO: So if there was a hurricane and there's a lot of mixed waste and things
like that, they would be very careful not to be burning that kind of material and just taking the
downed trees and that sort of material.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Also, there was a reference to some of the materials, and I'm not sure where the applicant is
on this, so I'll just ask the question, and it may more appropriately be for Mr. Wright. But my
question is, is the applicant willing to put the fire out every night or anytime otherwise that there is
nobody on site?
MR. FERRARO: I could answer that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
MR. FERRARO: You just can't shut an air curtain incinerator off. You have eight tons
of material at the end of the day that's going to burn down, and it's going to burn down naturally.
You do not want to place water on that fire. Number one, it makes a lot of steam, and it throws a
lot of particulate into the air, embers into the air. You do not want to put the fire out with water or
dirt. It is -- it will smolder. It will make smoke.
You want it to burn down naturally. It's inside of a large rectangle refractory-lined firebox
that's designed to contain the heat and allow that material to burn down. It typically will burn
down in a couple of hours, but the next day you will have embers at the bottom of it, okay.
It will stay hot. The next day they only have to add vegetative material to start the fire
again, turn on the fan. They don't need any more fuel to start the fire, because it will be still hot.
That's the truth of the matter.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right, sir. I think that's all I have --
MR. FERRARO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- other than Planning Commissioner Shea, who is absent today as
a result of a medical matter, has asked me to read his email into the record, and so I'm going to do
that. And the print is a little small here, so I hope I get it right.
But his email, which was addressed to Mr. Bellows and Ms. Jenkins, it says, I do not -- this
is from Paul Shea. It says, I do not have all the paperwork, as I am in the hospital, but I do have a
very strong opinion that I would like to make.
I've been in the heavy equipment processing business focusing on the environmental
sector. The one thing I have learned is if anything can go wrong, it will. This could be a result of
equipment error, human error, or act of God. This is a highly vulnerable area to fire, and the
county landfill down the road can deal with the material without creating a potential public issue.
I fail to see how approving this request will benefit anyone but the applicant while putting
the rest of the county residents at great and unnecessary risk. I strongly oppose this request with
little to no possibility to change my mind. This would be a big mistake to approve.
And then he says, Anita, could you please forward this to Commissioner Fryer and make
sure someone reads my email into the record before the Commissioners vote on the matter on
Thursday.
And the first thing I want to say is heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Shea who, although
he's in the hospital and is unable to participate in any fashion, nonetheless, is taking his
responsibility seriously enough to have sent this communication, and we are very, very grateful,
indeed, to have him on the Planning Commission. He certainly is far more knowledgeable about
this than I am.
All right. Having said that, I'm going to ask the applicant very quickly, so we can wrap
this matter up, is there anything you wish to say to respond to Commissioner Shea's point?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do we have any other public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: We have some public speakers, but we also have Dan Rodriguez with
Public Utilities that would also like to speak on this item, if we can call him up now.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course, yeah. Well, before we go to the public speakers, do
you have something you want to say?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I just wanted to say in response to Commissioner Shea's email,
that's the first we heard of that, and we understand his concerns. Thankfully, we have our expert
here, and hopefully we'll put enough on the record to convince you that the science supports our
application. And as far as a great risk that he alluded to in his email, it's not true. There's not a
great risk, and we'll have an expert elaborate on that as well, if we'd have that opportunity after
Mr. Rodriguez, perhaps.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything further from the applicant before we go to
public comment?
MR. WRIGHT: Nothing other than a chance to rebut.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course you'll have that.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly.
All right. Public comment?
MR. BELLOWS: Dan Rodriguez.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ray.
Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Deputy
Department Head, Public Utilities, and your former Solid Waste Director for 13 years, and also
with our teams of professionals, we were responsible for doing some of the largest debris missions
in the state of Florida after Hurricane Irma, removing 3.5 million cubic yards of debris in about
three months and, during Hurricane Wilma, about a million-and-a-half cubic yards in just over four
months. So we're familiar with operations as it relates to debris removal processing, horticulture
waste and whatnot.
So with that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and to present
staff's recommendation to not support any type of incineration here in Collier County and, more
specifically, to not support this incineration project next to the county landfill, residents, or future
community recreational areas.
As Kari Hodgson, our Solid Waste Director, has stated to you previously in this boardroom
and in writing, this thermal incineration method is not a good method for disposal for horticulture
waste, as it generates air pollution and creates an unwanted fire hazard adjacent to the landfill and
surrounding woodlands, thus potentially putting our infrastructure and residents at risk.
As many of you are aware and familiar with, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
the Collier County Growth Management Plan, public facilities element of the Solid Waste. This
comprehensive and strategic plan, which mirrors our integrated Solid Waste strategy, was based on
enduring guiding principles which are outlined on Page 2 of that sub-element.
The first and, certainly, one of the most important guiding principles is environmental and
growth management compliance. Environmental compliance means managing the impacts of air,
soil, water, and wildlife as well as the quality of life impacts to the community, such as aesthetics,
odor, noise, and traffic.
Planning Commissioners, this incineration project is in direct conflict with these guiding
principles. County staff and our leadership have fought for years to ensure and maintain the
landfill be compliant and that there are no off-site odors.
As many of you remember, during the '90s, we had tremendous air issues with the landfill
where if you were at Golden Gate City at the community park, you could smell the odors coming
from the landfill. Now, granted, they were not from incineration but more management practices
of the operation of the landfill.
I remember as a young park ranger patrolling that park smelling that odor and saying, how
can this come about? And I remember the Commissioners at the time and some of the current
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Commissioners fighting to shut down the landfill to prevent those odors from getting into the
community.
My department head, Dr. Yilmaz, worked diligently with our commissioners and
leadership to clean up the landfill and only use disposal methods that did not create odors or impact
the quality of life to our residents and local businesses. We have been tremendously successful in
maintaining that level of service for the last 25 years.
If I may, I'd like to show you a site map.
Ray, can you put that up for us.
You've probably seen this site map before. There you go.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, just occasionally.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right. And thank you for your support for those projects
surrounding the landfill.
As you are well aware, this is the transportation corridor.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, 180 degrees. Thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: This is the transportation corridor to our community.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, one more time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One more time.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And the gateway to our city.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You must be learning how to use that from Rich
Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So north is up now?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: There you go.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry, Rich. He's probably listening.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good point.
Is this where we want our residents and visitors who are traveling to and from Collier
County, the City of Naples, to see and smell horticulture waste being burned potentially eight hours
a day, six days a week? I don't think so.
Please take another look at the aerial map again and notice the development to the west, the
county landfill, which you are all familiar with. That is the Collier County Sports Complex Events
Center. Our community is spending millions of dollars to provide a venue where our residents,
visitors, and youth can come and play on a large scale. If you've not had a chance to visit the site,
I encourage you to. It's very impressive. As you can see from the picture, much of the
infrastructure is already in place.
This incinerator project is in direct conflict with this project where we are promoting our
residents to get outdoors, enjoy nature on these state-of-the-art athletic fields and venues in a
clean-air environment. Can you imagine when this site is filled with several thousands of people
and everyone on the fields, sidelines, and the venues asking, hey, what's that smell seven days -- six
days a week? How much have we invested in this development?
I also need to mention that along this business corridor are several hotels that currently
operate, and others are coming. Do we want our visitors to wake up in Collier County who've
stayed the night, excited about going to the beach, excited about going to this venue and saying,
hey, what's that smell? Absolutely not.
Additionally, Planning Commissioners, we have all heard the term NIMBY; not in my
backyard. Would we allow an incinerator to be placed in our development? Would you want the
chance of burnt -- the chance that burned horticulture waste permeates the air as you are working in
your yard or plant beds? Absolutely not.
Collier County Government has done very well to maintain good neighbor policy with our
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
neighbors at the landfill. We need to continue to reinforce the relationship following our guiding
principles and protect our environment. Our Solid Waste director, Kari Hodgson and I, will
continue to work on plan presentation to the Board and get further guidance from our County
Manager to recommend that this project not be recommended or approved.
One more picture, if I could just show. I forgot to show this picture. I mentioned if you
get a chance to go out and see the site, those are the fields. Just behind the fields, I think from this
viewpoint, this vantage point, you can see the operations. The landfill's just behind there. We are
going to be pressed to provide even greater service to make sure that there are no off-site odors.
In the 13 years that I've managed the landfill and probably the 20 that my boss has, we've
probably had maybe two complaints that were validated coming from there, the landfill. That
incinerator's just on the other side that's going to be burning six days a week, smoke, the smell of
wood. We've all had campfires. We've all smelled it. I'm not quite sure what the volume is, the
number of tons they plan to burn a day, but I can assure you, no matter where the wind's blowing,
you're going to smell it, and it's going to permeate through the neighborhood.
Thank you, Ray.
So with that, I appreciate your time and support and your efforts to help us keep Collier
beautiful, Collier County beautiful, and maintain our vision to have truly the best place to work and
play. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before I open it up to substantive questions or
comments, I have a procedural one. And, at first blush, it's somewhat awkward for the county to
be speaking to us with two voices, but on the other hand, I think it's probably a sign of strength that
we can hear fully from two strongly held points of view, and so for that I am grateful.
I'd like to know -- I'd like to be educated a little bit, though, about the chain of authority.
Is there an official county position at the CEO level, at the County Manager level?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a recommendation from your planning staff. That
recommendation is based -- we all live in silos in the county, all right. And the planning staff's
silo deals with the LDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and that's what they're making their
recommendation on.
Mr. Rodriguez has a different silo, all right, and different concerns, and he's making a
different recommendation. So that, yes, you may be getting a recommendation from one side of
the building that we're okay with this from a land-use standpoint. Mr. Rodriguez is saying, well,
that may be so, but we have the following concerns, and he's laid them out. So you've got a -- and
this is unusual, by the way. It's -- I rarely see this. You have the staff report where some of your
staff is recommending approval based on the land use. Other staff is saying we disagree with that
for the following reasons, and that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I think it's healthy. It's just -- that helps clarify how it's
come to us. And I take it, Mr. County Attorney, that we can consider the recommendations on an
equal basis?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a totality of all the evidence before you, between that that Mr.
Wright and his witnesses have been giving, what the county's been giving, what public speakers
might give. You weigh the totality of everything you hear.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions, comments from Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My question is, are there any more public speakers?
Before Jeff rebuts, I'd certainly like to hear the rest of the speakers.
But, sorry, go ahead, Tom.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, please.
MR. EASTMAN: I had a question. We've got conflicting testimony here. The conflict
says this won't be a problem. Mr. Rodriguez says it will. There's one in operation in Tampa, and
I'm just wondering if anybody in the room can speak to how long that's operated north of Tampa
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
and what experiences they've had in actually running one of these.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And, Commissioner Schmitt, what I was trying to do is,
these are questions that were meant for Mr. Rodriguez as a public speaker, and then we'll return to
the other public speakers. And so -- but Mr. Eastman has asked a question. Let's get it answered
if we can. Do we have someone who's has visited Tampa for that purpose?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, I haven't been to the one in Tampa, and I don't believe
Kari's been to the one in the Tampa, but I do have experience with an air current recently about a
year ago near Waterways by Orangetree. We're actually clearing the site to put in infrastructure
for the utility in our expansion of our plant. And the contractor brought in an air curtain. It,
obviously, wasn't the exact air curtain that they're using. But to our surprise, they had placed it
there and started burning the horticulture waste. And the first thing I get the very next morning,
several residents from Waterways said, what are we doing? Is there a fire? What's going on?
And so our direction to our contractor was to quickly finish that operation and remove it from site.
So that's the most recent experience that I have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions for this speaker?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Rodriguez, please, before you -- you're like a yoyo up
there.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Please describe any financial impacts to the county landfill
operation that would result from the approval of this air curtain incinerator.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: There are none. And, actually, Mr. Wright misspoke. We are not
in competition with the business. Collier County has, for years, had the policy of partnering with
private sector. If they can better handle the material, which they do -- the majority of our
operations -- I believe close to 80 percent of our operations are privatized -- then we want that.
Our tipping fees, as stated by Kari several times, are probably $20 more than the next closest. So
why would you bring it to us? We don't want it. We want the private sector to handle it. So
good question.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions for this witness?
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick point of clarification on this split
recommendation that you have before you, if I may.
There was one staff report, and it's recommending approval. Solid Waste was at the
preapplication meeting in May, and they had two representatives there. What's supposed to
happen is they're supposed to speak with one voice and incorporate all the concerns into one staff
report. We have one staff report, and we have a rogue outside department saying that you should
recommend denial. But the staff report before you, both of them recommend approval, and I just
wanted to make that very clear. From the applicant's perspective, it's not a fun way to do business
when you sit down with the county, you get a thumbs up from everybody early on, and then we get
hit in the knees when we come to the hearing. Not a good way to do business. I just want to
clarify.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to respond to the issue with
the dual type of response from staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: We have an organization set up in Growth Management Department
that is assigned to review land-use petitions. They represent various sectors and specialties
throughout the county, and they make a professional recommendation on land-use items.
Sometimes there are projects that have greater impacts than our typical Growth Management
Department staff can address, so we reach out to others. We reached out to the landfill for their
comment. So they have come up with a different opinion than the staff that is responsible for
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
making a determination.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have one more question, but before I do, for
Mr. Rodriguez, does anyone else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Rodriguez?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dan, having been part of the staff when we were going
through those odors -- and I think actually it went into about 2002 and '3, I just want to credit Jim
Mudd as well, because Jim was part of the initiative. And you remember at one time they were
talking about putting large fans out there, some of those proposals.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we can all laugh about it now, but there was a
considerable effort. And those who were in the county at that time and lived here, they know it
was -- it was pretty abusive, the smell, from that standpoint. And your team, Dr. Yilmaz as well,
have done a tremendous job in bringing that site to what we have today in the county, and I
commend you for that. But I just wanted to recognize Jim as well. No longer with us, but...
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Great leader, and -- absolutely, and, like our current
County Manager, you know, committed to strategic planning that has put us where we're at today
and why we can stand here and say we truly have one of the best communities in the nation if not
the world.
And if I could just add one more point that I forgot -- I left out. At what point do we stop
incineration? Do we stop when we have the opportunity today? Or how many is enough? Do
we add two more? Do we add four more?
You know, it's funny -- and it's probably dramatic, but if you remember the Gulf War, I
remember a picture of the oil fields burning. And just imagine if you took a 30,000-foot view of
Collier County. In your mind, do you want to see these incinerators running throughout the
county that are impacting our neighborhoods? Absolutely not.
Our current vendors -- and I say it's a partnership -- use horticulture composting. It's a
beneficial use. They claim it's a beneficial use, but it's one use. Once it's burned, that resource is
gone. The vendors we currently have, they mix it, they make fertilizer, they make soil
stabilization. And that's probably a bigger part of this is -- and nothing against this company
because I don't know anything about them, but we partnered with Waste Management. They
haven't brought incineration to us. They've adopted our guiding principles. They know what the
expectations are in Collier County.
Additionally, they've invested $1.8 million in a compressed natural gas facility, fueling
facility. They've bought over 65 compressed natural gas trucks. They cost about 380,000 each.
That's why in some of your neighborhoods, most, you don't smell a diesel truck going through
there. They burn 92 percent cleaner. Those are the types of partnerships and relationships we
want.
I've known Jeff Wright for years. A little disappointed that he said I didn't respond to his
email, but...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, sir.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's okay. But I'm available 24/7.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have a question for you, if you don't mind.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'll start by saying, I am not adverse to having even
conflicting recommendations coming from within the county. I think, perhaps, we may even be
better served if we had more of that from time to time. It's probably a good idea that there be one
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
official position and a minority report, if you will, where whoever the top-ranking person, if it's the
County Manager or below, comes in and says this is the majority opinion but there's -- you know,
you need to know this other group as well. But I think that's very healthy for us to have this to
consider.
My question for you, sir, is this -- and I'm less concerned over the odors than I am about
the potential for public safety. So in your opinion, have the 28 conditions not
sufficiently -- reasonably sufficiently mitigated the risk to the public safety of a material negative
occurrence?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The answer is no. And that's because there's no guarantee that that
incinerator, which burns at how many degrees --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Address your comments --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure -- however many degrees it burns at, that you can contain those
embers, the ash completely. And I've seen them. I've seen the one, as I mentioned before. And
I've seen fires that have gone up --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask you for short answers because --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because of all we have to do. And you've answered my
question.
So to follow up on that, do you believe it would be unreasonable for us to approve this
application with the 28 conditions?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And that's your expert opinion?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's the expert opinion, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else have questions or comments for this
witness?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, sir.
All right. Now we go back to public speaking.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have four persons registered to speak and four registered for
the virtual and one caller is unidentified with the last four digits of the phone number 3170. If
they can identify themselves and address us which item they want to speak to.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, just a procedural issue. I just want to get on the record
that it was our recollection, as I mentioned at the beginning, that the public hearing had been closed
and this was continued to address a number of matters, none of which included the public hearing
component.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. You've made your record. And I'm going to ask
members of the public who have already spoken, already made their point, unless they've got a new
point that's risen as a result of what they've heard today, I would ask that you refrain from speaking
a second time.
So who do we have next?
MR. BELLOWS: We'll start with the in-person folks. Nicole Soubelet, followed by
Richard Soubelet.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, ma'am, I believe you've spoken already.
MS. SOUBELET: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have not, okay. There's written material, then, from you.
You have the child who has a -- no, I mean written material that you've submitted to us.
MS. SOUBELET: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And just to refresh my recollection, you are the parents of
a child with a respiratory problem.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MS. SOUBELET: My twin sister, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. SOUBELET: Good morning, everyone. I came here to petition against the
establishment of a curtain incinerator on the Yahl Mulching.
I live on 211 Washburn Avenue, less than a thousand feet from the property.
We had a fire May -- yeah, around May. I don't think the people running this business
know what it's like to have a fire, our living with high-risk fires. And so it's hard, because we have
a farm, and we have tractors. We have to get everything out. We have to get all the property
watered down and then to pray every single, like, hour that an ember does not fall on our property
is crazy. And to have -- to have to do that every single day for this burner to be burning is insane.
So I plead for this project to be not approved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Richard Soubelet.
MR. SOUBELET: That's me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. Please, use both podiums; alternate so that the person
who's cleaning one, the other one can be used during that time.
DR. SOUBELET: Good morning. I'm Dr. Soubelet. I live 300 feet from the site.
And something different from the last time. I don't know if it was May or -- yeah, it was
May, I think. Something different that I did, homemade, is that I hear the representative from
mulching that you have that mulching at the site. It was -- nobody lived less than 500 feet.
So I represent here that the point where there are many people lives less than
100 -- 300 -- 500 feet; 100 feet, 300 feet, 150 feet. So it's many people who live there, which is
every day we will go to work, smell, and we live there. That's the main issue.
I prepared to say many words, but the commissioner and Mr. Rodriguez took my own
words, so I appreciate that.
And the last thing from the other which is different from the other -- yeah. This is the
reality. This is the pile of mulch they try to burn. Look at the machine. Look at the height.
Many more than 10 feet. I think it's 12 or 14. I don't know. This picture I took after the last
meeting here.
So next one. This is what they tried to fix, the water after the big fire that we have. And
it's very important to -- can you see the two inches or one-and-a-half inches pipe made with plastic?
It's common sense. Very important, the common sense, that if it is going to be fire there with this
plastic pipe, what good it's going to do with a huge, big fire. Like, for example, mother
nature -- the other -- can you put on the other. Yeah, should be that.
Look at the helicopter. That's our property 200 feet from the site. We say thank you to
the firefighters that made, this day, 200 or more flights over my property to fight with the fire.
And the other question about money: Who pay these trips, these firefighters from -- who
pays? Maybe -- I don't know who. Collier County or whatever, but it's spending money for a
cause who make Mother nature.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Doctor, you have one minute, sir.
DR. SOUBELET: No, no, that's okay.
So common sense, it's very important to have in the decision common sense, because
that's -- if something could be wrong, it will happen. And we are going to be there. Everybody's
going to see the smoke from the TV, but we are going to be there.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Sarah Spector.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Spector.
MS. SPECTOR: Good morning, Commissioners. Sarah Spector with Roetzel &
Andress. I'm here on behalf of three close-by neighbors. I represent Janie Michael Yag and
Shore Acres Farm, American Farms, and Steinmann Farms.
I did speak to you last hearing, and I have a few additional points based on the additional
information provided by staff. So if you will --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Proceed.
MS. SPECTOR: Thank you.
Though Mr. Wright opined that these property owners may oppose the proposed air curtain
incinerator use because they are direct competitors of Yahl Mulching, that is not the case. Shore
Acres Farm is a full-service equestrian facility offering horse boarding and training, American
Farms is Florida's premier grower of annual and perennial plants, and Steinmann Farms operates a
tree farm with current plans to expand to surrounding property.
Each time a fire ignites in this area, these property owners stand to not only lose their
property but also the businesses they conduct there, some of which have been affected by previous
fires.
At the last hearing I raised some of -- I raised the issue of this being an impermissible
request. Staff, in its September 9th, 2020, memorandum to you, attempted to address this issue by
stating that an air curtain incinerator is a permissible accessory use and expansion of the collection
and transfer site for resource recovery conditional use in the agricultural zoning district. This,
however, misses the point.
The Land Development Code establishes four types of uses: Permitted or principal uses,
accessory uses, conditional uses, and prohibited uses. Essentially, principal uses are those that are
permissible by right, and accessory uses are those that are allowed only if the principal use exists.
Conditional uses are only permissible with specific approval.
Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code provides the following relative to
conditional uses: A conditional use is a use that would not be appropriate generally or without
restrictions throughout a particular zoning district or classification but which have control as to
number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood would promote the public health, safety,
welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, or the general welfare.
Such uses may be permissible in a zoning district as a conditional use if specific provision
for such conditional use is made in the LDC.
Thus, to conclude that a conditional use is permissible, you must find that two factors are
present. The conditional use must be specifically listed as a conditional use in the LDC.
Unspecified accessory uses to a conditional use are not recognized by the LDC. It must
promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, or the
general welfare.
My point in referencing the public use zoning district at the June 16th hearing was that it is
the only mention of an incinerator use in the entire LDC. There is no specific provision that
allows for an air curtain incinerator as a conditional use in any other zoning district. And as noted
previously, there's no such thing as an accessory use to a conditional use. You can only have an
accessory use to a principal use. Accordingly, Factor 1 is not present.
Your own Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Director and now Public Utilities has
specifically identified that Factor 2 is not present, going so far as to state that there are no measures
that eliminate the risks associated with adjacent burning, which risks have the potential to create
more demand for fire resources that should be reserved for residents in the Estates.
Additionally, in speaking with the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, there's concern that
the site can maintain compliance with fire code requirements for the current mulching operation
alone with the most recent site visit revealing greater than permitted pile heights, insufficiently
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
sized access roads that were under water, and inadequate water sources for firefighting needs.
As of a conversation on Tuesday morning --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have one minute.
MS. SPECTOR: Thank you -- the fire district did not have enough information to
conclude whether all code requirements can be met to allow for the addition of an air curtain
incinerator.
In response to the adjacent owner's concern, the applicant points to the fact that the main
cause of fires in the area is lightning strikes. The impact of the proposed use on -- I apologize.
There will obviously be no data showing that an air curtain incinerator was the cause of a fire when
no such use currently exists.
Though an emergency action plan has been submitted in response to a previous inspection
failure, the plan provides no assurance that there will be adequate response to an overnight fire. It
specifically states that Yahl personnel are expected to immediately respond to fire emergency since
response time could be the difference between a controlled or out-of-control situation.
However, the only provision for overnight response on the part of the operator is the posted
telephone number for two individuals who can respond and operate equipment with 30 minutes of
notification, which hardly seems like an immediate response. The applicant has provided no
testimony or evidence to rebut the conclusion that the air curtain incinerator will not promote
public health and safety.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your time is up.
MS. SPECTOR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Shannon Crawford, and the next speakers will be virtual.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Shannon Crawford? Are you Ms. Crawford?
MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go over to that mic, please. It's clean. Have we previously
heard from you in this matter?
MS. CRAWFORD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Do you have new material?
MS. CRAWFORD: Yes. Actually I have a response to the PowerPoint that Yahl's team
presented at our last meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask you to confine your testimony to new matter.
MS. CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So my response on their matter is considered new
matter? Hopefully?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll go with that.
MS. CRAWFORD: So they say that this is a logical evolution for this particular property,
and I say that it's not. It's not logical to introduce a fire source to that area, especially considering
the landfill.
The air curtain incinerator they say reduces the release of smoke by 85 percent of an open
burn, but that's 15 percent more smoke than we have as it is. That's 15 percent of an open burn
which is 100 percent more smoke than we have.
They've also said that their facility hours will be 5:30 to 6:00 -- excuse me, 5:30 to 5:00,
but here, in one of their slides, it said that all charging shall end no later than one hour after sunset.
After charging ceases, the airflow shall be maintained until all material within the air
curtain incinerator has been reduced to coals and flames are no longer visible. There will be no
one on site during that time, at sunset.
They said that they will accept all conditions. And they're not -- they are not operating
under their current conditions. Their current conditions say that their maximum pile height is
10 feet, and they currently have pile heights of between 20 and 30 feet.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
So, you know, the whole saying about the predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and
we can even say current behavior; that currently they are in violation of code, and they know that
they're coming up here trying to get a permit that has 28 conditions on it, and they're not abiding by
their current conditions.
And so my argument is that they can't be trusted for any of these conditions if they don't
comply with the conditions that they have upon them now. So that's basically what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: All right. For the virtual, we have an unidentified caller, and the last
four digits of the phone number are 3170. If we can try that person one more time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is Caller 3170 on the line? Caller 3170?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, who's the next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Loralee LeBoeuf.
MS. LeBOEUF: This is the RLSA I'm speaking on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. You're listed here as 9A1. That's this item.
MS. LeBOEUF: No.
MR. BELLOWS: All right. Then Lynn Martin.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Lynn Martin?
MS. LeBOEUF: Those are RLSA.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: They're all listed as 9A1. So if -- we need to correct that then.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I just want to be sure that we didn't have any real 9A1s on
the phone who wanted to speak.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, let's just go down the list and -- Craig Black?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Keep going.
MR. BELLOWS: Ginger Goepper.
That's the last of the list, and we may have one other additional speaker.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He needs more time to find them.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French, are you going to speak?
MR. FRENCH: No. You're just going a little too fast.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He needs more time to find -- you've got to watch the guy
back there.
MR. BELLOWS: I think we were trying to get someone registered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: We may need a little more time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: About how much more time do we need?
MR. SUMMERS: We're good.
MR. BELLOWS: We're good.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're good. All right.
MR. BELLOWS: And that's all the speakers I have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Well, any questions/comments before we go to rebuttal from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Wright, you're on, sir.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be respectful of your time.
A lot of the concerns that have been raised are science related, and I'd like Mr. Ferraro to
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
get up here and testify in just a second here as to the technical and the real science behind this.
There's fear and there's the science, and Bruno's an expert in the science of combustion, and he'll be
able to elaborate.
I also wanted to just point out in July of 2015 the Board of County Commissioners
recognized Yahl Mulching while Mr. Rodriguez director of Solid Waste for their efforts and for
their business, and it was a recognition under the WRAP Awards Program. And you heard
Mr. Rodriguez say he's never -- he didn't know who Yahl is. Well, he is the one that was
responsible for recognizing them five years ago.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Sir, please state your name again.
MR. FERRARO: Bruno Ferraro with Grove Scientific Engineering Company.
Let me separate fact from fiction to help you in your decision-making. Number one, the
Collier County Landfill, Naples Landfill, is a major source of hazardous air pollution under 46
CFR Part 3 of the code of federal regulations.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you speak up, sir, or close to the mic. Thank you.
MR. FERRARO: The Collier County Landfill is a major source of our pollution under
Title 5 where the proposed air curtain incinerator is a minor source of air pollution.
The U.S. EPA has recently downgraded the air curtain incinerators out of the Code of
Federal Regulation because they are a minor source. So the statement that it's the bigger source of
air pollution is false, okay.
I also had the pleasure of working the odor control system and did the dispurga (phonetic)
modeling back in the '90s for the flare for the Collier County Landfill as well as worked on the gas
management system.
The fact that air curtain incinerator is not considered open burning -- it is not open burning.
A trench burner, which Mr. Rodriguez alluded to, which burns land clearing debris on a portable
basis where they bring in a fan and a plenum, they dig a trench and put the material in, they are not
air curtain incinerators. They are trench burners. They do generate a lot of smoke. They do
cause lots of complaints. They do have the potential to cause fires because of the locations where
these things are placed.
So they are problematic, and they're typically there for five or six days, then they're gone
and everybody forgets about them, okay.
A refractory lined air curtain incinerator, which is what's being proposed, most people will
not know it's running unless they walk up to it and see it running. So the supposition that guests
traveling down the highway are going to encounter these billowing piles of smoke is not true.
Most people coming in won't even know it exists, including the neighbors will typically not know
the thing exists. I will never say that an air curtain incinerator will never smoke. They're allowed
to smoke, but under most conditions they do not, okay. They don't generate innoxious odors.
And I've been involved in at least 100 of these projects around the country. I am not aware of one
refractory lined air curtain incinerator that has caused a forest fire.
The conditions to keep the area wet located in a part of the yard that's controlled, keeping
fire trucks around, water trucks, et cetera, is the best management practice for an air curtain
incinerator.
I think the risk is very low compared to naturally occurring risks. Florida is a fire climax
community meaning that Everglades were based on fire, okay. Fire is what kept the Everglades
and the typical Florida environment what it is. So, yes, we do have natural risk of fire in Florida.
That's how nature's made it. And most of the trees and things like that are capable of handling that
kind of environment.
So I think the image that's portrayed of this billowing smoke and odor and risk to the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
landfill is not a true statement, okay. Under most conditions you won't know it's operating.
I'll be happy to answer any questions I can from a technical standpoint.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commissioners, my signaling device board is not
working, so --
COMMISSIONER FRY: We have this one.
So in your experience in other air curtain incinerator facilities, how often are there
complaints about odor? That was the main objection raised by Mr. Rodriguez.
MR. FERRARO: The customers that I currently operate with, I don't really have any that
have ongoing odor complaints from their facilities.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What do you mean by "ongoing"?
MR. FERRARO: We have had air curtain incinerator operations that have been shut
down in the past. I'm talking 15, 20 years ago before there was more management control over
them. They were put in neighborhoods that were highly populated, you know, right up
against -- you know, within 50 feet of a mobile home park, that kind of thing. Those were
inappropriate sitings, in my opinion. So the ones I currently represent all are on adequately-sized
parcels in properly zoned out-of-the-way areas, not in the middle of a residential area. More rural.
And from those, we've had really no -- none; virtually none that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER FRY: How would you rate the site of this proposed air curtain
incinerator based on those criteria, being out in the open?
MR. FERRARO: I think it's an excellent site. It's got the necessary setbacks, the rural
nature of the location, the ability to control the site are all positive things. I think the site's
probably ideal for it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: We're looking at a photo on the screen of ball fields at the
upcoming --
MR. FERRARO: Really nice-looking.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What do you think the risk is of odors inundating the people
that are visiting that site?
MR. FERRARO: There's always the potential -- and I won't lie about this. There's
always the potential for some wood smoke odor on transiting areas outside the site; always that
potential. If the air curtain incinerator is operated in accordance with the way we've set it up, it
burns very hot, and you will not get the odors from that fire. What happens during rainstorms and
times when you have to shut the machine down, you can get some transient odors, and it would be
a wood smoke odor. You can't burn wood without getting some transient odors.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions for this witness, Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you.
Mr. Wright, do you have more?
MR. FERRARO: So Mr. Wright asked, and we discussed this. I do not believe, in my
professional opinion, that the operation of air curtain incinerator poses a fire threat to the landfill.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, sir?
MR. WRIGHT: One last thing. I know that there's been an attorney here; Ms. Spector
from Roetzel & Andress has raised this question about, we started out of the gates in the wrong
direction, and, obviously, that she's raising a question of interpretation of the LDC, and that
interpretation was made early on in this process. There's a process for third parties to challenge
those interpretations, but it's not here. That particular argument has been raised and addressed
multiple times on the record. It happened at the hearing. It happened in Nancy's memo. And
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
I'm happy to refute it again today. But our position is that if she did have a problem with that
interpretation, then she should have filed an appeal of it, and that's all.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before you step down, any questions for Mr.
Wright?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. If not, I believe we can close the public comment
segment of this matter.
And, Planning Commission, should we take our break now and come back for deliberation
and vote, or should we deliberate and vote first?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think we can deliberate and vote now; is what I would
recommend we do.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then that's what we'll do.
Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. It will probably be long, but I want to make
sure everybody understands.
Look it, as a former Army engineer and as a former District Commander in the Army
Corps of Engineers, I'm very familiar with the debris cleanup, debris reduction, air curtains.
Trench curtains are a trench -- and I know that I'm not going to dispute the science, but a trench air
curtain is an air curtain. This is a little bit different because it's a more upgraded and modern type
of air curtain.
But given all that said, I cannot support this. I think it's an incompatible use with the
surrounding property. I lived and worked on Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan for a year where I
had to endure open burning. Now, that was open burning, because that's the way the U.S
government and the U.S. Army and the Military forces got rid of our trash.
I am not willing in any way, shape, or form to allow any type of open burning in Collier
County given it air curtain or otherwise. I don't -- as I said, it's incompatible. There may be other
locations in the county where this could go, but not this location, especially considering the issues
that Mr. Rodriguez brought up and considering -- and you want to call it who was there first? But
the county spending upwards of over $100 million, I believe, now in a sports complex, I see no
need to put this operation in and near the sports complex; therefore, I recommend both petitions be
disapproved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other comments from the Planning Commission?
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I would have to confirm -- concur with Joe. There's a
need, for sure, but to have it that close to the sports complex we spent so much time on to making
this unbelievable facility for these youth to come enjoy and the homeowners that are in close
proximity -- the old thing, I wouldn't want it in my backyard I think holds true here, so I'm in line
with my fellow commissioner and his comments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary Fry, did you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I weigh in on two fronts. One is the fire risk and the other on
the odors risk. I believe the fire -- the fire expert maybe allayed my concerns over the fire -- the
main concern over five risk, but the odor risk, I believe, Bruno -- I'm not sure what your last name
is, but I appreciate your honesty in saying that, you know, you will occasionally get some odors of
burning wood smoke, and I just don't think that is something that we should entertain in this area.
And so I have a hard time supporting this as well.
I appreciate the science of it, and I've looked for every way I can, you know, support it, but
I'm also concerned about having 28 conditions on something. To me, that's a red flag that if you
have -- to need that many conditions on something just to make it palatable, that maybe it's not
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
really a good fit for where it is applied to be.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I'm struggling with this, but I don't think it's in the
right area. I think it's a good idea, but with this -- if you have crowds of people outside in that
sports park, I just -- I'm a little concerned that it's in the wrong spot.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. From my part, my main concern is safety. And I'm glad
that we had a spirited discussion. I'm glad that it was candid and that we heard from both sides on
the staff. But the fact that we had a senior member of county staff, Mr. Rodriguez, saying, in
essence, that there was an unreasonable risk to the public safety, even to the extent that it cannot be
sufficiently mitigated by the 28 conditions, causes me not to be able to support this.
Any further comments to be made by the Planning Commission?
Mr. Eastman, did you want to be heard?
MR. EASTMAN: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Is there -- is there -- we've got two -- we have
to have separate votes. First of all, we have a small-scale GMPA for the air curtain incinerator.
Is there a motion to --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I stand by my motion for both, so...
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And I second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it's been moved and second --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To disapprove.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to disapprove.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Then the second half of this is the conditional use, which I guess probably is moot now.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, sort of. We may as well -- we're here, you know.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Is there a motion on the CU?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor -- and this is of disapproval --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Disapproval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- please say aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIMAN FRYER: Thank you, applicant.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I just -- I will say that I -- I feel this is an unfortunate situation
where the applicant got this far along unaware of a major objection from within the high-ranking
areas of Collier County. I hope that there is a procedure that can be put in place or -- to avoid this
from happening again. I do feel that --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- when you come before, you have the rightful expectation that
all aspects of the county are going to be able to weigh in in a timely manner before you expend the
time and energy and expense to get this far in the process. So I do feel for the applicant in that
regard.
MR. KLATZKOW: The county agrees with that, and I believe Mr. Casalanguida's had
discussions. And it's an imperfect world, and I can't promise this will never happen again, but
we'll try.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I mostly concur with Commissioner Fry. I just -- I find it healthy
to have disagreements be brought before us. It's probably a little bit better if they were an official
point of view, maybe at Mr. Casalanguida's level or Mr. Ochs' level.
MR. KLATZKOW: This should have been done at the pre-app level. This never should
have gone this far. But, again, it's an imperfect world, and our staff works in silos, and sometimes
people don't talk to each other.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
Thank you.
And we will now be in recess for 10 minutes until 10:39 a.m.
(A brief recess was had from 10:29 a.m. to 10:39 a.m.)
MS. JENKINS: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's return, please.
***The next item is purely legislative in nature, and it's a matter that we've already started.
We will continue with. And this is PL20190002292. It's the RLSA large-scale Growth
Management Plan amendment transmittal hearing. In our last meeting we heard from
representatives of staff and of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, League of Women Voters,
and the Eastern Collier Property Owners, or ECPO, and the latter group's presentation was cut
slightly short as a result of the fact that we had to accommodate a hard stop for the Board of
County Commissioners, as we do today, by the way.
So I think they were about five minutes short. I had offered, or at least was prepared to
offer, ECPO another 10 minutes today if they wished to do that. But I've been informed by staff
that ECPO has decided to end its -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but has decided to end its official
presentation and continue speaking through individuals during the public comment section.
So before we get into that segment, we have two more organizations who wish to make a
joint presentation. They are the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society. They'll be
given a total of approximately 20 minutes at this time. And I'll call them up in a moment.
But, Ray, just so that -- well, Anita, if you have the slips, my question is going to be at this
point, how many registered speakers, roughly, do we have?
MS. JENKINS: I see about a dozen in the room, and we have several on Zoom.
MR. FRANTZ: We have 16 people on Zoom.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixteen on Zoom and seven here.
MS. JENKINS: About a dozen, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. About a dozen. Sixteen, a dozen; okay 38 [sic].
Is it the wish of Planning Commission that we attempt to -- or that we ask public speakers,
whether they're here or not, to be limited more than five minutes because of the number of people
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
we have? What's your position?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: More than five minutes?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Under five minutes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay. Under. I would say three.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Three. Does that sound right to everybody?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm never a fan of limiting people that want to speak
and share their time, but I understand the logistics of timing, too, so...
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. If we have speakers who want to
combine their time, please let us know.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And -- because I know some -- there are speakers who are
representing various organizations, and if they want to combine their time, I'm willing to
go -- since this is the Planning Commission -- I know the Board limits to three -- I would consider
going to five.
But I just want to make sure that we -- the speakers certainly have a right to speak, as
Patrick noted, and it's our -- frankly, our duty and obligation to listen. But if they feel like their
points have been presented, just note it as such and we'll move on.
And with that, I don't know -- Anita, were you going to start on a presentation, or are you
going to wait?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a little more I want to say.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Go ahead. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it seems to be the consensus that we will limit it at three and
we will encourage people to accept time from other potential speakers who are present in the room,
and we can aggregate that way.
I'm going to ask, though -- and this is really in order to facilitate a full and fair hearing of
this and to give us ample opportunity to have our discussions and ask our questions that speakers
be concise as possible and be clear and avoid being redundant.
Once we've heard a concept once, if it's been articulated well, we'll take note of it, and it
doesn't need to be repeated again and again. Obviously, if that's what we hear from the public,
we're not going to cut people off who haven't had a chance to speak and wish to.
The other thing that I would like to do is, in the interest of achieving full disclosures from
all speakers, I'm going to ask each one to state, in addition to his or her name, any group affiliation
that they have, because I think the public has a right to know if we've got someone who is
representing an organization, and that's across the board. I'm not picking on anyone in particular.
And, of course, if you decline to reveal that information, we'll let you speak, but we can't help but
take note of the fact if you do decline. So it's a respectful request only.
And we're going to ask that the segment of public speaking go on for a reasonable amount
of time. As long as it appears to be productive and clear and concise and informative, if needs be
we'll carry this matter over to the 25th of September, which may well be the case because we've got
a -- we've got a hard stop at 3:30 today, and that's as far as we can go, and we also have lunch and
potentially an afternoon break. So we've got a lot to do.
Having said all of that, also staff has requested to be heard before we conclude today, so
we will honor that request. And I think that's -- those are all the notes that I have at this point,
so -- okay. Let's go right with the Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society, who I'm going to
give an aggregate time of 20 minutes to, please, if you can, in a joint presentation.
Ms. Budd.
We're going to have a stereophonic, all right, sir. That's fine. Please proceed.
MS. BUDD: Good morning. Meredith Budd with the Florida Wildlife Federation.
MR. CORNELL: And I'm Brad Cornell with Audubon of the Western Everglades, and I
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
also work for Audubon Florida's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, both, and welcome.
MS. BUDD: Thank you.
We had a chance -- an opportunity to speak to a couple of you in advance of this meeting.
And I know yesterday Brad sent out a handout. We do have copies of this here. If you do not
have it, I'm happy to provide it to you. And we will go ahead and get started.
MR. CORNELL: So the first thing, I'd like to just quickly remind everybody that it was
our two organizations that joined the Department of Community Affairs back in 1997 to challenge
Collier County over its growth management program. The program, in particular, that was aimed
at protecting natural resources on 300,000 acres of rural lands. And the specific aspect of that was
the Natural Resource Protection Area Program. The county, through their EAR process, the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report process, had proposed to take all the deadlines out of establishing
NRPAs, as they were affectionately known, and we objected to that, as did DCA.
And we were successful in that litigation. What it did was set the table for settlement
discussions, negotiations, and a decision was prompted by the state to come up with plans for those
300,000 acres. The governor, Jeb Bush, who was just elected then, 1999, said, all right, Collier
County, figure it out, and you've got three years to do it.
And I want to point out first that the Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife Federation
recognized that the NRPAs were predominantly wetlands, and that was -- the very first one was the
mangroves at Pelican Bay, and we said, they've got to have uplands. You know, we really want to
see more robust, full ecological system NRPAs, and so that was because of panthers and upland
species.
And the second point I want to make is that in the process of going through the
establishment of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on about less than 100,000 acres, and the
Rural Lands Stewardship program in 2002, we recognized in both of those programs that they
needed to have restoration as part of their policies; that just preservation alone was not enough.
We needed to restore lands. Both of those programs, after they had started the discussions,
realized we forgot something; we need to add restoration. So that was a new thing that was added
to both of those.
Both of those programs, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, which you-all haven't seen
yet -- you haven't had those policies come in front of you for the restudy process but you will, and
both of those programs had to up the credits allowed to get restoration. That was a very important
part that we advocated for, and that is why those credits went up, and that's part of evolution.
MR. BUDD: So what we have today is an incentivize-based program to help preserve
land across the landscape. What is the cost, outside of a program like this, of preserving land?
In Lee County, Edison Farms was purchased in 2018 for about 10,000 an acre. This was,
of course, for conservation purposes. In Collier County, not too long ago, Triple H Ranch in
North Belle Meade was purchased. Our organizations, among others, did advocate heavily for this
to be in conservation, and that's still an option. But as of right now, it's -- it has no intended
purpose that's been designated, and this purchase was also evaluated at 10,000 per acre.
So based on the average cost per acre for the 55,000 acres that are already preserved
through this program with the RLSA, that would have cost the county about $550 million.
So I'll note here that nowhere in the program policies does it say that all preserved lands
will be taken down to conservation. We're looking at preservation. Lands are designated as
SSAs and preserved from development, depending on which land use layers are removed and the
associated credits that get rewarded for the appropriate land use layers. The preserve land is
maintained forever at the expense of the landowner, and it has that restoration potential. Another
cost that would be borne by the landowner.
Purchasing the land at 10,000 an acre average cost doesn't necessarily mean that it's going
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
to be restored. This program not only allows for the preservation of land, but it will also facilitate
resources that would otherwise be unfunded. If we wanted to preserve all of the acres in the
RLSA that would be eligible for preservation through the RLSA program, it would cost well over
$1 billion.
MR. CORNELL: We knew in the establishment of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay program that this was a strategy that had not been done anywhere else, and we didn't know
whether it was going to work. We didn't know if the conservation, the agriculture, the economic
elements of all of this were going to fly, that anybody would even participate. So we had put in
there, all of us did, that there needed to be a five-year review. That took place from 2007 to 2009.
I and others in this room participated on that appointed committee, and we evaluated the
program to be successful. It had put into stewardship over 50,000 acres in the first five years, and
that is a huge success. There was the first town, Ave Maria, that demonstrated that the landowners
were going to participate. So by those measures it was a success.
However, there were some things we saw that needed to be fixed, and those came in the
form of several recommendations to improve the program, and that included increasing protection
of farms so that they wouldn't be converted to one-on-five base zoning. That's 40,000 acres of
preservation added. To cut the R-1 credits, the designation of restoration without doing it, we saw
that as -- that was generating too many credits, we had recommended cutting it in half to cap the
credits in the development acres to adjust the calibration so you would have to use more credits to
entitle towns and villages, to prioritize the restoration for panther habitat and wetlands. And this
was all done as part of a very, very robust two-year public process.
So that's what you are seeing moved forward very belatedly; 10 years later we had
proposed those, and they went in front of the County Commission in 2010. Now, finally, we're
getting to see those policies move into Growth Management Plan amendments.
MR. BUDD: Along with some of the -- I'll add, along with some of the additional white
paper recommendations. So we have the five-year review amendments and additional
amendments coming before you today.
So the maps on this screen show you panther telemetry in the RLSA. The map on the left
displays the limited telemetry points that lie within the proposed open areas, and the one on the
right shows the expansive amount of telemetry points that fall within the proposed eligible SSA
areas.
So telemetries are actual instances of panthers on the landscape. It's a point in time. It's
not the one and only, but it's a data source that we can look at and see where the panthers are
physically on the landscape. Ninety percent of all of the telemetry points combined fall within the
proposed SSA areas.
The areas proposed open areas clearly have less value to the panthers than those of the
SSA areas. For the proposed open areas, the RLSA amendments that you have before you include
provisions that SRAs need to be compatible within the surrounding land uses. So a lot of the
telemetry points we see on that left-handed screen, the animals -- the individuals are using the
edges, and so these RLSA amendments need to have -- they say that the SRA needs to have defined
edges, and they need to be designated to be consistent with the character of the adjacent lands.
This includes setbacks, buffers, and techniques to minimize any conflicts between SSAs,
agricultural uses, and, of course, the SRA uses within the SRA area.
As such, this program, the RLSA, inclusive of the amendments before you, in contrast to
the underlining zoning, which would be -- the land would be subject to without the program, sets
up a framework that is not only beneficial to the Florida panther but to other imperiled and
common species as well. It provides incentives so that the lands throughout the RLSA can host
species that would otherwise be subject to that underlying zoning.
MR. CORNELL: Now, there's an assertion that some critics of this program say that why
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
are we giving so many credits for development potential for protecting wetlands and panther
habitat that are already protected by state and federal resource protection rules, like the Clean
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Resource permitting program?
It seems like a logical point; however, I would like to counter that with the unfortunate experience
that I, as a 20-year conservation policy person, have witnessed, and that is, on wetlands
alone -- and you see the map up here side by side. The map on the left shows pink of shallow
seasonal wetland extent predevelopment, and on the right you see that -- in South Florida, that
those wetlands have largely disappeared. Over 70 percent have been destroyed, and it's a big
consequence for wood storks in Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
My point being that according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Audubon analysis, more than 30,000 acres of wetlands have been destroyed in
Lee and Collier County alone since 1996, and that's with the Clean Water Act and the
Environmental Resource program. Over 30,000 acres we have lost that have not been adequately
mitigated for.
So given that, we need additional local policies at Collier County to make sure that we
don't lose our wetlands; that we make sure that what we value is protected, and that's what Rural
Land Stewardship adds to -- that is the value.
MS. BUDD: We want to get into the nitty-gritty. Overall, the proposed amendments,
which are inclusive of the five-year review amendments, and some of those white paper
recommendations, we're overall supportive of those amendments. They present policy changes
that improve the program and effectuate that landscape scale connectivity that our organizations are
looking for. That's a -- the environmental benefit is our number one priority with this program.
So we want to go through relatively quickly so you can see where we see the program
recommendations are really beneficial and highlight those and then some of the concerns where we
wish that you may take our recommendations to perhaps make a recommendation to alter,
potentially, some of the recommendations before you.
So for a policy -- Group 1 policies, additional -- or the conditional stewardship easements,
adding an additional entity to the easements as well. And then, of course, Policy 1.22 that caps
credits and acres. That's a cap of 45,000 acres that includes the public benefit uses. That is a
policy change. You'll see in a different -- in Group 4 policies, I believe where the cap on credits
includes the public benefit acreages as well and then, of course, the cap on credits.
One of the concerns in Group 1 that we do want to flag for you is that we do wish that the
white paper recommendation, which is under No. 6 and 7 in the Environmental Protection Area,
that adds language for management responsibility into the SSAs for exotic removal. That's
something we see as a benefit, and we do recommend that that be included.
MR. CORNELL: In Group 2, I want to flag a criticism of Rural Land Stewardship SSAs,
that they have relatively little conservation value, and this goes back to what I just said about the
wetlands. In addition, the SSAs are pushing back -- they're an incentive for the landowners not to
utilize the existing base zoning of one house for every five acres. And the counter to that has
been, well, nobody's really going to do that. But all you have to do is look at 100 square miles of
Golden Gate Estates and realize, people are going to do that very readily. Just give them time and
population growth, and people are going to say, well, I can make a lot more money building houses
than I can farming tomatoes or peppers. So these SSAs have a huge amount of value.
And the other point is that the Growth Management Plan amendments that are here before
you today are going to fix some of the problems like restoration designation with no actual
restoration. Well, these policies are going to -- are going to incentivize these landowners to
actually do the restoration rather than just designate it. So I think we have our fixes.
In addition, I want to flag that Policy 2.2 is probably the most important policy, in my
opinion, of all of them today, and that is the one that creates the agricultural incentives to protect
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
farms and ranches. We overlooked that back in 2002, and this is an opportunity to make good on
that. It adds 40,000 acres estimated of preservation should the landowners participate in that, and
that is -- a lot of that is in the area of critical state concern, which is a vital area to not see
developed.
A couple of adjustments. Habitat Stewardship Areas really should be eliminating
layers -- Land Use Layers 1 through 4 rather than just 1 through 3. Native habitat in Policy 3.11,
we believe, has too many credits for exotics and fire management. As important as those are, it's
hard to distinguish that from lesser forms of restoration.
And we just want to see a clarification of Water Resource Areas that are used for
stormwater. Those get counted as part of the SRA. They should not be counted as part of an
SSA, and that's just something -- because of the language, WRAs are normally SSAs. Just clarify
that when they're using them for stormwater treatment, they're an SRA.
MR. BUDD: And Group 4 policies, so the -- I mentioned this earlier. The 45,000-acre
max, this includes now the public-benefit acreage as well. The 4.5 requires the master plan to
include a management plan for minimizing human-wildlife conflict. This is a really important
policy. And we see it not only beneficial to the RLSA but an area greater than the RLSA as well.
4.19 recalibrates the credits. Brad mentioned the recalibration through the five-year
review. We see that as a benefit.
And Policy 4.23, which you see -- we actually see in multiple group policies to maintain
the dark sky environment. Again, a benefit that is beneficial to not only RLSA but in greater areas
of the county.
Some of the concerns, we think that there just needs to be a clarification in Policy 4.9.
WRAs were crossed out, and we do believe that that should be retained or clarified as to how the
WRAs would not be included or would be included in certain instances.
Group 5 policies, as you know, pertain to non-SRA development, and we see the
maintenance of the dark sky included in the policies. Policy 5.7, we are very happy to see that.
Some of the concerns are Policy 5.4. It refers to SRA development, but it's in the Group 5
policies, so we just want to see some consistency, perhaps, seeing that in Group 4 policies as well
since it's already referencing SRAs.
And Policy 5.5 speaks to species of special local concern. I don't know if that's
necessarily identified language-wise by the county, so I just need some clarity on some of the
language used.
So the importance of these policies that I mentioned just before, 3.15, 4.23, and 5.7, which
speak to the nighttime environment, these -- the importance of these policies are not exclusive to
the RLSA. Villages both inside and outside the RLSA are coming online, and it's critical that
LDC language is drafted as soon as possible so that necessary measures can be implemented on the
landscape.
So the nighttime environment, this was a consensus item in the white paper, and LDC
amendments are needed now. Policy 4.5, which was -- speaks to reducing human-wildlife
conflict, these are needed to address -- the LDC amendments are needed to address the types of
measures that will be required to actually limit wildlife conflict. So we've listed a couple -- a few
here, potential ideas for amendments that could speak to how to reduce wildlife conflict, for
example, bear trash cans. These are LDC amendments that we need to be effective now on the
landscape.
So in addition to some of the concerns we noted above on the other slides, we request that
you recommend to the Board that these policies pertaining to reducing wildlife conflict and
maintaining the nighttime environment get there --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Budd, you're at the 20-minute mark, so if you'd keep that in
mind, please.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MS. BUDD: Sure. We have just a couple more slides.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. BUDD: We ask that you get those LDC amendments drafted now in advance of the
final approval of the RLSA, and we actually have drafted some of those that we're happy to share.
MR. CORNELL: So I just want to flag this LDC issue and underline the fact that not only
for the wildlife and the nighttime sky environment, but all the LDC amendments that should
accompany all these Growth Management Plan amendments that you're looking at today, we
believe -- it's been 10 years that staff and all of us have been looking at this. Let's have LDC
amendments move parallel to this whole process so that we don't have to wait another year after
these are adopted before they're implemented.
And I think -- you know, we've started drafting them, but I think your staff probably have
some ideas as well. I think this is something that's way overdue.
MR. BUDD: I'll quickly flag this map for you. This is the map provided in your packet,
and we wish that you recommend an update of this map. There's actually a corridor in the
northwest corner of the RLSA that has lands dedicated that go into Hendry County, and so we do
wish that you recommend updating that.
And I'll quickly go over these last slides. It shouldn't take any more than a couple
minutes, Chair, if that's okay.
It's been -- oh, this -- Brad, go ahead. I'm so sorry.
MR. CORNELL: No, that's all right. I just -- the issue of fiscal neutrality is a very
important issue. The Smart Growth America study that has been referenced by several speakers
earlier in the last meeting brought up this issue. And I just want to flag the issue that you're not
going to get fiscal neutrality until some time has gone by; till people have moved into these
communities.
And so the Smart Growth America study spotted their proposals, 20 years. We should do
the same in evaluating the Rural Lands Stewardship. Policy 4.18 requires fiscal neutrality, and I
think that is a plus. And when we evaluate it, we should understand that there's going to be some
time before that actually is achieved.
MR. BUDD: I wanted to flag this table for you. There's been talk that the RLSA's
bringing 300,000 people to Collier County. Collier County is growing every year. 300,000
people, according to 2020 economic report, are coming to the state every year. So people are
coming with or without the changes to these policies. And this table shows you that in 2070 the
RLSA projections are 116,000. Buildout is 243-. So 300,000 likely wouldn't even come until the
turn of the century.
1.22, it has been asked of you to deny this recommendation. This is a recommendation to
ensure a cap on development acreage and a cap on credits. It's vital to that. And if your concern
is too much development and too many credits, why would you oppose an amendment that would
put a cap on both of those?
Finally, we'll just wrap up with this slide. The Panther Review Team, which was
composed of six scientists with expertise in Florida panther ecology asked a simple question:
Does the five-year review recommendations as a whole provide additional conservation benefit to
the Florida panther when compared to the current RLSA program?
This team of experts concluded that the proposed revisions to the RLSA, the five-year
review amendments that you have before you today, would represent an enhancement of panther
conservation over the existing RLSA program, and this doesn't even include the white paper
amendments.
So we've gone far too long operating under the current program that everyone agrees can
be improved. We all agree to that. We support the amendments before you. We ask you to
consider our concerns and recommendations that we list in our slides, and we urge you to
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
recommend LDC amendments move concurrently with the RLSA policies and those that we asked
for now move immediately in terms of wildlife conflict resolution and lighting.
We thank you so much for the time, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I've got a comment and a question or two,
but first I want to ask other Planning Commissions if they have comments or questions for these
speakers.
And the machine is working here, so the signaling device is working. Member 2. Is that
going to be Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: He beat me again. You go first. I'm 1. You're 2.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got Mr. Fry. Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You were No. 1, but thank you.
First of all, if you guys had a TV show, I would watch it. That was a great back and forth.
Very entertaining and educational.
So just a couple questions for you. So am I to understand that your opinion of the -- what
staff has recommended in the allocation of R-1 for allocating lands for restoration versus R-2,
which are when you actually restore the land, that you are in favor of the system that they have
proposed?
MR. CORNELL: Yes, because it's reducing the R-1 credits 75 percent. Even more than
the five-year review recommendation was, which was 50 percent. It's now reduced to one credit
per acre rather than two.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
So maybe describe for me, we've got several environmental or NGOs that are represented
in this issue. So we have the Audubon. We have Florida Wildlife Federation. We have the
Conservancy, which spoke last time. And I guess I'm a little confused in just terms -- the relative
missions of your organizations. You obviously have some different viewpoints. You've
expressed more in support than the Conservancy, more in opposition. So just -- what is your
understanding of the difference in the missions and why, perhaps, you've arrived at different
conclusions when you're all environmentally focused and habitat focused? That's a loaded
question, I realize, but --
MS. BUDD: Yes. The Florida -- I'll speak on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation
here.
We work to protect wildlife, water needs; that's our priority. Environmental outcomes is
our priority for this program. And there's a lot more on your table before you today than just the
environmental components of the RLSA.
So as it speaks to the environment, the amendments before you, inclusive of the five-year
review and the additional white paper amendments, we feel, are an improvement than what we
have over the current policies as it pertains to wildlife protection, habitat restoration, preservation
of land.
The R-1 designation, we understand, in a perfect world we wish, perhaps, that never had
been introduced in the first place, but it was. It's something that the program is operating under.
We understand that getting rid of R-1 completely is not necessarily an option. Reducing it by
75 percent, I think, is a win, and putting on that back-end credit on the R-2 to really incentivize
getting the R-2 done on the landscape, that's a really big step forward from where we're at. And so
we're looking strictly and primarily, really, at the environmental outcomes, and that's where I stand
on my position on this program.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: And I would just add, I agree with Meredith on that, but I do want to
point out that -- you asked about mission. The Conservancy and Audubon, Audubon Western
Everglades, and the Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, another group that's involved with
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
this, we're all in sync in terms of objectives. We want to protect wetlands, wildlife, panthers,
Everglades resources. We're all in sync on this. It's just a question of strategy.
I would say a distinguishing feature for our groups is that it's -- we recognize the vital
necessity of working with large landowners, not only here in Collier County but across the nation.
All you have to do is look at the sage grass out in the Midwest, you know, that needs millions of
acres. You cannot talk about recovering the sage grass as a listed -- potentially listed species
without talking to ranchers. And so I would say the same is true in Florida. We've got to protect
these large ranches, or the panther and wide-ranging species are doomed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What's your opinion of the results of the RLSA since 2009? I
think we've somewhat informally been operating under those recommendations, at least in the
background. Is your opinion that the RLSA has overall been successful since its inception and
even since 2009?
MR. CORNELL: Let me take that, if I may, because as a member of the Five-Year
Review Committee, that was our assessment although, as I mentioned in our presentation, there are
some caveats. We saw, well, yes, it was successful. We have more than 50,000 acres in
Stewardship Sending Areas, which is, you know, a huge acreage, and it's smart targeting in terms
of it's Camp Keais Strand, Okaloacoochee Slough, down by the Panther Refuge. It's the main
panther and wetland linkages in our landscape; however, we also recognize vulnerability to the
one-on-five attraction for those areas that are still open that we're much beyond the 45,000-acre cap
that we wanted to institute. So that was the reason for the ag stewardship.
So we've got some more improvements to do, and that's what these are all about. It's not
everything, but this is a first step.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You made a lot of detailed suggestions in your slides. Do we
have those? Do we have copies of those? Does staff have copies of those recommendations?
Okay.
MR. CORNELL: On that machine.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We need them. I was going to ask for it as well.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Final question is, you seem to be saying that -- are you
suggesting we do not approve the amendments that are proposed by staff until the LDC -- the
accompanying LDC language is also presented? I'm not quite clear.
MS. BUDD: No, not quite. We wish that the LDC amendments in general move
concurrently with the RLSA policy so that they're in step with one another as opposed to
addressing the LDC policies post approval of the RLSA policies, and then, outside of that, those
specific to wildlife conflict and lighting, since those really address issues that are not really unique
just to the RLSA, we think it may be a benefit, and we ask that you perhaps recommend those
specific LDC amendments get written outside in advance of the RLSA since they do pertain to
areas that are not just in the RLSA but -- like the RFMUD or even Golden Gate Estates areas.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So that raises a question for me just really in how this
process needs to flow. I'm under the impression we really need to approve the amendments in
order to initiate the LDC effort but -- am I correct or incorrect about that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The amendments --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The amendments have to be approved on the GMP.
That, then, would follow -- what follows are the implementing guidance, which are the LDC
amendments. If we do not approve the GMP, then there's no need to do LDC amendments.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So your GMP is the governing document, the Growth
Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan. The LDC becomes the implementing guidelines.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're really just talking about issuing some guidance about
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
LDC input at this point along with approving these amendments?
MR. CORNELL: Yes, but recognize that the way land-use authority works in local
government and here in Collier County is that the Land Development Code is what's governing on
the specificity. And when you review applications, you're looking at the LDC as the sort of
specific guideline.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Understood. And I think, you know, some of my concerns
with the RLSA vision fall within the LDC, which are the compact communities and walkability
and bikeability, interconnectedness, all those things, which I realize are implemented in the LDC.
So I think we're all united that, if we approve this, we want to move forward as swiftly as possible
with the LDC amendments. But I think it's a -- we have to approve the amendments first, and then
the LDC work can happen.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. With hopes that staff is already working on LDC
amendments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We could ask for bullet points and get the level of
assurances from staff that certain things are going to be covered in a certain way before we approve
the GMP, and then we can relax a little bit because we know that that's the direction that staff is
going in.
But right now -- and I think the point is very well taken, and I was going to compliment the
speakers raising this, that the process move in parallel.
As Commissioner Schmitt says, we really do need to act on the GMP first, but it would be
awfully nice if we knew the general direction staff was going in with at least bullet points, if not
perhaps draft language that we had in front of us. So I commend you for that.
Commissioner Schmitt, did you have more?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I have several questions.
And then, Meredith and Brad, you are of the -- I guess, the three big players, you're the last
to speak, so I'll address some of the issues, because we've already heard from the Conservancy and
the League of Women Voters, which I'm sure we'll hear again. But you mentioned loss of
wetlands. Critical issue. We've known that for years.
Three issues dealing with wetlands. Typically you avoid, you mitigate, or you
compensate. Those are the rules. This does not in any way truncate or -- I'm asking the question
now -- because I know the answer, but I want you to state it on the record, either you or Meredith.
This does not in any way circumvent in any way, shape, or form either the Clean Water Act, '72
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, '73, or NEPA process; is that correct?
MR. CORNELL: That is absolutely correct. And, in fact, it improves on and
complements those processes. And that was my point about, you know, those are vital
regulations, but they're flawed. They're not fully functional. And this adds a local complement to
that to make sure we don't lose.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's exactly the answer I was looking for, because
the federal guidelines are exactly that. That's part of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
permitting process. And, again, Section 7, consultation, under the Endangered Species Act.
Those are currently existing.
Then, again, through -- whether U.S. Fish and Wildlife rules or Habitat Conservation Plan,
an HCP, but these rules another layer more beneficial to wildlife than if we just strictly stuck with
the federal guidelines; is that correct?
MR. CORNELL: That's correct. This is local government's opportunity to manage its
own national resource destiny.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which we legally can do.
I just want to reiterate, again, you talked about the 2008. Just for the public's edification,
there were 23 public hearings, public meetings. Public was invited throughout. And I'll just
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
highlight some of the players involved. And for the record, so everybody knows, I was the
Community Development Administrator for Environmental -- Growth Management -- well, the
Community Development Environmental Services administrator from 2002 to 2009 during the time
frame this was developed. Of course, my position was limited -- or eliminated when they
combined -- what is now Growth Management, they combined the two after I left. That was -- and
for budgetary reasons, and I want to cover that so my colleagues understand this as well.
But the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Defenders of Wildlife, Eastern Collier Property
Association, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Florida Wildlife Federation, Naples Backyard History, Sierra Club, Southwest Florida
Management [sic] District, University of Florida Institute for Food and Ag Sciences all participated
in those 23 meetings which led to the 2009 proposed amendments.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You did not mention Audubon.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Audubon was involved as well. Why aren't they on the
list? They did. They participated as well. Brad was there, I know that.
MR. CORNELL: They didn't want me on the committee, though.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The unfortunate circumstance was, in 2009, those who
may recall, we were going through significant budgetary processes, and after I laid off almost, I
think somewhere around between 200 and 225 people in my organization and, essentially, the
organization was combined with Transportation, we went to the Board, but we did not have the
finances or resources or staff to pursue the amendments. And you're correct, these have been
sitting since 2009.
I thank the Board, and they brought it back to life in 2018. Anita may highlight this, but
in 2018 staff conducted I don't know how many more meetings, probably another 20. Kris Van
Lengen, who led that initiative, and folks were involved which led to further amendments.
So understand, we are not creating a new system. And I think there's a lot of
misinformation out there. This is an existing system. It was approved and codified by the Board
of County Commissioners in 2003, I think it was the correct date. The zoning already exists at one
unit per five acres. This is to incentivize land development to put lands in conservation, and that's
what this program was for. It is not creating villages, towns, and hamlets. We are not doing that
in these hearings. They're already approved. They can come under the current guidance today.
The effort here, as you pointed out, is to make improvements to what was identified are the
shortfalls, and there are shortfalls, and that's what we're addressing right now. We need to address
the shortfalls that were identified and try and what I would call fix some of the errors we -- I'll call
them errors because they came to light after we began to implement and evaluate SRAs and SSAs,
and that's where we're at.
So that's what this is. This is not a rezoning, this is not a redo of the process, and we are
not in the process of going to evaluate the scoring or the layers or all those type of things. If the
Board of County Commissioners want to do that, then I guess we can reconvene the public
hearings again and bring this all back to the public for a further review, but that does not change
what currently exists.
Applicants today can come in under the current guidance and submit both SSA and SRA
applications, that's correct, right?
MR. CORNELL: That's correct. I think if we had had these amendments 10 years ago,
some of the issues that we're discussing now would have been addressed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely.
The other critical piece -- and, Brad, I'm going to ask you because one of the important
pieces of these -- this amendment are the preservation of ag. Can you highlight that, please, the ag
lands that were identified that were not part of the initial SRA -- or initial RLSA that --
MR. CORNELL: Well, it was always an objective. I mean, the final order from the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Governor and cabinet said the county had to figure out a way to maintain agriculture --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. CORNELL: -- and protect resources and do innovative development or innovative
economic activity.
What we realized was that in the natural resource based Stewardship Sending Areas we
had not really incentivized directly the protection of farms and ranches. And so that omission was
what we're trying to address with the new Policy 2.2, ag stewardship credits, an incentive-based
way to protect farms and ranches.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So under current laws today, that ag could be very easily
converted to one unit per five acres with no restriction?
MR. CORNELL: Base zoning doesn't go away.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Base zoning, okay.
And so the important piece here is that policy is going to protect lands which are beneficial
to both the Conservancy, the Wildlife Federation, and Audubon because the ag lands certainly are
part of the process of allowing for corridors and other type of --
MR. CORNELL: Right. It prevents --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- lands for wildlife to flourish.
MS. BUDD: They hold value for wildlife, certainly.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to make that clear again for my
colleagues, because that is a very important piece here that came up during the 2009 review and, of
course, it's now been sitting, and it's 2020. And you're correct, had some of this language been in
place for the last couple of SRAs, it would have probably been -- well, it would have been far more
beneficial from the standpoint of the program.
But to dispel any myth that certainly will be perpetuated, this is not -- these amendments
are not approving new development. The development already is approved and -- or could be
approved under the current policies.
MS. BUDD: And I'll add, I think that the amendments before you also address the
concerns that were brought from, I believe it was DCA. It was a report from 2007 which was
made in advance of the five-year review recommendation. So the five-year review
recommendations, I believe, do speak to some of the concerns that DCA brought up some years
ago back in 2007 making sure that those lands aren't as vulnerable to the one-on-five conversion
through the protection of agriculture and cap on acreage, of course.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that's all I have for now, because I have more
information, but I'll hold off until we hear other speakers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Dearborn.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I rescinded my request.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think Joe covered it, and Mr. Fry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Before these two speakers leave, I just want to make
reference to a telephone conversation that we had back on September 11, which was enlightening
for me, and it helped me identify where the points of agreement and, perhaps, points of different
approach that you were taking in relation to the other conservation groups, so that, I found,
elucidating.
In the course of that conversation, we discussed smart growth and the flip side of that,
which is urban sprawl, or at least that's one aspect of the flip side of it. And this relates to a
comment that was made a little earlier by one of you this morning about the degree -- or about the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
degree to which the RLSA has been successful so far.
And the subject of Rivergrass came up in our conversation. And you both acknowledged,
really, in no uncertain terms, your point of view that Rivergrass was not an example of smart
growth that, in fact, it was really quite the opposite. Have I characterized that fairly?
MR. CORNELL: Partly fairly. If where you're driving on this is what our view is of the
smart growth policies in the Rural Land Stewardship, I would say that in terms of Rivergrass,
our -- at least the Audubon Society's view of that is that your most important aspect of smart
growth is siting. You've got to put development -- you've got to put our communities in the right
place. Don't put it in wetlands. Don't put it in panther habitat. Don't put it next to things.
I mean, your previous conversation was illuminating about the curtain wall incinerator.
You know, those kinds of things, there are certain things that land use has to try and manage, and
that's job one. And as a conservation organization, our view is that the most important aspect of
smart growth is to put it in the right place and to have a regional context of conservation
surrounding it. That's what SSA 15 was all about --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me interrupt then and say --
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- what I thought I heard you say really, which I'm really clear I
heard you both say, and I believe you agreed with me that Rivergrass Village was not an example
of smart growth and it was -- that's very much to the contrary. That's what I heard. And English
is my mother tongue, so -- just like it is yours.
MS. BUDD: So I will say, sir, when we were speaking on the phone, I was speaking with
you in a conversation, and today I'm speaking on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation where I
am promoting the environmental outcomes of the RLSA.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. BUDD: And so with all due respect, my personal opinion is not of an expertise on
smart growth. I don't have expertise in --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fair enough. But I've accurately characterized your
personal opinion, I believe; have I not?
MS. BUDD: My personal opinion, again, is not what I'm here to speak on the record for.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, then I will. I'll tell -- I will continue to tell the public what
you said, and you will just have to --
MS. BUDD: That is your prerogative, sir. And as a Planning Commission, I think that
you have every right to look at all of the aspects of the policies, including smart growth, as it
pertains to affordable housing --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will.
MS. BUDD: -- but here on behalf of the Federation --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, thank you.
So the things that you said -- and I'll take it -- if you say this was your personal opinion and
not on the part of Audubon, that's a fair qualifier, because we didn't cover that.
Also, you made the point -- and I don't know if -- you both made the point, or at least you
accepted my point -- I don't know if it was as a personal opinion or on behalf of your
organizations -- but you said in very strong terms that aggregation is a desirable characteristic for
proximate villages under common ownership.
MR. CORNELL: I will agree with that again, and I -- you know, the aggregation of land
ownership into a town rather than villages is an important aspect, and I will use as an example the
Rural Lands West town that we all were looking at for a long time. I had reviewed that many
times and met with the landowner and the developers and their consultants, had consulted with our
science staff out at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. A town, a larger development, affords you more
flexibility and more opportunity to do smart growth, to create jobs, to achieve the smart growth
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
development aspects that are not really, you know, our issue, but what it does is it consumes lots
and lots of credits and allows more conservation to be done in the Rural Land Stewardship
Program.
And if I remember the meeting in front of you and in front of the Commissioners on
Rivergrass, a lot of the speakers complained that we were looking at a village rather than a town,
and that speaks to that aggregation issue that you're raising, Mr. Chair, and I would agree with that.
You know, a town is easier to get a smart growth outcome versus a village. Nevertheless, I still
want to point out the most important smart growth element is the conservation regional context and
the correct siting. Rivergrass is still in the right place; same place as Rural Lands West. We just
have lost the larger aspect of it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fair enough.
MS. BUDD: And I agree with that, Mr. Chair, as well, with the aggregation as well.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
The last point that we all agreed upon was that affordable housing is desirable, and not just
for the RLSA where it certainly is desirable, but for the whole of Collier County. Did I state that
correctly?
MR. CORNELL: Not as a conservation element but, yes, affordable housing is something
that has challenged Collier County everywhere. The County Commissions, many County
Commissions for many years, have wrestled with this, and Planning Commissions have not been
able to solve this problem. And it's not unique to Collier County. It's a problem in many urban
areas across the United States. And it's not a conservation issue, but it affects us. We all,
obviously, have an interest in solving that problem. How you do it, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
All right. Other planning commissioners' questions for these witnesses?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you very much.
MS. BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Ms. Jenkins, do we have -- who's our next must be speaker?
MS. JENKINS: Susan Calkins.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Susan Calkins?
MS. CALKINS: All right. Hi, Susan Calkins, long-time resident of Naples and one of
the people who was sitting in this room in April 2009 when these five-year review amendments,
the recommendations for them, was approved by a 3-2 vote.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, would you mind indicating if you're representing a group?
MS. CALKINS: Oh, I'm sorry. I work with the League of Women Voters, the
Environmental Affairs for a long time --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough. Thank you.
MS. CALKINS: And as a resident here for 20 years I've been involved with
environmental issues.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. CALKINS: And I would say -- you know, I guess I'm responding in part to the fact
that we've heard a great deal said about this being -- the five-year review recommendations being a
consensus -- it was consensus recommendations. You know, everybody was happy with that.
I think if you go back, that was a very contentious meeting, and to say that there was
consensus at that point is really revisionist history. There was not a consensus at that time, and
there was not consensus in truth. I would say there was not agreement, let's put it that way, among
all the stakeholders at the time of the five-year review. There was public comment, indeed, and
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
you listed all the organizations that participated, but public comment taken and recorded doesn't
equate to consensus.
The decisions about appropriate amendments were made by members of the Five-Year
Review Committee, a committee composed of 11 voting members, only one of whom represented
the environmental community.
The majority were allied, and you can, you know, look for yourself, although you have to
look hard. It's on the Collier County website under the library for the RLSA. They all
represented -- the majority, not all, represented in one way or another business and land
development interests.
So considering the composition of the committee, I think you can see why many of the
concerns raised at that time -- and you've got -- you know, there's a long list of them, concerns
about things like a surplus of credits and adequate protection of natural resources. You can
understand why they never found their way into the final five-year review recommendations. The
issues remain.
Then we fast forward to 2018, the RLSA restudy. I was party to that; thought that would
be a chance to perhaps make some of these changes that are still needed, I think, in this program.
The last two of the 12 public meetings were titled "consensus meetings." And there was a hired
facilitator. At the last meeting, consensus meeting, wrapping things up, the facilitator said, if a
comment cannot be supported or agreed upon by all audience members, the comment will be
considered to be a non-consensus item. That's -- you can find that in your white paper.
Representatives of the Eastern Collier Property Owners turned out in force at that last
meeting. Standing at the back of the room, they shook their heads "no" a lot. We ended with a
lot of non-consensus items.
At times, the facilitator said, how can we change the wording to get consensus? So when
it was applicable, words like "require" were banished. "Encouraged" was replaced. Although a
majority of those attending the meetings wanted a smaller footprint with smarter compact
development, better protection for listed species, and Water Resource Areas, we are, instead, being
offered larger towns and villages and, in many cases, inadequate protection for listed species.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: One minute remains, ma'am.
MS. CALKINS: So as Planning Commissioner Schmitt noticed at the last meeting, you've
received comments from individuals with a history of involvement in the RLSA. You've got 63
pages of commentary from the Conservancy, 24 pages from the League of Women Voters. Those
concerns belie the notion of consensus, and I think that we can say right now that, in truth, we
would all like to put these recommendations to bed. But without real consensus and without the
required data and analysis which still remains to be done, letting these recommendations go
forward as is would be a grave error. And I hope -- I think that what has been said previous to me
indicates there are a number of areas, and certainly all those things you got from the Conservancy
and from the League show that there are a lot of places where we can make changes to make these
better. And I think that's what we want to see this time around and, certainly, the LDC needs to go
with these amendments, but these amendments can also be improved dramatically.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. CALKINS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, question for you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Ms. Calkins, you basically are clear that there
was lack of consensus and that was, I mean, that's --
MS. CALKINS: Yeah.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To use your position. But you clearly understand if
these GMP amendments are not passed, they can -- projects will still move forward --
MS. CALKINS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- under the current and existing regulation. Would you
prefer that versus the -- at least getting some of these changes in that I think are necessary?
MS. CALKINS: You know, we've got, what, 36,000 acres left to build on. I think you
could take a timeout, make the changes, get it right. I mean, it's been 10 years. You know, why
we are now -- I mean, we can do -- there's no question we need to get them through, but we could
take a timeout, not take any more permits for these villages right now until we get it settled.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that would be issuing a moratorium of some sort.
MS. CALKINS: Well, you can call it what you want. Zoning in progress --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, legally it would be a moratorium. There would
have to be some kind of compensation. This is private land. So I will -- you know, that's
something the County Commissioners -- and I leave that to the County Attorney.
MS. CALKINS: It's a zoning issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But -- so, okay. I understand. And then you talked
about --
MS. CALKINS: I don't think that all the changes are so dramatic that they can't be done
in a relatively short time; my position.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's -- short time. It's been --
MS. CALKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's been 2005 to 2009, 2009 to 2020.
MS. CALKINS: Exactly, but my point is that I don't think that's a reason to get it through
right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, then, we're under the status quo.
MS. CALKINS: Well, not forever.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which landowners have the legal right to submit an
application.
Okay. The only other question, you said "required" versus "encouraged." How -- legally,
in the League's mind, how can the government legally require a private landowner to comply?
MS. CALKINS: We're -- people are required all the time. When they build their homes,
they're required under certain codes to do this or that. I mean, goodness sakes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think if I could add to that, the requirement, if this were adopted
as a requirement, would apply to new SSAs and SRAs. It wouldn't change what's already
happened --
MS. CALKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because that happened under the current rules. So people still
don't have to volunteer into the program, but once they volunteer into the program, they're going to
be subject to its then requirements.
MS. CALKINS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they are -- through the LDC they will be, because if
they volunteer, then the LDC are the implementing criteria -- essentially become the requirement.
But what I heard you say is they should be prohibited from any other type of development, and
they're required to participate in this program. They could still build one per five acres now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're not required to participate in this program. It's voluntary.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so the rules that are in existence at the time that an SSA is
applied for or SRA, those rules will apply. And as the County Attorney has said, and I agree
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
100 percent with, the longer we stretch this out without reaching some kind of a resolution, pretty
soon we won't have anything at all to regulate. So time is not really on our side.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Those were both of my questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. CALKINS: Agreed.
MS. JENKINS: Your next speaker, Mr. Chair, is Mitch Hutchcraft, and Mitch will be
followed by -- or would you like to take lunch after Mitch?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. Let's -- we can get another speaker in.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. The next speaker will be Nancy Zolidis.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good morning. My name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I am
representing King Ranch. We are landowners within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
I think based on some of the comments that you heard from Brad and Meredith today and
the video that you saw before presented several facts that I think seem to have been lost in recent
discussions.
First, the Rural Land Stewardship was approved in 2002. It is the law of the land and the
acting policy. The original approval included a sprawl analysis which was found by DCA, county
staff, the Board of County Commissioners, to be consistent with the Florida Statutes.
The study also confirmed that landowners are critical stakeholders in the conversation and
that private landowners had development rights before the RLSA was ever created. The program
is voluntary and is designed to protect rights and use incentivization to establish stewardship
activities while facilitating a mix of agriculture, housing, and employment opportunities, and those
frameworks come directly out of the Florida Statutes.
The Rural Lands Stewardship approach achieved these goals with a mix of flexibility and
assurances so that it was equitable to all of the landowners; the landowners that enter early in the
program and landowners like ourselves who would likely participate much later in the process.
These original Rural Lands Stewardship benefits will only be enhanced by the
recommendations of the Five-Year Review Committee. They will include credits for agricultural
protection, creation of panther corridors, and a recalculation of credits and establishment of caps.
Secondly, I think that previous information demonstrates why I'm proud of the work that
we've done and the meaningful partnerships that we've created with key environmental
organizations as well as state and federal agencies. This has resulted in significant environmental
progress both inside and outside of the Rural Lands Stewardship context including panther
protection, wildlife underpasses, protecting natural systems, regional connectivity, and restoring
native lands.
And we've done it by aligning private property rights and resources with beneficial
environmental outcomes. And I think short of this alignment, the alternative is a public purchase
and maintenance program placed wholly at the feet of the Collier County taxpayers. And our
approach has proven far more successful.
Again, I think that the recommendations that are before you today will only enhance the
environmental objectives of the original RLSA program.
Third, we've gone through a very long and very transparent process. You've heard
comments like slow down; take the time; why the rush? These are not serious comments. This
was approved in 2002. The recommendations you are considering today were the results of two
years of studies that were ultimately presented in 2009. They've been rereviewed and reaffirmed
most recently in the staff report that you have before you.
Let's actually do the right thing and adopt these refinements rather than ignoring the
mountain of data that's already been presented, which brings us to today.
In 2019, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare these Growth
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Management Plan amendments reflective of the Five-Year Review Committee and reinforced by
the white paper while addressing any other relevant items through a separate Land Development
Code process. The package before you today is consistent with the Board's direction. It is
supported with relevant and appropriate data and analysis. It is consistent with Florida Statutes
163.3177. It documents how the activity resulting from these amendments would support or
enhance the original goals of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and I would urge
you to support them.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for this witness?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just have one.
Mitch, you made a statement, and what I believe you heard -- what I heard you say is, yes,
okay, then if we want to place these lands in preservation, the government can do so but, certainly,
they can do so by purchasing the property and put it into preservation, which would cost the
taxpayers.
I think I read a quote from Nancy Payton that kind of alluded to the number of acres to be
purchased were well in excess of a billion dollars. Is that what -- your estimate?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That's correct. That's a number that I've heard for the acres that
have already been identified for preservation. I think if you implement the program as it's
anticipated resulting from this, it approaches a billion dollars. And so, yes --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why I said a billion. I think Nancy's quote was a
billion.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, I think that's accurate. And the county always has the
opportunity to do a private acquisition of a willing seller, and so that's always been the county's
prerogative.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Hutchcraft, so King Ranch is part of the ECPO?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That is correct. We are a landowner, and we're a participant in
ECPO.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Where are you in the list of -- like, what number in terms of
how many acres you own versus the other --
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I think we are probably fourth or fifth.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Fourth or fifth?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you anticipate coming forward at some point in the future
with villages or towns or something along those lines?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: On behalf of King Ranch, we have always made it clear that our
intent is to remain in agriculture as long as economically viable. We have been moving forward
recognizing that this program is the ultimate use of our property, and so we've been acting in
reliance on this program.
I think there will be a point in time when the economic viability of agriculture in this area
is challenged. And so the amendments that you have before you today does a much better job of
concentrating and ensuring that agriculture that can be in place is in the right location and that
development that occurs is in the right location as a result of that.
So I think it benefits all property owners. And, frankly, the agricultural credits for a
company like ours, it ensures that all of the property owners are treated equitably. There's a great
certain on our behalf that if some of the projects go forth earlier and are held to a different standard
but then those projects that come in later in the program are held to a much more stringent
standard, it is not fair and equitable of all of the participants in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's your opinion that the agricultural credits that are
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
introduced in these amendments will be beneficial to you in possibly being able to keep the land
agricultural if that's your wish?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, sir. I think that's certainly beneficial, and the ag credits in
the panther corridors are items that we have been strongly supportive of through the process.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The staff came forth with an initial set of proposed GMP
amendments, it was dated, I believe, March 9. Are you familiar with that draft, sir?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Generally. I can't tell you the dates or the specific details, but I'm
generally familiar.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Do you have an opinion as to whether that would have
been a good version for the county to adopt?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: The landowners and King Ranch, specifically, have been very
supportive of the five-year recommendations. We think that those are consistent with the data and
analysis that was prepared. And so beyond those, I think it is a -- those are additional items that, if
they should be addressed, they should be addressed in a separate process after the five-year
amendments are adopted.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I think what I hear you saying, then, is you're not
sufficiently familiar with the March 9 draft to express an opinion on it.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I don't think I said that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, tell me again what you said.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I said that we have been supportive of the five-year amendments.
Those are amendments that we think should go forward and be adopted. If there are additional
items that should be reviewed, they should be reviewed as a secondary process after the adoption of
the five-year-review amendments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did the March draft capture those amendments effectively?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: The five-year amendments were part of the recommendations in
that draft, but there were a number of other provisions that were not reflective of the five-year
review.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did your company express disapproval of the March 9 draft?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I don't know that King Ranch specifically provided a comment,
no.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for this witness?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, sir.
MS. ZOLIDIS: Chairman Fryer --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ZOLIDIS: -- thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Nancy Zolidis,
and I'm speaking for myself.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. ZOLIDIS: I am a retired hydrogeologist; recently moved to beautiful Naples, so it's
taken me quite a many hours trying to get up to speed on this program.
After earning a masters and a Ph.D. in land resources from the University of Wisconsin,
Madison, I worked for over 20 years primarily in the private sector as a consultant on a variety of
water-related issues.
Today I'm going to talk about two of those issues. One is the Flowway Management Plan
and the other is the Water Retention Areas.
I am in support of the requirement that a Flowway Management Plan be developed as part
of the approval process for an SRA. Although described by staff in the restudy white paper, the
Flowway Management Plan requirement was not included in the final recommended amendments.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
One of the goals the Flowway Management Plan would ensure is that the flowways operate
efficiently and effectively, maintaining flows and, when necessary, attenuating discharge and
stabilizing water flows to reduce downstream impacts. To carry out this objective, the staff report
outlined several maintenance activities. In addition to this goal, the Flowway Management Plan
can serve to protect our flowway systems, including adjacent and dependent wetlands, by
conducting baseline studies, analyzing results, and tracking changes over time.
The goal is to maintain the health, the structure, and functions of the flowways as land
conversion occurs or even as agricultural activities continue or are altered. Assessment of the
changes and conditions enhances our understanding of development impacts and leads to improved
management methods.
In my opinion, the county should take the active oversight role of coordinating Flowway
Management Plan activities and recordkeeping so that it -- so that there is consistency in how the
plans are developed and reviewed over time.
Another element I'd like to speak to is the Water Retention Areas. These are
retention -- these should not be used for primary stormwater management. Retention ponds do not
discharge water to a downstream water body but stores water that may be evaporated, sometimes
transpired, or infiltrated in the soil and percolated downward to the water table.
One study estimates that 50 percent is lost through lateral and downward flow. According
to the 2010 Collier County wellhead protection study, there is a concern for development in areas
with shallow water tables and thin, sandy soils that do not effectively attenuate the contaminants.
This is especially a concern in areas of high recharge rates that are reported for parts of Camp
Keais Strand by the 2010 Collier County Watershed Management Plan.
Agencies are still documenting the contaminants in our urban generated stormwater. A
recent 2019 national study by researchers from the USGS and the EPA looked at 50 runoff events
in 21 sites across the United States in 17 states. Unfortunately, Florida was not one of them.
The 69 contaminants frequently reported included 21 pesticides, 11 household chemicals,
five nonprescription pharmaceuticals, three plant and animal sterols, and two prescription
pharmaceuticals. Little is known about the potential chemical exposure from organic and
inorganic contaminants in urban stormwater runoff or the potential effects on groundwater surface
water quality or ecosystem health.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. It's 11:55. It's probably, unless the
Planning Commission feels otherwise, an appropriate time for us to take a lunch break. And
hearing no objection, let's stand in recess until 1:00 p.m. for lunch.
Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had from 11:55 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
(Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.)
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Jenkins. We're reconvened, and we'll continue
with public speaking. Who's next?
MS. JENKINS: Chair, your next public speaker is Judith Hushon.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Hushon?
MS. HUSHON: Coming, coming.
MS. JENKINS: And Judith will be followed by Liesa Priddy.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: Well, we might have to have some -- let's see.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. When you're ready, ma'am.
MS. HUSHON: Okay. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Judy Hushon, and I have been
associated with the Conservancy and League of Women Voters, but I'm really here today wearing a
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
different hat. I'm wearing the hat of the ex-chair of the Environmental Advisory Council which
heard the five-year amendments back in '09. So I'm kind of turning back the clock a little bit since
I had a lot of knowledge of what went on back at that point.
And as you know, the BCC decided 3-2 in a contentious meeting to adopt and then not to
fund the data and analysis. And they were -- this was at a time when, of course, we were in the
recession and there was no money running around in the county to fund this. They asked the
developers if they wanted to do it. They said no. So we sit with what we had in 2002.
But there was one thing done at that time. Nancy Linnan hired Carlton Fields to tell the
county what data and analysis are required, and they turned out a memo, which I did send to you all
just so you could see it and read it yourselves. It's a good memo, and it's still exactly as valid as it
was on the date it was written.
In 2017, you know, we had tried to move -- we're trying to move forward again. There's a
requirement. The law that governs all of Growth Management Plan is Statute 163.3177. There's
a section that covers data and analysis, because you have to do that. The data must be consistently
used across the various planning elements. Statutes states the data required for the analysis must
be taken from professionally acceptable sources, et cetera.
Then it lists in Rule 9J5 these points. And you'll see there are a lot of them. So I thought
I wouldn't just sit up here and rattle them off. I put them up visually, and I also sent those points
to you.
These are a lot of different points that it's just to make sure that the best data are
being -- best and most currently -- I should say most current, because Nancy Linnan's memo says
that. So now if you submit -- you couldn't use the data that you were planning to submit back in
2010. You'd have to send 2020 data on population estimates and things like that.
And you'd have to update your existing public resources. Different things are available
today than were available then. And some of these are interesting, the extent to which urban
sprawl is encouraged, whether development is proposed as walkable, connected, and whether a
range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation is provided.
Provision of water and energy, provides for recreational needs. These are all things that
are in the statute that are supposed to be in our Growth Management Plan, and we're supposed to be
ensuring that every development that comes forward has these things properly incorporated in it.
If you do a major redo of your Growth Management Plan, you have to answer these
questions. This is the data and analysis. We have done enough of a change that we will have to
answer and submit these -- this data and analysis. So whether you decide to move forward or
not -- I mean, if you decide to move forward, just know that it doesn't become law until this
happens, because it didn't happen before. I mean, that's what I'm -- I'm just trying to make
everybody aware that there's one more step in this. I don't think the county is particularly feeling
flush at the moment either at this time. So I hear laughter over here from county staff.
So they're not looking forward to it. It was estimated to cost $90,000 back then. My
guess is it's well over 200,000 to do this study today. I'm just putting that out.
So until a comprehensive data analysis is prepared --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you're right at five minutes, I'm sorry. Try to wrap up in
the next few seconds.
MS. HUSHON: I am. I have one sentence.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. HUSHON: Until a comprehensive data and analysis is prepared, these amendments
should not be adopted nor should any new communities be approved for development under these
rules. We need a zoning in progress. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Question for you, Ms. Hushon.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Judy -- well, I'll ask staff because, of course,
this -- Nancy Linnan and Marti Chumbler were both from Carlton Fields, so they were both -- they
were -- just to correct the record.
MS. HUSHON: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were both from Carlton Fields, and they were hired
by the county as consultants to develop the implementing plan.
MS. HUSHON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'll ask staff -- and I -- clearly, this letter recognizes it
but, of course, there's no longer a DCA.
MS. HUSHON: No, but there is something equivalent.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Something equivalent. My question to staff, is this
criteria required today as part of the application process, and everything that was cited in this letter,
does it need to be accomplished before we can forward any of the Comp Plan amendments to the
State for review?
MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, I would point you to the legal considerations on Page 6 of
your staff report --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: -- that provides what your considerations are to move a Comprehensive
Plan forward, and the data that is required in there may include, but not be limited to, survey
studies, community goals and visions, and other data available at the time of adoption and plan
amendment. Those studies have been provided by both the Five-Year Review Committee and the
white paper that was completed as well. That provides the data and analysis for these
amendments.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, in conclusion --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: 9J5 was repealed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and that was the other question, is 9J5, is that still
applicable today?
MS. JENKINS: No, sir, it was repealed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought. I thought 9J5 was repealed. So
it's no longer applicable.
So -- but -- so from staff's perspective, what is supposed to be submitted you believe is
being or has been submitted to support these amendments?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. HUSHON: Okay.
MS. PRIDDY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners. My name
is Liesa Priddy, and my family is the third largest landowner in the county. We are part of the
Eastern Collier Property Owners group that has an intense interest in the future of our property,
both financially and as stewards of the land. We operate JB Ranch, a beef cattle operation, in the
southeast portion of the county and have done so since the 1940s.
For perspective on where we're located, our property was noted on the panther telemetry
map that was shown previously by Meredith and by Brad, and probably where the majority of those
telemetry points are located was on our property. We're pretty much ground zero for panther
populations.
I tell you this to emphasize that we have skin in the game. The majority of our property is
a sending area. While many here today are concerned about how the growth of Collier County
proceeds, let me be emphatic that no one is as concerned as we are.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Probably of all the people that are -- have already spoken or will speak to you today, I'm
probably the only person here that actually lives and works in one of the sending areas of the
RLSA. We aren't developers. Our industry is agriculture.
It would be fine with us if not one more house was built in Collier County, but that's not
reality. Reality is that growth will continue, but it is the responsibility of all of us that it be done
responsibly. Right now we can build one house per five acres, just as Golden Gate has been
developed, but who wants that? We don't. So for us, and we believe for the citizens of Collier
County, the best alternative is the RLSA program and the enhancements that the five-year-review
implementation would bring.
We're one of the property owners that acted in good faith on the RLSA, placing over 4,700
acres of our ranch into Stewardship Sending Area No. 12 and relinquishing our development rights.
The value that we receive from this are stewardship credits that we can market to an SRA sponsor.
We need this program to continue to work for that value to be realized.
As you know, RLSA was established 17 years ago to address natural resource protection,
preservation of ag lands, and urban sprawl in response to a judge's final order in 1999. Part of the
RLSA requirement is to have five-year reviews. This was completed in 2009 after exhaustive
work but was never implemented.
Nicole Johnson with the Conservancy was quoted as saying, we want to protect listed
species and their habitats to preserve agriculture and to ensure that urban sprawl is avoided. Well,
that's what the property owners in the RLSA want, too.
She also said that a lot has changed since the program launched in 2002 and that we now
know a lot more. I totally agree, and that's why five-year reviews are part of the program. The
review doesn't mean toss the baby out with the bathwater, but to incorporate enhancements such as
the ones which have been recommended. This isn't a kids' game where one child doesn't get their
way and cries for a do-over.
To even consider a moratorium would be akin to an adult do-over. Please don't condone a
strategy of delay in order to achieve special interest desires to get their own way.
Ten years after the first five-year review was not implemented, here we are finally moving
through the transmittal and adoption process that should have been done many years ago. I appeal
to you to support your professional staff's recommendations and the direction from the Board of
County Commissioners to transmit these GMP amendments for the RLSA overlay.
Thank you. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see anybody lit up. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick question. So you -- cattle is your business --
MS. PRIDDY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- primarily?
MS. PRIDDY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Did that qualify for these ag credits, or is that only for crops?
MS. PRIDDY: It's my understanding that it would, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: It would. So you might be eligible for additional credits or if --
MS. PRIDDY: I'm not an expert on the details of it, but it is my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please.
MS. JENKINS: Your next speaker, Mr. Chair, is Rae Ann Burton, followed by Loralee
LeBoeuf.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Could I quickly ask Anita to clarify whether cattle operations
would be considered eligible for an ag credit.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Fry, the ag credits would apply to any open lands. So they'd have to
be designated as open for the ag credits to apply.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: So already in the SSA, no additional credits -- you're not
eligible for additional credits?
MS. JENKINS: Not under the ag credit.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Not under the ag credit.
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. The ag credits apply to open. They don't apply to HSA, FSA, or
WRA.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Burton, go ahead.
MS. BURTON: Good afternoon. My name is Rae Ann Burton. I live at 2530 31st
Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, Rural Golden Gate Estates.
This is my second visit here in regarding to Item 3. I'm a single retired senior, property
owner, one of the smallest homeowners fighting to protect my home.
This benefits the developers to build as many luxury developments they can squeeze out of
their land. They only care about the bottom line and profit because they don't live here and it's not
their backyard.
RLSA claims it's created to prevent estate sprawl, but many building permits are for site
homes for developers' proposed communities.
There is a constant request for rezoning of currently RLSA to build more
complex -- Rivergrass, for one -- luxury communities. This restructure gives even more credits to
use to build. What lands have they restored?
It states more protection of endangered Florida panther and the 15 others species, yet they
build insensitive wildlife habitat claiming no wildlife but then state a fence and a wall will be built
to protect the community.
Developers -- developments change water flow, absorb less stormwater than the Estate
homeowners' acreage because of compact buildings, streets, and driveways. Even the construction
of these communities have impacted water quality within proper water runoff of sites, polluting the
canals. I know I've reported them. They don't adhere to the requirements now, and this gives
even more credits without guaranteed restoration. What guarantee is there that these amendments
will be honored? If there were no massive developments to the destruction of wildlife habitat or
wetlands, there would be no need for restoration.
It is said these amendments aren't for new developments, but it will impact current and
future ones. The developers are currently requesting rezoning, less requirements, and less
responsibility and infrastructure. They have the right to build on their land, but not at the cost of
ours.
Don't approve the RLS as it is with possible plans to be adjusted later. It should be
adjusted, completed now with less credits, more protection of environmental, and consideration of
the Estate homeowners that live here.
PBS on the 2nd of September had Elm -- I'm sorry I can't pronounce his name -- a program
on Wild of [sic] Florida. He stressed need or preservation for wildlife and future generations.
Uncontrolled massive growth destroys water sources, creates traffic congestion. It will make the
Estates a hub surrounded by compact luxury communities destroying unique rural Naples and
possible tourist trade. We don't want to be the suburb of multiple communities.
Thank you, and keep safe.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ms. Burton, I just have -- I just have one item. You
mentioned -- I just would like to correct the record, and you may dispute that. But you mentioned
rezoning. This is not a zoning action. I want to stress that again. The zoning already
exists -- you have to go to the microphone.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
The zoning already exists, and the applications for either villages or townships are -- the
zoning is already there and approved. When they come in for the applications, all we're doing is
reviewing those applications and applying the rules. We're not rezoning. So I just wanted to
make sure you understood that. It is not a rezoning action. The zoning already --
MS. BURTON: This one is not, but they have gone in and -- I've gone to all your
meetings.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MS. BURTON: They come in, and they request rezoning so they can make residential
and agriculture commercial.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I'm just stating, it is not a rezone.
MS. BURTON: That's why I stated that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Sorry I didn't see your light on.
MS. LeBOEUF: Hello. My name is Lorilee LeBoeuf. I'm a resident of Naples. I am a
member of the Conservancy. I'm also a member Audubon of Corkscrew Swamp and a member of
the League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women. I'm here today
to address the benefits of smart growth and why it is the right choice for the RLSA.
What the county residents want: County's own Community Character Plan completed in
2001 shows our residents want traditional neighborhoods with tree-lined streets, interconnectivity,
and access to nature. I have provided on an attachment a link to that study so that you may look at
it.
Secondly, the RSLA [sic] needs towns where people can live, work, and play. Collier
County is approximately the size of two Rhode Islands. If you exclude the eastern conservation
lands, it is the size of Delaware. That's quite large; think about it. But one cannot imagine
Delaware with just six small little communities and municipalities like Collier County. More
importantly, you cannot imagine people commuting from one side of Delaware to the other seeking
employment, yet that is the dynamic of Collier County. What the RLSA needs is a town and
community in which people can work, live, and play without community. A town, not a strip
center.
Density is important. High density compact buildings -- building provides higher tax
return per acre than lower density building. Low-density building requires more roads, sewers,
water, and services per acre than high density; therefore, compact communities provide a greater
cost benefit to the taxpayers than a sprawling single-family development.
Additionally, compact communities use a smaller footprint where the remaining lands,
normally filled with sprawl, are now available for recreation and conservation in order to avoid
sprawl and another Rivergrass.
I am recommending three provisions: Reinstate the word "require" in the Land
Development Code on minimum densities within one-quarter mile of the town center. Policy
47.1, do not increase the towns by 1,000 acres. Policy 4.72 [sic], do not increase the village size
from 300 to 1,500 acres.
Aggregation. I'm not going to go into a lot of depth because I know other
people -- speakers will address this, but having a series of villages with no town center is contrary
to what the RLSA needs to avoid mass communicating -- commuting.
Comprehensive land analysis. Smart growth won't work if you don't know what you need.
As recommended by Carlton Fields in 2010, I request a comprehensive land-use study for the
RLSA.
I want to talk about the hidden costs of infrastructure. Strong Towns, a non-profit that
focuses on local finance and land use, recently published an article entitled, "The Growth Ponzi
Scheme." The author states, as with any Ponzi scheme, new growth provides the illusion of
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
prosperity. In the near term, revenues grow while the corresponding maintenance obligations
which are never counted on the public balance sheet are a generation away.
The American Society of Civil Engineers noted that over a lifetime a city frequently
receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar spent on infrastructure.
If you take all the lands that are available to purchase in the RLSA, in the long run it's
going to be much cheaper than any of the amount of money you're going to spend on infrastructure.
That's just a projection.
So I'm telling you that the infrastructure comes at a very high cost, and governments are
losing money constantly. It's like paying forward.
I'm providing here a list of all the references that I have given you including that article,
which I think you would like to read. If we want the RLSA to be cost effective for taxpayers,
livable, and sustainable, please make the requested changes to the RLSA amendments I've asked
for.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. LeBOEUF: If you'd like a copy of the attachment or --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, sure. I don't see anyone is lit up, and I don't have any
questions or comments at this time either. Put it up here, and we'll pass it out.
MS. LeBOEUF: There you go.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
MS. LeBOEUF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please.
MS. JENKINS: Your next speaker is Tina Matte, followed by Neale Montgomery.
MS. MATTE: I'm going to cede my time to Neale.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: To whom?
MS. MATTE: To Neale Montgomery.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Neale
Montgomery. I'm a member of the Florida Bar, specifically a long-term member of the
environmental and land-use section. And I represent ECPO, and I'm here to discuss some of the
legal issues that have been raised.
At the first hearing and today, we've heard a lot of discussion about Carlton Fields. And
Mr. Schmitt beat me to it, but he pointed out that 9J5 was eliminated in 2011. And Nancy Linnan,
Linda Shelly, me and others, worked on edits to the Growth Management Act at that time when 9J5
was eliminated. So that list of things you're supposed do is not true, is not legally required.
And one of the asks that you've been presented is that you need to do a needs study. I
would refer you to Section 163.3248. That's the Rural Land Stewardship statute, and it says, in the
Rural Lands Stewardship Areas, the future land use overlay may not, mandatory language, require
a demonstration of need based on population projections or any other factors. Thus, Item No. 5 of
the Conservancy ask, asking you to do a needs analysis, is illegal.
It has suggested at the last hearing and referenced today that you should do more to
eliminate the base density of one per five. You can't. Again, I'm going to reference the RLSA
statute. And I've highlighted the sections for you.
You may not, again mandatory language, displace the underlying permitted uses or the
density or intensity of land uses assigned to the land within the RLSA that existed before the
creation of the RLSA. So those folks who are worried about sprawl, sprawl existed. That's why
the study was done. You may not take away one unit per five acre. To do so would be illegal.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It would be a taking.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Bert Harris and I say a few other things, yes, sir.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
And there's also been concerns about listed species, and I really appreciated Brad and
Meredith's presentation today and Mr. Schmitt's questions because, again, in the RLSA statute it
talks about the fact that an applicant must coordinate with each appropriate local, state, or federal
agency to determine if adequate provisions have been made to protect listed species and their
habitat. And when this evaluation is done, it must be done on their RLSA as a whole. And that
makes a lot of sense if you think about Meredith's map where she showed you where, you know,
the dots specifically are. It wouldn't make sense to do it on a piece-by-piece basis. It makes
sense to look at it as a whole, and that's what the statute requires.
You've been asked to rebalance. When you do that, you need to think about what the
RLSA statute says. One, it is a long-term incentive-based program, and that incentive part's
important. By law, the total amount of stewardship credits within the RLSA must be sufficient to
achieve the long-term visions and goals.
So when you hear people say, reduce the number of credits and increase the amount of
preserve, it doesn't work that way. They have to be balanced. You have to incentivize the owner,
because if the incentives aren't sufficient, you're never going to get to the other end.
In fact, the Florida Statutes provide that in addition to stewardship credits, landowners
should be provided with other incentives which includes, among other things, compensation.
This is my second hearing, and I've yet to hear anybody suggest, when they talk about
reducing credits, that the landowners should be provided compensation. But to the Chairman's
point, if you're going to reduce credits, you're going to have to consider compensation.
Subparagraph 10 --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have about a minute, ma'am.
MS. MONTGOMERY: -- of the Rural Land Stewardship --
MS. MATTE: She's got my time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, that's right. Sorry.
MS. MONTGOMERY: This section constitutes an overlay of land-use options that
provide economic and regulatory incentives for landowners outside of established and planned
urban service areas to conserve and manage vast areas of land for the benefit of the Estates citizens
and the natural environment.
Now, there's been a lot of focus on saving the land for the public, which is a wonderful
thing, but you still have to provide economic and regulatory incentives in a way that does -- that
maintains and enhances the asset value. If you look at the statute, it specifically says that the
credits and the incentives have to maintain or increase the value of the property. So for those who
look at that as a bad thing, I'm sorry, but the statute requires you to consider that.
There's also been some suggestion that the existing program is flawed and not consistent
with the state statute. I'd refer you to the last paragraph, Subparagraph 11 in the RLSA statute.
And what you'll see there is a recognition by the state legislature that Collier County's program was
adopted before the statute was adopted, and it specifically says Collier County's consistent with
this. There's also a specific reference to the fact that the Governor, the cabinet, and the legislature
considered the fact that those amendments, the ones that are in place, are consistent with this
chapter, this chapter which refers to 163. That means your state legislature, your Governor, and
your cabinet found the existing program is consistent with Chapter 163. So the suggestion there
needs to be a do-over is wrong and not legal.
And I would submit for the issue of affordable housing, equal protection would indicate
you have to treat everyone the same. So affordable housing is a problem countywide. And a
program that's going to be implemented should be implemented countywide. And it's as it relates
to aggregation, that's been borrowed from 9J2 for DRIs and it's being improperly requested and
applied in this instance.
Thank you.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there's some questions. Commissioner Schmitt has one.
Before --
If I may, Joe.
Tell me, again -- and I think you said this, but I didn't catch it. Who are you representing
today?
MS. MONTGOMERY: ECPO.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're representation ECPO, okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Eighty-five percent of the landowners, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. A question in regards to -- and I want to reiterate,
again, and you stated it, but this way in no way, shape, or form circumvents any of the required
laws, the Clear Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And let me just say that in the last couple years there's been a
provision adopted that applies to both counties and to cities that says local governments should put
in any development order that they have that the approval of this zoning or this, you know,
development order, doesn't obviate the need for you to go get permits from federal and state
agencies.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. They're still required to get federal and state
agencies through the --
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- federal process and through the ERP process through
the South Florida Water Management District.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's Environmental Resource Permit. I'm using
acronyms.
How many years have the landowners been working on a Habitat Conservation Plan; do
you know?
MS. MONTGOMERY: When it gets past a decade, I quit counting, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It should -- I think it's around six or seven years they've
been -- the ACP, which is required by -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife is asking for a comprehensive.
That's why I'm asking the question, because you mentioned it. But it is a comprehensive Habitat
Conservation Plan for the entire area, the 193,000 acres, not just the SRA; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I mean -- and this goes way back to when -- you probably
remember when Big Cypress submitted, and then they had to -- they withdrew when they started to
look at the habitat as a whole. So, honestly, I can't remember how long that's been, but it's been a
long time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I received an email, and somebody insinuated
that the administration was allowing for some kind of truncated process to circumvent the NEPA
process, which is totally incorrect. I mean, NEPA's law. You have to follow the law unless
Congress changes the law.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I was going to say, local governments can't --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And local governments can't usurp the law.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, the other question then -- I believe I read in -- and
I -- just since you're representing the landowners, the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which
was issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife in 2018, recognized the history and the importance of the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
RLSA.
So from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife perspective, at least it was my understanding -- maybe
other speakers will speak -- can refute, but it was my understanding U.S. Fish and Wildlife is very
supportive of this. And I would anticipate that, part of the HCP, that there will be significant, and
I mean significant, assessments of PHUs, Panther Habitat Units, at a very significant cost. I can
give you some examples for smaller developments.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I can, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I would assume that there's going to be significant
impact in regards to PHUs for any developments. And I don't know if -- if you would elaborate on
that.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I'll just give you one example. There's a parcel of
property south of Germain Arena or Hertz Arena north of Miromar Lakes. It had a Corps permit.
It expired. So they had to go back after 2010 and get a new one. Now, it's completely surrounded
by development. 1.4 million just for that small parcel.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The PHUs. Yeah, that's about right. About right for --
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's say --
MS. MONTGOMERY: But that gives you an automatic --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- about a 3,000-acre development. It's going to be well
over in excess of a million dollars.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The PHUs.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Unfortunately, I know about this stuff. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
I have a few questions for you.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: First of all, is it ECPO's position that its members have vested
legal rights in the current GMP language with respect to future sending and receiving areas?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is ECPO's position that they have vested rights. They have
moved forward in reliance on the program. They have worked through the process and the
five-year plan, and to the extent that they've agreed to those changes, they're willing to move
forward. But they are not willing to divest themselves. Thus, an earlier question that you asked
Mr. Hutchcraft about the March 9th document, ECPO submitted an official response of their
comments and concerns. So they are on record as to their concerns with that particular draft.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've seen that, and, of course, that resulted in the revised staff
proposal, which is much more favorable, wouldn't you say, to ECPO?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's much more consistent with the RLSA statute that says there
has to be appropriate incentives.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So your position is that, really, as a result of vested rights law, the
only things that we could change in the GMP are things that ECPO approves of; is that your
position?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. I think I would refer more to Chapter 70 in the Bert Harris
Act which says, essentially, you have a bundle of rights, and if you inadvertently burden those
rights, which is a much, actually, stronger test, that can be compensable. So the local government
can do anything it wants, but it's subject to challenge.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Let's see. The present owners lived for a
number of years under the DRI requirements, which were, I would say, strict; certainly reasonable
and, I think, fair to the taxpayers on the point of aggregation and also fair to the county at large
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
with respect to affordable housing where specific numbers were used.
Having lived under these rules, now they've been repealed. It seems like that's sort of an
unexpected opportunity that the landowners can get. Is it their -- is it their position that they want
to retain that benefit, and they don't want to go back to what they had to live under with the DRI?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, sir, I know you know that the DRI rules have been changed
and the thresholds have been changed, and they've been significantly eliminated. So for all intent
and purposes, DRIs as they used to be don't currently exist, and even the affordable housing rule
was always difficult because they were using the East Central Florida methodology, which nobody
liked. And so they decided we shouldn't use that anymore because everybody didn't like the fact
that it looked at a specific point in time.
So it would be hard to say that we're trying to get out under a rule that the government told
us they didn't want us to use anymore.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the government -- the state government told you that you
didn't have to. They didn't say they didn't want you to.
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. The Regional Planning Council, which was made up of all
the local governments, here locally submitted that they were concerned about continuing to use the
East Central Florida methodology, which had been the long-term established methodology.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not the government, though. That was an interest group.
Now, with respect to the concept of smart growth, are you familiar with the Rivergrass project?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I know it exists. It's not my project, so I'm not intimately
familiar with it, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're not in a position to say whether you have an
opinion that it's an example of smart growth or dumb growth?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The current GMP is worded so as to encourage smart
growth and discourage urban sprawl. Your client, I take it, would resist or does oppose
strengthening those words to "require" and "prohibit"; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would submit that 163.3177 has the urban sprawl rule in it.
And within that, there's, if you do four of these items, then you're deemed not to be urban sprawl.
Our position is that the RLSA, as it exists and as it's proposed to be amended, discourages urban
sprawl because it meets four of those factors.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. That's as far as the state statute was willing to go with
respect to burdening counties, to encourage and discourage, but that is not -- clearly not, under any
rule of statutory interpretation, a statement that the county can't do more if it wanted to.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Urban sprawl is a creature of statute and legislation; otherwise,
anybody can define it anyway they want. We're bound under growth management. Which we're
talking about growth management amendments. We're bound by 163.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, put that aside for a moment unless you're saying that the
county has -- are you saying that the county has no latitude to require --
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm saying the county has to follow the law.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, okay. Thank you.
Now, did the county have any latitude to insist upon smart growth to prohibit urban
sprawl? Are you saying it lacks jurisdiction to do that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The county is required to meet the urban sprawl Rule 163.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May the county go beyond Rule 163?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not going to offer that opinion. That would come from your
County Attorney as to whether or not --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to know what your client's --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to know what your client's position is on that.
MS. MONTGOMERY: My client's position is that you should follow 163. We have four
of the factors. We discourage urban sprawl.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And no more? The county's prohibited from going
further than 163 to require; is that your client's position?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not going to offer what the county's allowed to do. I'm
suggesting my client's position is that the growth management amendments need to comply with
163, and as it exists and as they're drafted, we meet the urban sprawl rule, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're not answering my question and -- but I think that's a
sort of an answer of itself. So I'll let that one go for now.
And I believe that's all I have for now.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And maybe the Chairman, we can discuss this. But we
keep on throwing this word around, "smart growth," and I -- what do we mean by smart growth?
Are we talking about the Community Character Plan that was developed by Dover-Kohl in 2001?
Are we talking about --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's please not --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What are we -- what are we -- what do we define as smart
growth? Because that's sort of like if I bump into it, I'll know it, and I'll see it, but somebody
describe it. And I can tell you from Dover-Kohl -- just so I could finish. Dover-Kohl, which was
a study commissioned by the county and was identified as a Community Character Plan, our first
attempt to use that was a remodeling of Naples Park. It went nowhere and hasn't been even looked
at since. So it was a complete failure. That's what I just want to know. When we throw this
term around, what do we mean?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good point, and I appreciate that. It is a term that
already has found its way into the GMP.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so has urban sprawl. And in both cases I would call for a
more detailed definition which rightfully belongs in the LDC, not the GMP. So we really don't
have -- I mean, we're all -- we all have our own points of view as to what it means, and I would
personally say we can't get to that level of detail in the GMP. But I would also say that there's
absolutely no reason in the world, and I don't think this council has offered anything, to say that the
county is prohibited by Section 136 or any other state law from changing the word "encourage" to
"require" and "discourage" to "prohibit."
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would say this --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead.
MS. MONTGOMERY: -- that you're right, the term isn't defined. And so you all know
that famous quote from the Supreme Court about obscenities. It says, I know it when I see it.
And, unfortunately, that's the situation in which we find ourselves. Everybody has a different idea
or concept, and they know it when they see it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that, we hope, will change when we come to the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Well, it's like the developments. When you're
not there, everybody says we want nice, you know, front porches and walkable communities. But
the market wants -- everybody wants to live at the end of the dead-end street at the end of the
cul-de-sac. So it's the dilemma between what people think should be and what the market sells.
And what was the final opinion on the study that was -- was that an independent study on
smart growth that was part of our papers? What study was that? It was in one of our pages.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MS. JENKINS: You may be referring to the Smart Growth America that --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MS. JENKINS: The Conservancy initiated that statement, not --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that was the Conservancy, which was pretty much
refuted by staff; is that correct?
MS. JENKINS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And I would say --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, please.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I thought I was going to answer his question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: He didn't ask you one. You may still have a chance to speak.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi. So I guess my question for you is this. You know, we
have the amendments that are before us. I believe your position is the ECPO is in support of the
amendments as proposed?
MS. MONTGOMERY: As proposed currently, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: There certainly have been some suggestions for fine-tuning,
modifications of those. I mean, obviously, there's been a suggestion to start over with the analysis
and kind of redo -- a redo. But if it was to move forward with more fine-tuning suggestions, is the
ECPO in a stance of negotiating a good faith to -- you know, to work out additional changes that
might be needed so that it passes this board and the County Commission?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I think there's probably more than one answer to that. One
answer is, ECPO feels like they've been in negotiations or been in discussions since the five-year
analysis, and they've been waiting this entire time, and they went through the restudy analysis, and
at this point in time, we're tweaking. It may be acceptable, but it starts to feel like you're
negotiating against yourself. We still have to remember that you have to retain the asset value of
the property, and the incentives have to be sufficient. And everything I've heard alluded to
suggests saving more land and reducing incentives. And if that's what it boils down to, then I
don't know that you're going to have support of ECPO.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm very sensitive to the fact that this is a voluntary program.
You are the landowners. We depend on you for this to be a success. So, you know, I'm only
thinking in terms of a partnership as we move forward to try to get things right so that they can
move forward. I believe a -- you know, I was told a long time ago, probably by my parent, that a
decision to do nothing is a decision.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a bigger decision in some cases than to do something. And
then the paralysis by analysis is another thing that has rung true in my life at times, and maybe a
few other people in here.
So I guess I'm just trying to understand your position, because I think we've had a lot of
viewpoints expressed. Some are more of a tweaking standpoint. Certainly -- who knows. We
have this board. You have the County Commission which ultimately makes the decision. There
may be some adjustments. I don't -- I haven't heard any commissioners up here suggesting that we
take away property rights or anything like that. So that's certainly not the terms I'm thinking in.
But just in the spirit of cooperation to get this moving forward is my question to you.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Obviously, without knowing specifically what the language is or
what the changes are, it would be hard to say, sure, they agree to that. There's some concern and
trepidation, again, in light of how long we've been in the process.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
And I think Meredith and Brad pointed out earlier that these changes improve the program,
the ones that are suggested, and ECPO is on board with these changes that improve the program, so
we're hopeful that the folks who want a do-over or who aren't as mindful as you are about property
rights won't carry the day.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Gotcha. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please.
MS. JENKINS: Your next speaker, and it appears the last speaker in the room, is
Mr. Alan Reynolds.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have this other podium, Mr. Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: I've got some slides.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Hello. One good thing about being a speaker is, I guess, you get to
take your mask off for a little bit. I'm Al Reynolds. I'm a professional planner. I'm a fellow of
the American Institute of Certified Planners. I've been practicing planning for 42 years here in
Collier County. I've been involved in planning many of the communities that you live in and work
in. I was the planner on Ave Maria.
This is probably getting close to the hundredth meeting or workshop I've attended on this
subject going back to 1998.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, are you speaking on behalf of anybody?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please identify them.
MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely. I'm speaking on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property
Owners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: One of the hallmarks of Rural Lands from the beginning is that it was
a data-driven process. And I'm going to date myself a little bit and quote Sergeant Joe Friday from
Dragnet. Some of you may remember. "Just the facts." So I'm just going to talk about facts. If
you want to ask me about opinions, I'll do that afterwards, but let me go through some facts very
quickly.
So the first fact is that, to date, property owners in Eastern Collier County have put
approximately a third of their private property into stewardship easement, and they've done that in
anticipation that there will be a value to be received from the credits that they earned by giving up
their valuable private property rights. So not all of those credits have been used. The majority
are still being banked for future use. So keeping this program functioning properly is essential so
that property owners that have already made commitments realize that value.
I think you've seen this before about how far we have come and where we are. I'm just
going to note that going way back to 2002, there was an estimate of how many acres it would take
to accommodate growth in Collier County, and that estimate was 6,700 acres. And as we stand
here today, there are 6,682 acres that have been approved for stewardship. So there was some
good work that was done in the initial formulation of this program and some pretty clairvoyant
work in that regard.
Conservation Collier is an outstanding program, taxpayer funded. I think it's been noted
before that the amount of land that has been put into conservation and agricultural protection by
this program is 10 times what has been done by the Conservation Collier Program. So incentives
work, and they are working right now to protect land that could never be protected through a
purchase program under any kind of a scenario that would be supported by taxpayers.
So next fact is that in the nearly two decades since this program was first adopted, there
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
has been exactly zero development that would be considered sprawl. Not a single acre of land has
been subdivided into a five-acre lot in that 20 years. And what we have instead is we have a new
town and a university that was designed using the smart growth principles that are incorporated in
your Land Development Code. That town has 2,500 new homes. It has a nearly $1 billion tax
base to date, and it's only 25 percent built. It generates over $8 million of annual ad valorem
revenues to Collier County.
It has 1,600 new high-wage jobs at Arthrex. It has an 1,100-student university that is only
going to continue to grow, and all of the infrastructure in the Town of Ave Maria, all the water,
sewer, drainage, parks, sidewalks were all funded by private interests and not by the taxpayers of
Collier County. And that's probably about a half a billion dollars worth of infrastructure that was
put in the ground. That, in part, is the definition of smart growth.
The next fact is that if the currently adopted program is fully implemented, which means
that the property owners continue to support it, we'll have 90,000 acres of land being put into
stewardship easements to protect valuable natural resources, including completing the connections
from the Corkscrew Swamp marsh all the way down to the panther preserve of the Camp Keais
Strand and the Okaloacoochee State Forest. It's extraordinary. So long as the property owners
continue to use the program, this is what the future of Eastern Collier County looks like.
So let's just look at what happens if we don't have a Rural Lands Stewardship Program that
is supported by property owners. Okay. That's what the map looks like. That's the public land
that has been acquired through Conservation Collier and other programs over that same 20 and
more years.
I'm going to skip a couple of these, because the time has been curtailed. We thought that
we were being given a little bit more time. But people have already talked about the panther
corridors. That's a new feature that is part of this set of amendments. It's a critical one to create
some linkages for the Florida panther. It requires federal approval before those corridors are put
in place.
But I do want to talk about the ag credit, because, as has been said before, this is probably
the most fundamental enhancement to the program. Forty thousand acres, which is an area about
the size of Golden Gate, is going to be protected with that credit using incentives without any
public-funded purchase.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Reynolds, you're over five minutes now. Can you start
wrapping it up?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. If you can give me maybe another couple minutes, I'll try
to -- I'll try to get to the finish. I've waited 10 years to able to speak --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're going to get some questions and comments, I think,
so...
MR. REYNOLDS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But try to wrap it up as soon as you can.
MR. REYNOLDS: Fair enough.
This map just shows, again, what exists in the adopted program today, which is the
baseline rights, converted to 40,000 acres of ag protection. That increases the amount of total
protection to three out of every four acres in Eastern Collier County.
So let me just say that -- maybe the last fact that I'll go because you've asked me to wrap it
up. I stood in this room 10 years ago in April, along with a lot of other folks, and before the BCC
and on the record there was a commitment that was -- that was asked by Commissioner Fred Coyle.
And that commitment was to accept a 45,000-acre cap and a 404,000 credit recalibration, which is
identical to what your staff is proposing today.
Went around the room, asked people if they would agree to that. Eastern Collier Property
Owners said yes, the committee said yes, Audubon said yes, Wildlife Federation said yes, and the
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Conservancy said yes. So we are standing here today honoring a commitment that we made in
April 2009, and we would really like the Conservancy to follow the lead of the Wildlife Federation
and Audubon and Eastern Collier Property Owners, and reaffirm that commitment that was made
10 years ago.
And this is just the last point because -- and I think your staff can address it, but there's
been a lot of press given to the Smart Growth America study. So if you read your white paper
you'll see that the comments from staff -- your professional staff on that was that it was found to be
completely deficient and unfortunate.
And so that's not the kind of study that I think we want to be citing as why we're going to
have sprawl in Collier County and the extraordinary taxpayer impacts that have been so widely
quoted.
So with that, I will be pleased to answer some questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is lit up now, so I'll lead off.
First of all, you're familiar with Rivergrass, I'm sure.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is it -- in your opinion, is that an example of sprawl?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, Mr. Fryer, you're an attorney, and you understand that the
Conservancy is in litigation with Collier County over Rivergrass, so hopefully you would agree
with me that it would be inappropriate to be making comments with Rivergrass on the record in
this hearing, so I would decline --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I don't agree with you, but you certainly may decline to
answer if you don't wish, but I don't agree with you.
All right. The situation, as I see it, is that the vested rights now with respect to
future -- and let me preface this by saying that to the extent we're talking about SSAs 1 through 16,
I think -- I think a strong case can be made that that is vested. I'm looking out for what might
happen with future SSAs and SRAs. Is it your position that the present owners of -- that are
members of ECPO have vested rights in the current language with respect to future development
areas?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to let you rely on Neale Montgomery's
answer about vested rights, because that's a legal term. What I will tell you is that all of the SSAs
that have been approved to date would be vested under the program at an exchange rate of eight
credits per acre, and the proposal is that future Stewardship Sending Areas that will be approved
after the adoption of those amendments would require 10 credits per acre. So there is a change in
the credit calibration for the future SSAs, but the current ones would be vested under that eight.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That was the staff August 3rd version, but the 9 March
version had it up to what, 14, 15? What was that number?
MR. REYNOLDS: I don't recall, but staff may.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Fourteen.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: How many?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Fourteen.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fourteen, yeah. So, really, it's a step down from where we were
in March 9.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, my recollection is March 9 was the first draft of GOPs that was
circulated for public comment, and I think staff received public comment, certainly, from us and a
whole lot of other folks, and that led to a second round of amendments and a final round, which are
the ones that are before you today. So the March 9 amendments were -- you know, are not on the
table today. That was the starting point.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's been a fair amount said in previous hearings and also in
the news media with respect to the sequence of events in 2002, and particularly as they pertain to
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
two specific provisions in the RLSA.
You were there. You were on the scene working, I guess, for WilsonMiller; is that
correct?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then that company was acquired by Stantec, and you're
working for Stantec now?
MR. REYNOLDS: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: My predecessor, Chairman Strain, raised the point in the Planning
Commission transmittal hearing that these two sections were added after all the public input had
been brought to an end. Do you recall that sequence of events?
MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please give me your version of it.
MR. REYNOLDS: I will. And, actually, even though this has been asked and answered
many, many times, we can go through it again. And I figured it might come up, so I've got a
couple of slides just to help frame the point.
So there are two kinds of credits in the program. There are base credits, and there are
bonus credits. So in 2002, the base credits, which are the credits that a property owner gets by
giving up their development rights -- those are base credits -- were estimated, and that estimate was
used to go through a credit calibration of how many acres would be generated by that number of
credits.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, sir. And I -- and you can continue along this line if
you wish, but I just want you to know you're not answering my question. So let me -- maybe it
was because I didn't state it well.
What I'm concerned about is that it appears a few days prior to the adoption of the RLSA
that Policies 1.21 and 3.11 were amended, increasing the number of stewardship credits in the
system, and that action took place after all the public input had been brought to an end.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's incorrect.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's incorrect? Well, will you please correct the record on that
point.
MR. REYNOLDS: I certainly will, and that's what I am trying to go through here, and I
want to make sure that I go through it so that hopefully we don't have to run through the
explanation again. But it's certainly been well documented in the white paper.
So the base credits were Part 1. The bonus credits were Part 2. And there were two
bonuses. There was an early-entry bonus, and there was a restoration bonus, okay, and those
bonuses are over and above the base credits. And those bonuses, on the transmittal of the plan
amendments by the county to the DCA, had not been quantified to the satisfaction of the DCA. So
they commented back to the county, and they said, County, you need to quantify these credits.
So the early-entry bonus was quantified at a cap of 27,000, and the restoration bonus were
quantified on a per-acre basis, and that was done between transmittal and adoption. So those
elements were, in fact, done prior to the public hearing for the adoption and were put in place, and
those are the bonus credits that took the estimate of developable land from 16,800 acres to the
current estimate of 43,300 acres under the current program. So the bonus credits, okay.
So they were put in the program. It was no surprise. They were actually -- the restoration
was put into the program at the request of the environmental NGOs because property owners
weren't really sure that there was a need for a restoration program.
So just to clear up one more thing that has been misrepresented, in 2002, when the
committee was doing their work, they estimated 134,000 base credits. That was the 16,800 acres
of development. In the restudy, the estimate was updated. It was 128,000 base credits. That's
16,000. So it went down. And then in 2020 the new estimate that your staff has prepared using
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
the latest data is 136,000 base credits, which is 17,000 acres.
So the change over 20 years to that number is 200 acres over and above the estimate from
2002 of the land that can be developed using basis credits. And everything else is a function of the
bonus.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that -- I can't dispute what you're saying. I wasn't there.
But I'm going to repeat what I found in the official records. Excuse me.
Mark Strain, at the adoption hearing, the Planning Commission adoption hearing of
October 17, 2002, asked whether or not the added policies had been publicly disclosed. And the
Planning Commission adoption hearing was just five days before the RLSA program was adopted
by the BCC.
So Mr. Strain asked, and I quote, Anybody that can answer this is fine with me. The
policies in this whole process that you are presenting to us today, did they go back to the
commission -- committee, and has the committee approved all of this? Has it had all the public
input in that regard?
And then the county's then outside counsel, Ms. Marti Tumbler [sic] replied, no. In fact,
that was the same. That didn't happen in the fringe either. Um, there was some discussion. We
wish we had had the time to do that. I mean, as you are, I'm sure, very well aware, we were under
a very quick block of time in order to comply with the final order. In a perfect world, it would
have been nice to do that, but here we had to deal with the constraints that we got.
Do you disagree with that?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not going to agree or disagree because I didn't make that
statement. The fact of the matter is, is that the amendments that were brought to the Board of
County Commissioners included a quantification of both an early-entry bonus and a restoration
bonus on a per-acre basis.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In your opinion, is that statement true or false, whether you made
it or not?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think I answered your question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you didn't. Marti Tumbler's statement. I know you didn't
make it, but in your opinion, is it a false statement?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. You refuse to answer, that's fine. That's fine.
MR. REYNOLDS: You can, you know, ask Marti Chumbler.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll -- okay. Obviously, you're not required to answer any
questions up here, and if you want to refuse to answer them, you're -- that's your prerogative.
Mr. -- Commissioner Fry is lit up. Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Mr. Reynolds, you're in a unique position, I think, to
speak to this. You brought up Ave Maria, and you were in the middle of that. You were the
planner for Ave Maria, correct?
MR. REYNOLDS: Among others, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Were you involved at all with Rural Lands West?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You were. So we all know, and some of us, including myself,
lament that we did not get Rural Lands West to evaluate here, because it was a town; far more
dynamic, I think, in terms of interconnectedness and walkability and a destination commercial area,
more of a town center like Ave Maria. So I think some of the things that we all -- many of us
believe were great assets from a town like Ave Maria we were not able to realize when Rural
Lands West withdrawn.
So one of my large concerns right now is -- with this program is, are we going to see a
string of village after village after village that are gated PUDs perhaps with some additional smart
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
growth objectives built in? How do we get to having one or two or three towns in the RLSA?
You know, for myself I'd love to see that quantified, you know, in some way so we have some
certainty that occurs, but give me your impressions of how we get to the point -- what is the
likelihood and what will it take for us to get more towns for the property owners to come forward
with towns and be able to get them through.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, number one, I think the -- adopting these amendments is going
to set -- send a good signal that the county is putting in place enhancements to the program that
have been long overdue, and I think that the property owners have been very clear that we felt like
that needed to take place before we got to further down the road in looking at some of these other
enhancements that people are suggesting.
I would say that the best way to encourage a property owner and a developer to work
together on a town is for there to be a very close collaboration between the county and the property
owners and the developers and the builders to look at what is needed to really support a town, and
what is needed is not just the private investment in infrastructure that builds the town but it's also
the county's responsibility to be planning and programming county infrastructure and facilities and
services in coordination with the future growth.
So I think the more that there can be a situation where the county and the applicants are
working together to find ways to put the right infrastructure in place using the various mechanisms
that are done, that I think you can get property owners and developers to be willing to look out 25
or 30 years. But make no mistake, you know, the ability to undertake a town is quite unique.
And we have -- I think we were fortunate that our first project in rural lands was a town. But that
was the Barron Collier company who had a very unique situation in that they had the expertise, the
capital, a partner with a university that was willing to come to the table, and all the ingredients
came together to create that opportunity.
It's hard to find people that have that kind of vision and that ability to commit resources for
a payback that may not be until 15, 20, 25 years down the road. So I do think the reality of the
market right now is that you're going to see villages because they're more doable, frankly, in terms
of the capital markets, the planning, the forecasting, how far the county is in their forecasting for
capital improvements. But that being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a well-planned
village. And you've got a -- I think you've got a code, at least in my opinion, that is -- it is a smart
growth code that you have that is adopted in your Land Development Code.
So I think we've got the tools in place to encourage the kind of development, you know,
that everybody wants to see. But I do think it's that collaborative effort.
And, you know, the Town of Big Cypress, I started working on that in 2005 and spent
about three years working with the property owners before it had to be withdrawn during the
recession because the DRI process was becoming a stumbling block. We were going through a
DRI. And then I spent over three years with the same family trying to plan the Town of Rural
Lands West. And, frankly, we just were never able to get to the finish line with a proposal that
was acceptable to the county, so that's when it changed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Do -- the amendments that are before us today, do they in any
way improve the chances of future towns making it through the process, or is there more needed?
What -- I guess, is this enough to allow a greater possibility of towns in the future?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think so. I think it does. I mean, most of the amendments that
are -- other than the incentives that we've talked a little about -- are actually fine-tuning to the
policies to try to address some of the development characteristics and other kinds of things. So,
yes, I think it's going to help and -- but I think the biggest help is when we can all be working
together to try to make things happen as opposed to having to defend lawsuits against projects and
spending our valuable time and resources in that environment as opposed to doing good planning.
And what happened in 2002 with this program was one of the best examples of collaboration and
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
good planning that I've ever had the privilege of being part of. So if we can get back to the idea of
let's all work together and let's see if we can support these things as opposed to trying to find
reasons to knock them down, I think we'll get a better result.
COMMISSIONER FRY: It seems to me -- final comment. It just seems to me to be a bit
of a no-brainer that whatever we do from here on out needs to create that spirit of collaboration and
partnership between the landowners in Collier County with whatever we end up with.
MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman, and then Mr. Schmitt.
MR. EASTMAN: Towns are rare and special. We have one example; it's the Town of
Ave Maria. And I believe I made this point at the last meeting, but I'd like to make again, the
developer impacted how many acres involved with the Town of Ave Maria?
MR. REYNOLDS: The Town of Ave Maria is actually 5,027 acres of which a thousand
and 20-some-odd are associated with the university. So the town itself is 4,000, and then the
balance is the university.
MR. EASTMAN: Okay. And then in exchange for being allowed to impact that area in
the rural lands, how many acres were protected in perpetuity?
MR. REYNOLDS: There were approximately -- there were, I believe, six SSAs totaling
about 17,000 acres that created the credits for Ave.
MR. EASTMAN: That seems like a great public benefit.
MR. REYNOLDS: I couldn't agree more. I mean, you know, we talk a lot about smart
growth at the micro level, but at the macro level, a program that protects three acres or more for
every acre of development is the definition of smart growth, and there's a lot of communities in this
country that would love to have something even remotely approaching that kind of a -- that kind of
a ratio, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just -- Karl, talking about villages, I think as they
come in -- this gets into whoever's the last one in line, kind of, is going to get hammered, because I
believe these amendments are going to allow us to take what's already approved and another one
come in, and it's going to give us the latitude to look at them holistically.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Even those that are in the process currently?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they still have to come forward, and then we get to
look at it. We can certainly evaluate it based on its relationship with the neighboring village. I
think that latitude is there. But that's just --
Alan, the 2,020 base credits, 136,000, the increase, does that include the credits that are
now going to be awarded for the 40,000 acres of ag land? Is that why the --
MR. REYNOLDS: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does not include that?
MR. REYNOLDS: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: It does not, and that's why the credit number is going from -- the
estimate today would be 315,000 without the ag incentive and without the panther incentive.
That's why it's going up to 404- is to create credits that can enable those two new features that
aren't in the program today. But the base credits are more or less the same as they were 20 years
ago. It's based on the natural resource values.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then basically the same for the 45K cap?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's no change. That's been 45- since 2009?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, there is no cap today, just to be clear.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: There's zero caps in the program. So today --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good point.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- the estimate says that we could build approximately 43,000 acres of
SRAs, or entitled to 43- --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah 43-.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- plus --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Plus.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- 43,000 acres of open land -- ag land that is unencumbered.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which would be developed at -- could be developed at
one unit per five acres.
MR. REYNOLDS: One to five, right.
So in reality, you're going from north of 80,000 acres of potential development footprint
to -- without a cap to 45,000 acres with a cap.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Yeah. Good. I'm glad I asked that question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Reynolds, WilsonMiller's 2008 memo to Collier County
stated that the RLSA program is estimated to produce a total of 315,000 stewardship credits
assuming 100 percent property owner participation. That was -- I assume you would own that
statement as of 2009. What has changed since?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, I'm happy to own statements that I made. So, yes, we did that
estimate. It was 315,000 credits. So that is a combination of the base credits, which is about a
hundred and -- we talked about 136-. It used to be 128-. The early-entry bonus credits, which
were discontinued after about 20,000 credits, and then 160,000 estimated restoration credits. So I
don't know if that math works out exactly. But, basically, it was a combination of those three
categories: Base, early-entry, and restoration.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else have questions of this speaker?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
MR. REYNOLDS: You're welcome, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker?
MS. JENKINS: The next speakers are on Zoom, so I'll look to the back of the room and
ask them to pull up our Zoom.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. FRANTZ: So we have a number of speakers who have either left the Zoom meeting
or rejoined. And we're just going to read through this list slowly, and if you can just all bear with
us as we figure out who's actually online.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair enough.
MR. FRANTZ: Our first speaker is going to be Lynn Martin. Lynn, are you there?
MS. MARTIN: Yes, thank you.
MR. FRANTZ: Okay. You have five minutes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Martin, you have five minutes, please.
MS. MARTIN: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Lynn Martin, and I'm a member of the
environmental committee of the League of Women Voters.
Last week Ms. Nycklemoe mentioned that we would be providing additional comments on
the proposed new Policy 4.75 for affordable housing. The League of Women Voters supports the
policy laid out by the county housing experts in the March 2020 draft amendments, and we support
the comments about affordable housing by Chairman Fryer on September 3rd.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
The August 2020 draft amendments allow affordable housing to be built outside the
boundaries of the SRA, which is contrary to the intent and provisions of the RLSA overlay
programs. In addition, the amendment transfers to the county the responsibility for building the
housing which puts the cost burden on the county taxpayers and violates the RLSA requirement for
fiscal neutrality.
As an alternative, developers have the right and the ability to propose their own affordable
housing scheme which might involve locating the housing away from the community requiring
employees to live elsewhere and travel long distances to work.
The Land Development Code for the RLSA requires that towns and villages provide a
diverse range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. This
includes housing for employees that work in the community. An affordable housing requirement
should be consistent with the requirement intent of the RLSA and provide a full range of housing
alternatives for a mix of employees and income levels in the town or village, not outside.
In the March 2020 draft amendments, county housing staff required that a minimum of
15 percent of the overall residential units in each village and town should be affordable housing
with at least 50 percent of the affordable units provided to households with incomes of less than
80 percent of the area median income.
Furthermore, a housing analysis was required to assure a wide range of housing types and
price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA and essential personnel.
These requirements are consistent with the county housing staff's request for affordable housing in
Hyde Park. In Hyde Park, the developer's economic assessment indicated housing prices that
would fall within the county's affordability ranges at low, moderate, and gap levels, but the
developer was unwilling to commit to build at those prices. Why? Because the economic
assessment is a projection, not a commitment. Affordable housing needs to be a requirement.
We ask you to require that the developers build affordable housing in the SRA, to require a
housing analysis to assure housing accommodates the workforce and essential workers, and we ask
you to return the affordable housing provision of the March 2020 draft to the amendments.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I'm going to -- I may have to ask this
question of staff. And I recall reading this, but I need clarity on it.
By the statement of "transfer the responsibility to the county," what are we transferring,
saying to the county, here's money, go build housing? Is that what we're referring to? And I
would ask Ms. Martin if she has an answer to that, because I really am not clear -- I've heard this
before -- what are we transferring and to whom? Does that go to Cormac's staff? And under
what policy is there that the developer can simply just transfer the requirement to the county? I'm
confused. So is that a -- can staff clarify that or, Ms. Martin, if you could.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Martin, are you still on?
MS. MARTIN: It says -- yes. I'm looking at No. 1A, which talks about reserving one or
more sites within or within proximal. That's outside of the -- with density and development
standards that accommodate affordable housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units
per acre for acquisition by either Collier County, a community land trust, a private developer, or
any other affordable housing provider. That is the provision -- Cormac can perhaps answer this
better.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that's not a cost to the taxpayer.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MS. MARTIN: Well, if it's -- if Collier County is providing it, then that's the taxpayer.
There's no one else here.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait for clarification. Mr. Cohen.
MR. COHEN: Thaddeus Cohen, for the record, Department Head, Growth Management.
As I review the language that we believe that we want to support, there's not a transfer to
the county to do anything, and we want to be able to address a lot of these issues when we have an
opportunity to speak. So I reserve the right and my time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very good.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I want to make sure we're going to address it
sometime, because when we get to the affordable housing -- I don't need Cormac to talk now, but it
will come up. I want to -- when we deliberate, because I have some questions on affordable
housing, which is the best way to go about it. It may be just let the market deal with it, because of
all the other encumbrances. And, Cormac, just to be prepared, because of the other encumbrances
that may come about with the affordability housing requirements, it may be just simply easier, if
the price point is right, just to sell it outright rather than all of the second and third mortgages and
all the other type of things that are associated.
MR. COHEN: We'll be able to explain why we arrived where we are.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Good. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo. Gaylene, are you there?
MS. VASATURO: Yes.
MR. FRANTZ: You have five minutes.
MS. VASATURO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Gaylene Vasaturo. I am a member of the League
of Women Voters, but I'm here on my own behalf.
The draft amendments are almost entirely the 2009 Five-Year Review Committee
recommendations. By putting just these four, the county ignores what we've learned since 2009.
Among other things, we've learned that the draft amendments should include an aggregation
requirement or similar provision, one that makes clear that the county cannot and should not
approve an application for a village where the applicant is attempting to circumvent town
requirements and infrastructure costs.
In the March -- as you know, in the March 2020 draft amendments, county staff proposed a
requirement to aggregate two or more neighboring villages under common or related ownership.
The landowners opposed this, and staff dropped the aggregation requirement from these
amendments.
As you know, Collier Enterprises proposed the town of Rural Lands West, and in early
2019, they withdrew their application saying they were moving to villages to avoid infrastructure
costs for a town.
Now Collier Enterprises proposes three adjacent villages in the same area: Rivergrass,
Longwater, and Bellmar. Together, these three villages will provide 7,800 homes for 16- to
19,000 new residents, a project the size of a town but one that falls far short of the RLSA
requirements for a town.
Compare for yourself the town and village requirements in Appendix C of the overlay.
This proposal also enables Collier Enterprises to avoid paying infrastructure costs such as paying
for Big Cypress Parkway and schools, which will be needed to serve 19,000 new residents.
Instead, Collier Enterprises is selling the land for Big Cypress Parkway and the schools to the
county in return for impact fee credits. Growth is not paying for growth.
If an applicant is allowed to split a town into villages, the burden of paying for
infrastructure in the RLSA will be on Collier County citizens.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Commissioner Fryer, there is nothing in these draft amendments that address the issue of
town versus village.
I also wanted to address three comments that were made earlier today in the time I have.
Repealed Rule 9J2 doesn't have a monopoly on the term or concept of aggregation. Where facts
show a landowner is attempting to circumvent RLSA requirements, the government can consider
some form of aggregation to address this.
Secondly, I agree with an earlier speaker. Please require flowway management plans as
part of an SRA. I'd add to her comments that SRAs need to contribute to needed maintenance of
flowways to relieve the downstream impacts of their discharges as a matter of fiscal neutrality.
And I agree with Florida Wildlife Federation's concern about Draft Policy 4.9, which will
remove all protections for Water Retention Areas. Water Retention Areas are so important for
water quality, water quantity, and recharge of our aquifers.
Please don't approve this revision. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Next speaker.
MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is Elena Mola. Elena, are you there? You have five
minutes.
MS. MOLA: Yes, I am. Thank you very much.
This is Elena Mola. I am not a member of the Conservancy or any environmental group.
I am not a member of the League of Women Voters. I am not anti developer. As a matter of fact,
I am an infrastructure attorney who has spent over 25 years in the development and financing of
multimillion-dollar infrastructure projects, but I am here as a concerned Collier County taxpayer
whose voices are, unfortunately, missing in all of these discussions to ensure that county officials
do not ignore and strictly abide by the requirements that, number one, private landowners should
fund and pay for their own infrastructure within their own private lands. County taxpayers should
not be burdened by the cost of development of private lands and its impact -- economic impact on
levels of service, infrastructure maintenance costs, as well as the costs and consequences of
providing limited natural resources to service such development, such as water must not be
ignored.
Secondly, Florida Statutes permitted stewardship districts such as the Big Cypress
Stewardship District located within the RLSA and where Rivergrass/Longwater villages are
proposed to be constructed, to be owned, managed, and administered by its private landowners for
two primary reasons. First, to provide those landowners with the ability to finance the
construction and acquisition of infrastructure for developments within the boundaries of their own
private lands through the issuance of revenue bonds without financially burdening the county,
government, or its taxpayers.
The terms that govern the RLSA also require that any developments within the RLSA be
economically beneficial or fiscally neutral to county taxpayers.
The landowners and developers should not be allowed to change the fundamental narrative
and, frankly, ignore legal requirements and public policy. Yes, private landowners have rights to
develop their lands, but the exercise of such rights should not result in the burdening of Collier
County taxpayers, most of whom are retired and live on fixed income.
The county's determination of economic impact assessment to the taxpayers from private
developments within the RLSA or that such are located in the Big Cypress Stewardship District or
not should, under no circumstances, be relegated to but one questionable assessment of economic
impact, which is the developer's proprietary nonstandardized untested fiscal neutrality model which
cannot be openly evaluated by the taxpayers and, I would contend, contains methodologies,
formulas, data, and assumptions which may not be accurate or applicable to the RLSA and may
contain errors in, for example, per capita predictions.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
The county should not base or make any financial determination or undertake any
approvals on whether the RLSA's economic impact assessment or fiscal neutrality requirements
have been met on developers' proprietary fiscal neutrality models which ignore, among other
things:
One, that the methodologies and calculations contained therein are not applicable for rural
developments with no existing infrastructure.
Secondly, that they do not take into consideration that's a significant cost to the taxpayers
on a year-over-year or long-term basis.
Three, that they ignore the very real impact on levels of service, assume conditioned levels
of expenditures and the resultant very real rate fee increases to residents of all the county.
Similarly, the county should not approve expenditures to any county taxpayer funds -- of
any taxpayers' funds for the construction of any infrastructure required for developments within the
boundaries of the privately owned, privately managed and administered to Big Cypress
Stewardship District.
I have spent close to 12 months reviewing the county budget, impact fee studies, the fiscal
neutrality studies presented by the county by private developers for the recent projects to be located
within the privately owned and privately managed Big Cypress Stewardship District, which is part
of the RLSA.
My conclusion is that if the proposed projects in their RLSA, approved by the county,
ignoring the fundamental state legislative requirements and protections afforded to both
landowners and taxpayers by the Stewardship District Act and, B, under the same weak and
non-fiscally transparent economic impact assessment parameters which the county has
inappropriately and exclusively regulated to the developer's fiscal impact analysis, the fiscal impact
to the county and its taxpayers on a year-over-year basis in the long term and, yes, at buildout, are
dire.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is Gordon Brumwell. Gordon, are you there?
MR. BRUMWELL: I am. Can you hear me?
MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have five minutes.
MR. BRUMWELL: This is a technical detail. I'm going to try to get it out of the way
quickly. I know someone who was registered to speak at the last meeting, and they assumed that
that would carry over to this meeting. It's just one data point. Maybe they lost the new link to
speak at this meeting, but it raises the possibility that anyone registered to speak at the last meeting
is unable to speak at this meeting. Just something to consider.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Please proceed with your comment.
MR. BRUMWELL: I'm not representing any group, but I have been investing since
seventh grade. I literally had a broker in high school, and I have a Ph.D. in biology, so I might
have a balanced view here.
First, thank you for your time. This is a long meeting. Lots of details so far. Let's zoom
out. Around 1950, we entered the great acceleration. Essentially, our footprint exploded.
Results include an extension rate between 100 and 1,000 times baseline.
In North America, we have three billion -- that's with a b -- fewer birds than in 1970s, and
a quarter of global mammals are at risk of extinction. This is accelerating.
Since 1980, some types of giraffe, lion, gorilla, and elephant have suffered population
decreases of 50 percent or more. The list goes on. Maybe pro-expansion folk think there's a lot
of nature out there and we don't really have to worry. They're dead wrong.
If you think this is hyperbole, consider this: In 2000, if you dried us all out and desiccated
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
us, the dry mass of humans and all of our domesticated animals would total 425 million tons, while
the dry mass of all wild vertebrates totaled just 10 million tons. This is a somewhat different way
of looking at things than I think maybe people are used to.
To resay that, what people usually think of when they think of wild animals, which is
vertebrates, now only makes up 2 percent of the total global vertebrate population while we and our
ag animals comprise 98 percent.
Each at-risk species is an investment in a diversified portfolio. Malaria treatment from the
quinine tree, antimicrobial film based on shark skin, these would not have been found if the quinine
tree or sharks were extinct.
A charismatic species or a lesser known species could be the next cure for cancer. The
point of a diversified portfolio is we don't know what's going to pop. If we -- okay. Development
at the expense of these species is unsophisticated, all eggs in one basket, shortsighted investing. If
we love our country, we'll do our part to slow that great acceleration by maximizing the likelihood
panthers and other threatened species in the RLSA become going concerns. This will contribute to
the portfolio rebalancing needed to leave future Americans the diversified natural resources we
inherited.
Thank you again for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. I don't see anyone lit up.
Mr. Frantz, question for you, sir. How many more electronic speakers do we have?
MR. FRANTZ: It looks like we have about six or seven more.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Lewis, how are you doing?
THE COURT REPORTER: I could use a break.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission, we will stand in recess for 10
minutes, and that will take us to 2:47, please. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 2:47 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.)
MR. FRANTZ: You have a live mic, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We will continue with speakers. Jeremy.
MR. FRANTZ: Our next speaker is Anne Li? Anne, are you there?
MS. LI: Yes, I'm here. Good afternoon.
MR. FRANTZ: You have five minutes.
MS. LI: Thank you. My name is Anne Li, and I'm a member of the Conservancy, the
Naples Botanical Garden, and St. Peter Apostle Parish on Rattlesnake Hammock, but today I'm
speaking for myself.
My husband and I became permanent residents here five years ago after annual visits for
over 20 years. We were attracted to this area not only by its great beauty but also by the sense that
good governance and managed growth that is balanced, protective of the environment, and
equitable, including housings that is affordable at all income levels, are valued here.
The original principles of the RLSA exemplified those values, which mean so much to me
and to many of my neighbors.
As clearly outlined by the testimonies of the Conservancy and the League of Women
Voters, however, the proposed amendments now being considered greatly weaken and betray those
values.
As Chairman Fry stated on September 3rd, the amendments are, quote, seriously deficient,
unquote, and should not be adopted. Rather, the recommendations of the Conservancy, the
League, and Chairman Fry should be followed. Take the time to do it right, painful though that
may be, even if it involves a moratorium on new applications. Doing anything less will betray the
trusts and interests of current and future residents of Collier County.
Thank you.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Next speaker?
MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is Van Williams. Van, are you there?
MR. WILLIAMS: I am.
MR. FRANTZ: You have five minutes.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I admire your stamina. I'm Van Williams, board chair
for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
As you know, we represent residents in our county who are concerned about our water, our
wildlife, and our land use, and you also know we have a deep and longstanding concern about
development in the RLSA and elsewhere in the county.
My own experience includes an avocational interest in land use and planning that goes
back nearly 50 years. Way back in the '70s as a planning board chair, I worked to change
development in our town in New Jersey to favor smart growth concepts instead of sprawl. Not all
were successful, but our community worked collaboratively with developers to make changes
during the review process.
From this experience I learned an important lesson. When developers and smart growth
advocates in the public and decision-makers work together in an open and transparent way,
everyone gets a win.
The Conservancy, as you know, has advocated smart growth for decades. We were
pleased when, in 2001, the Community Character Plan was approved by the county. The RLSA
program, created around the same time as the Community Character Plan, also included policies
that incorporate smart growth standards.
As examples, the whole SRA is required to be compact, walkable, and mixed use. Smart
growth concepts continue to be supported by a large number of our citizens and our members;
however, the county continues to approve developments that are dominated by single-family homes
on large lots with little multifamily for viable workforce housing included. Moreover, projects are
rarely interconnected, leaving very little sense of neighborhood or community.
My plea is that we recognize now the need for a more collaborative team approach
between the county and the developers to create vibrant connected communities (unintelligible)
with code that use smart growth strategies to integrate housing types, parks, recreation
opportunities, commercial services, business opportunities, and interconnectivity with current
and/or future developments being done elsewhere in Florida and the rest of the country. It's in the
law. It's part of the code. And while it takes work on all sides to meet those requirements, it will
make Collier a better place for folks to live, work, and raise families.
When a development proposal is submitted to the Planning Commission, it should include
smart growth concepts, including where road interconnections will occur. It is not enough for a
development proposal to include only a plan for the major roadways.
Also, when a project proposal is submitted, the developer and the county intended to
evaluate the proposal in isolation instead of looking at the broader community-wide impact,
including realistic assessments at buildout, fiscal neutrality, and traffic patterns. This isolated
individualized proposal approach does not create a feeling that we're all in this community
together.
Within the RLSA now there are already a huge number of potential new residents just
within the existing projects, and we know that several other projects are currently pending.
I also urge the county, as others have earlier, to hit the pause button, stop its apparent rush
to approve new projects. By pausing, they can review the information submitted at the hearing
today, ask ourselves, working together, what kind of a community do we wish to leave for our
children and our grandchildren? Plans approved now will set the pattern for the years to come
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
and, unfortunately, unless we change, we'll continue to encourage sprawl throughout the balance of
the county. We must really re-think our planning and approval process now before the
opportunity passes us by.
Thank you, all, for your time and consideration.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Next speaker?
MR. FRANTZ: Our next speaker is Ted Raia. Ted, are you there?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry, Joe.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did have a question to Mr. Williamson [sic]. Was he
representing the Conservancy?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. He's the chair of the board. Mr. Williamson, did the
Conservancy approve the amendments in 2009? At least did they reach consensus to move
forward to the Board in 2009?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I can't answer that question because I wasn't involved with
the Conservancy at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nicole is raising her hand.
MR. WILLIAMS: I suspect Nicole Johnson or April Olson, who are still in the audience,
might be able to respond to that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask one of them to come up.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Can Nicole -- or April, if you would come up.
MR. RAIA: Hello?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Ms. Johnson's coming up.
MR. RAIA: Thank you, Chairman Fryer and Commissioners, for this opportunity to
address.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Stand by, sir. We're talking to -- we're trying to
get a question answered.
MR. RAIA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. We'll get to you.
MR. JOHNSON: Oh, it is nice to get that mask off.
Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, and I am registered as a speaker. This was one of the issues that I was going to
address, so I'll address this now and then leave the remainder of my comments for when my turn is
called.
In 2009, during the -- and the Conservancy was part of the five-year review, and one of the
things that the Conservancy really emphasized is that the RLSA was based on best available
science in the year 2000. That was what they had when they started the process.
And it was always anticipated that new science would complement the RLSA map, the
overlay. The overlay was not meant to be static to where new best available science would not be
incorporated.
And to that end, the Conservancy created our vision map. I think we initially created it
probably in 2008, and it has remained pretty much the same for the past decade or more. And
what our vision map proposes is to remove development of SRAs from the area that now best
available science says is important to retain for the panther, and that's Primary Panther Habitat.
So on our vision map, which has been out on the record for more than a decade, we have
been suggesting that the areas that we've shaded in yellow, which are now open lands, be converted
to some sort of either an HSA or an agricultural credit area but that SRAs be precluded from those
areas and the development then be restricted to the areas remaining in pink. It's about 39,000 or so
acres.
And we believe that this is beneficial for the panther, for other wildlife, it consolidates
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
development, and it also could lessen the cost of some of the infrastructure.
What Mr. McElwaine, on the record, stated in the April 2009 meeting was that the
Conservancy was amenable to a credit cap and an acreage cap, but neither of those statements
precluded the fact that our vision map remained.
And so when we're talking about a credit cap and acreage cap, it's in the context of our
vision map. Nowhere did President McElwaine say our vision map is out the door. So I want to
get that on the record because that's a very important point. The development still and always
needed to be, from the Conservancy's perspective, directed away from Primary Panther Habitat.
Our vision map does that. If there's some sort of cap or credits or acreages that can go along with
that, we're open to discussion. The unfortunate thing is, we know that the landowners are not
willing to consider this sort of map. We have that from the Habitat conservation plan mapping so,
therefore, as we're advocating for this map, we really think the county needs to take a close look
and implement this.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'll follow with a question, then. But this would
require a reevaluation of the entire scoring process; is that correct?
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The layers, scoring of the layers, and the entire
reevaluation of the entire process.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes. It would require a reevaluation of the natural index value.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
MS. JOHNSON: And it would require a reevaluation of the credit system, all of which
were considered when the program was adopted as options on the table at the Planning
Commission adoption hearing -- I believe it was the adoption hearing -- when Chairman Strain was
asking about, what if we get it wrong? What if there's too much development coming out of this
program? And the county's outside legal counsel said, you can always go in and adjust -- tweak
the credits. The credits aren't entitlements. So you can always tweak the credits to do a better
job. And the Conservancy believes you can also convert the Primary Panther Habitat not already
in a WRA, FSA, or HSA to maybe make it part of the HSA or some sort of ag preservation
category that precludes SRAs from being developed there.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, that answers the question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
You'll be back shortly, I think.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You'll be back, but you answered one question. Good.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Our next speaker, please.
MR. FRANTZ: I think that takes us back to Ted Raia.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Mr. Ryan [sic]?
MR. RAIA: Okay. I'm on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Sir, please go ahead.
MR. RAIA: Thank you, again.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry for the false start. Go right ahead.
MR. RAIA: Okay. My name is Ted Raia, and I serve on the boards of Mangrove Action
Group and the Pelican Bay Property Owners Associations, which I represent here.
The RLSA of 180,000 acres is zoned for one unit per five acres, even if it's wetlands, and
would allow for 36,000 housing units; however, by transfer of credits, the original 16,800-acre plan
would allow for 67,000 housing units. Now, this has morphed into 45,000 acres with a total of
180,000 housing units, doubling our population.
We totally believe in protecting the rights of property owners. The rights of the RLSA
owners are limited to one housing unit per five acres. They have no more rights than those unless
we, the people, through our elected representatives, grant them more rights. They are free to use
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
the other credits that run with their land, observing all the other existing county codes, state and
federal laws.
It is difficult to believe that our staff and government are operating in the interest of the
people when the owners, by use of credit transfers, plan to double our population.
Two basic considerations in the plan are adequate potable water and surface water
management. Excess runoff into our protected Rookery Bay and mangrove islands endanger the
mangroves and the fish hatcheries dependent on them. You are also depriving the aquifers of
necessary replenishment. By the way, one of our aquifers is already being desalinated; this is a
violation of both state law and Collier County Master Plan.
Adequate sewage treatment for the population will also add to surface runoff and
pollutants. This should not be a question between a billion dollars or we're going to double your
population.
There ought to be another solution in between that, a reasonable solution. But I don't
think doubling our population is in anybody's interest. There's only one road that leads there, and
that's Immokalee Road, and it's -- it can never -- consider the population that we have now and the
traffic problems we have, and here they're going to add double that population with only one major
road out there.
Well, that's all I would have to say at this time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. FRANTZ: Our next speaker is Isabella Brumwell. Isabella, are you there?
(No response.)
MR. FRANTZ: Isabella, are you there?
MS. BRUMWELL: Here. I just unmuted.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. You have five minutes.
MS. BRUMWELL: Can you hear me now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah.
MS. BRUMWELL: Okay. I'm Isabella Brumwell. I belong to the Conservancy,
Botanical Garden, the zoo. I love it here. But I don't represent anybody. I'm officially a very
concerned citizen.
I have watched Florida get built up. In the '40s, there was huge pine tree forests. Some
friends and I played with an injured panther using a mop until it was able to go back into the wild.
We took a sand trail to the other side of 41 to a swimming hole. Now there is barely any
big space left for wildlife.
I sort of see what the county is trying to do from reading the Conservancy's summary. It's
a good step in the right direction. But we've covered so much land with housing and farms with
no thought for wildlife habitat that we should go now in the other direction.
If you choose not to stop building, you should reduce it with some major goals in mind.
Expanding panther habitat is a no-brainer because there's only about 200 left, and we are in charge
of seeing if they go extinct or not. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this means smaller and
fewer towns, fewer roads, because each male panther needs 200 square miles of habitat.
The conservation [sic] recommendations also includes the small houses, the small towns,
and less sprawl. Obviously, the panthers and other wildlife should have corridors to other large
habitats.
Goal 2, we need to keep new towns from affecting habitat areas. This is in the
Conservancy's Sub (unintelligible) also. We should have parks around the towns with native
plants required to be planted. This requires far less water for maintenance.
Goal 3, we should be requiring new buildings to be more efficient. My family right now
is retrofitting a couple of homes from our efficiency. Low-flow toilets will decrease water use and
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
waste processing, air sealing and better insulation in new buildings so that people can air condition
just the inside of their house and not the outside, and requiring homes to be built solar ready so
people can more easily put the sun in the Sunshine State to work.
There is so little left of what was here 75 years ago. Let's include the Conservancy's
recommendations in the plans so we can keep and expand what's left of Florida's nature.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker, please.
MR. FRANTZ: Our last speaker on Zoom has a phone number that ends in 3170. We do
not know their name. Are you there?
MS. POOLE: Hello?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Phone number 3170, is that you?
MS. POOLE: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please proceed for five minutes.
MS. POOLE: This is -- my name is Jane Poole. Good afternoon. And today I'm
speaking from the heart on behalf of what we all stand to lose here and is most likely irreplaceable
resources, also as a small property owner and resident whose family drove all over Florida before
choosing to move to Collier for its lively and level unspoiled natural beauty and small-town classy
personality. That was six years ago.
Wanting, as many of us do, to get away from the stressful qualities-of-life issues that come
with endless housing, overdevelopment, high-rises, urban sprawl communities, cookie-cutter and
unfriendly-to-natural inhabiting development.
There are many who also love nature and would say that this huge RLSA level of proposed
destruction in the name of community is a horrible and devastating idea, especially when our entire
environment is in such a point of peril.
You know, the world has changed much in the last decade and much more in the last year.
Should we be encouraging such an acceleration and sprawling of dense growth or sprawl here?
Our county and planet are already facing compounding heated consequences of losing the benefit
of thousands upon thousands of natural acres of air-cleansing oxygen-producing
pollution-absorbing and water-purifying nature and life-sustaining trees and water, I'll say it again,
losing space for its citizen animals, birds, panthers, bears, butterflies, and a multitude of unique
creatures, big and small, many on the brink of extinction, much like the ecosystem of our collective
selves could be said.
We, as humans, can and should nurture these alive natural sites that nature calls home and
we use as our green and cleaning spaces. Our health and well-being is tied to its well-being and its
suffering.
Nature is much of what has made Collier a great place for us for many natural places of
refuge surrounding and cleansing the urban sprawl, the magic of the Everglades, including the
wetlands, that is a unique place here on Earth. Collier has had a balance which seems as rapidly
shifting as surrounding wild forests, and places are ravaged, diminished -- this diminishes the air
and the water and the beaches and the quality of life for all residents and visitors.
So why does development have to equal such destruction, I've often asked myself? Does
even passing a natural space ease all of our stress and tensions just a little? How about the value
and benefits of the forest even in walking through it or bike ridings by it? Who can -- who can
drive by and witness the clear cutting of large scales that we've seen lately here without a knot in
their stomach and a lump in their throat? Are our lives here just about selling out to profit? Chop
and drop at the expense of many? Are there -- or are those knots and lumps also because our roads
are increasingly crowded, our intense climate temperatures and tempers both rising, our water
supply and quality dwindling, our beaches and oceans drowning in pollutions of chemical runoff?
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
All the quality of life here is degraded as our taxes and infrastructure burdens seem to be
increasing. Isn't it simple supply and demand? More houses, more pollution, less nature in turn
makes all existing property less valuable. Are we choking on our own greed, or can we now make
intelligent choices that benefit all current and future residents, animal and humans, before we reach
that tipping point here and become another Broward or Miami-Dade West or anywhere, for that
matter, and lose everything about our unique environment?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, please begin to wrap it up, if you would, please.
MS. POOLE: Sure. Bear with me just a minute.
Anyone who's considering this, I would say, should spend at least a whole day
experiencing the driving and breathing issues in those environments before voting to advance such
here. Our family moved here for the natural balance, the harmonious and refreshing peaceful way
of life. Growth that was balanced with wild [sic] land protection, that's what made it unique here.
I like to think, instead of contributing to our own extinction and -- as both a unique place
and species, that we can learn from and avoid creating a similar path here for all our sakes, for all
our residents' sakes, for all our children's sakes, let's stop the madness and readdress the RLSA
development to rewrite the program and to protect the current taxpayers and landowners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Next speaker.
MS. JENKINS: Are you done with Zoom?
MR. FRANTZ: That was your last Zoom speaker.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are there any other registered speakers in the room?
MS. JENKINS: I have one more speaker slip for Nicole Johnson.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Johnson.
MS. JENKINS: And while Nicole's coming up, if -- Mr. John Harney, I think he was
going to register with Zoom. He had to leave earlier. Did he register, Jeremy; John Harney?
MR. FRANTZ: He had registered and was on the Zoom meeting for a time but has
dropped off.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Johnson, go ahead.
MS. JENKINS: Great, thank you. Good afternoon again. Nicole Johnson, here on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I'm not going to talk about the Conservancy's recommendation. You had a presentation
two weeks ago by my colleague, April Olson. If you have questions on that, she's certainly here to
address them.
But I did want to address some of the comments and questions that have been raised about
the Conservancy during the meeting today and in a recent opinion piece in the Naples Daily News.
It does seem like everyone is going back to what did we think we were getting in 2002?
And the Conservancy's all about taking the program that we have and moving forward;
however, we believe it's important to understand the context of what we thought we were getting in
2002.
So, bear with me, because I do want to reiterate just a couple points on this. First of all,
the Conservancy was not aware that the RLSA program, when adopted in October of 2002, that it
would result in the amount of development that we currently have. The idea that somehow
everyone knew that the RLSA in 2002 would allow for 300,000-plus additional people I don't
believe is accurate.
I was looking back through my files, and there was a press release from 2003 from the
Barron Collier Companies when Ave Maria was first getting up and going, and it states, ultimately,
the Rural Lands Stewardship Program could protect 90 percent of uplands and wetlands and
80 percent of all agricultural resources in the study area while requiring approximately 10 percent
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
of the development footprint allowed through the conventional five-acre zoning.
So to me, everyone was on the same page. Clearly, that's not the case today, and that's
okay. But I do think we need to understand where people honestly were in 2002 and what we
thought we were getting.
So moving forward, and how do we improve upon the RLSA program? We're not going
to go back to 16,800 acres of development; we know that. And the Conservancy has
acknowledged that, and that was the vision map that I showed you earlier. That's not a
16,800-acres worth of development footprint. It's on the magnitude of somewhere around
40,000 acres, I believe. But it's better located and, of course, needs to have the right type of smart
growth and planning for any of those future SRAs.
Now, there's been some talk about the Smart Growth America report that was done for the
Conservancy. That report is not the end-all and be-all. It was never intended to be. In fact, it
had a number of caveats within it. For example, it did not include the impact fees or developer
contribution agreements.
The point of that study was to show that more spread-out, low-density dispersed
development costs the county and the taxpayers more than more consolidated higher density impact
development, and that's a study that the Conservancy actually has been asking for the county to do.
It's interesting back when the RLSA was going through its transmittal and approval
process, the only RLSA-wide fiscal impact analysis that I'm aware of was done by Fishkind &
Associates, and in their report dated May 15th, 2002, when Fishkind looked at baseline versus what
the RLSA was intended to do, they, and I quote, according to Fishkind, both the baseline and
stewardship options were assumed to accommodate the same population.
So in the Conservancy's opinion, the county -- nobody has really done an RLSA-wide
economic assessment of what the true costs are going to be. That's important, because you're not
going to get those larger infrastructure projects captured in individual SRA application fiscal
impact studies. It's not going to talk about if you need to six-lane a road or if you need to add
more roads to the network.
So if you don't like the Smart Growth America analysis -- and we agree it's not the end-all
and be-all -- we're encouraging the county, take a look, have a third party do that for the county so
that we can find out what those true costs are going to be. I don't believe that it's been done.
So with that, I'm here to answer any questions that you have, but we do want to look
forward. That's what our amendments are about, but we need to do that in the context of where we
started, and we need to look at where we want to be at buildout.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Nobody is lit up, so...
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll light up.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Ms. Johnson.
So I guess I've been operating from the -- more the basis that we're starting from the 2009
direction that was more or less approved by the Board of the 404,000 credits, 45,000 acres not
going -- so I haven't really been looking back at the 2002 what was agreed then. I felt like there
was a second chapter based on everything that I've heard that really is our starting point for looking
at this and that that was, what, 11 years ago. So here we are.
So I guess my question is: You have an overlay that you've developed. It would allow
39,000 acres developed.
MS. JOHNSON: More or less, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. But I notice it's not incorporated into the plans. I just
wondered, why hasn't -- I mean, I think we're all united, would love to see everything built on areas
that are not Primary Panther Habitat. I think we're aligned, right? And I'm just up here -- we're
all up here trying to do, I think, the right thing by the county, weigh everything that's thrown at us,
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
and come out with some kind of a judicious step forward.
I'm personally not in favor of stopping the process and starting over when we're -- at the
worst case we're preserving 75 percent of -- we're not developing 75 percent of that 180,000 acres.
So why hasn't that plan gotten more traction and become part of the county's overlay for
the RLSA?
MS. JOHNSON: Great question. We did propose that during the five-year review
amendments. As I said, I believe that our vision map was initially created in 2008. So it's been
out there the entire time. It isn't something that the county or the landowners are interested in
agreeing to.
You know, I will say that parallel to the RLSA, the landowners have a Habitat
Conservation Plan application, which is the federal permitting side for an incidental take permit -- a
50-year-long incidental take permit, and on that permit application there's a map showing where the
ECPO landowners would like to develop.
And one of the alternative options that was discussed as part of the alternatives analysis in
that Habitat Conservancy Plan take permit analysis was, well, maybe could you -- could you pull
some of the development out of the Primary Panther Habitat? Could you consolidate? And I'm
paraphrasing, but the response was, that doesn't follow the landowner property boundaries in a
manner that's acceptable. We have always had our vision map out there. We would love for it to
get traction. We've been trying for it to get traction, but it's not something that I believe the
landowners are willing to agree to, so...
COMMISSIONER FRY: Nor has the staff pressed for it to be part of the plan. Maybe
Anita -- speak.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I just --
COMMISSIONER FRY: I know, we're running out of time, aren't we?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We are. But the question I have is when Mr. Reynolds spoke, he
was willing to own the statement that as of 2009 the number was 315,000 and however many acres
that would develop. And I think you mentioned 404,000. And I just want to know what the right
number was as of 2009.
MS. JOHNSON: As of 2009, according to WilsonMiller/Stantec, it was -- I believe
315,000 credits. The proposal in 2009 was to take it up to 404,000 credits through the agricultural
stewardship credits and some other credits shifting. You know, one of the concerns is that a lot
has happened since 2009. A lot more SSAs have come online, so I'm not -- it's still a little unclear
how many credits are out there and then could be out there under these new provisions. But that's
the difference between the 315- and the 404-.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: And I realize -- we have a 3:30 time-certain for another matter;
is that correct?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do, and I told Ms. Jenkins that I was going to try to give staff
an opportunity to say some summarizing words, and she kindly acknowledged that it might be
more important to continue with the public.
But, Anita, what should we do at this point?
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. We're going to need to continue with the staff's comments at our
next meeting, and we'll stop right now.
But I will respond, Mr. Fry, to your question about the Conservancy's plan. And all of the
NGOs that were participating through the five-year review process did that through two years,
15-member committee. So we feel like everyone was fairly heard through that process. And
when the recommendations from that process were taken to the Board for consideration, it was the
Board that directed staff to bring back the amendments with 404,000 stewardship credits and
45,000 acres of SRA.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: And the overlay map that we see today was developed different
from what the Conservancy proposed.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Was that the result of consensus of all of those meetings and
staff and --
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. The overlay map that you see today is the one that was originally
adopted, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Originally --
MS. JENKINS: Originally adopted. That's the only one that we have right now.
COMMISSIONER FRY: 2002?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, 2002. And the one that is the proposed is -- the lines are the same
as 2002. What you see today is the implementation of SSAs on that map and SRAs on that map,
and the Florida panther corridor's indicated on that map.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And also the ag preservation areas as well, right?
MS. JENKINS: The ag preservation areas would be indicated as open on the map, but the
ag preservation is by policy. So you wouldn't have any map change for that.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So even with the addition of panther corridor credits that have
been -- that are added now and it looks like contiguous areas for habitat areas, that's still not, in
your opinion, supportive of the panther's survival and thriving?
MS. JOHNSON: From the Conservancy's perspective, no, because what we find is that
when those agricultural areas that are critical for panther habitat, panther usage are impacted, it not
only impacts the footprint area, but it degrades the value of adjacent wetlands and other habitat
areas. And so the corridors -- the Conservancy had commented on the proposed corridors.
They're too narrow. The northern corridor, I don't believe, is really in the best location. So it's
not just about corridors. It's about saving the habitat necessary and, by doing that, you then save
and preserve the integrity of the currently used panther corridors.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the Conservancy is not the only organization that cares
about the panther.
MR. JOHNSON: No.
COMMISSIONER FRY: And we did have Audubon and Florida Wildlife Federation
stand here largely in support of this, with some tweaks, saying they felt it did a pretty good job of
supporting the panther. So I guess where I scratch my head in trying to make sense of this all is
how are you -- how are you arriving at such different conclusions when you really have the same
end goal in mind?
MS. JOHNSON: All I can speak for is the Conservancy, and we based our vision map on
best available science. I'm not a panther scientist, so I'm going to rely on those that are the panther
scientists and the best available science that is utilized by the agencies, and right now that is the
Kautz, et al, which identifies primary panther habitat as the habitat that needs to be retained in its
entirety in order -- in the existing uses in order to allow for the survival of the panther. So the
Conservancy is basing our position on the best available science out there, and that is what
informed our vision map.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Thank you,
Ms. Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. It's -- next speaker, if any?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Are there any people in the room who haven't registered
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
but wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see no hands raised. So we will put this no matter in recess to
be continued on the 25th -- the 25th of September, and we'll begin at that time with staff's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At that meeting, that will begin with staff?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask a procedural question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So there are a number of recommendations. You have done
some review on your own.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess there's lots of areas of reviewing at a
line-item-by-line-item level, policy-by-policy level. How do you foresee that process rolling out
to get to any kind of a destination here?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Good question. Thank you. How I see it -- and I
want to find out what the Planning Commission wants to do. But I see that staff give its response
or presentation. I'm not sure exactly what it is -- or maybe to address the public comments. And
I don't know how long that would take, but certainly staff should have a reasonable amount of time
within which to do that.
Then I would like to turn to the August 3rd official staff proposed amendments and go
through those item by item, and that will be the official document we'll be working off.
I have furnished a copy of a redliner to every member of the Planning Commission and
staff and to the Office of the County Attorney. I just offer that, because those are the very points
that I'm going to raise, and that would give you the benefit of seeing those points in black and
white as I raised them. But we'll start at the beginning and we'll go through, and we'll consider my
points and everyone else's points.
Now, what I don't know and would like some guidance on is whether we would be best
served by trying to take a vote on every major issue that comes up or deliberate or discuss every
issue that comes up as it comes up, or should we wait until the end? What -- does any planning
commissioner have an observation or guidance on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll comment. Well, this is a GMP amendment and, as
such, unless staff -- this is again, my opinion. Unless staff is going to make changes as we go
through the process, it is -- it is either all or nothing. It's not where we vote on each policy. It's
not -- that's not how it was advertised. That's not how it was presented. It -- and I know,
Commissioner Fryer, you had -- you had opening comments, or you certainly rendered your
opinion, which it's clear, at least from the first meeting, the way you're going to vote unless you
decide to change your mind. So you pretty much laid out your opinion already, which was -- I got
to say, it was somewhat unusual because we never do that until we hear public opinion and staff
presentation. So you've already -- you've already defined where you are on this.
And I'm not in favor in any way, shape, or form to go through this line by line to attempt to
rewrite this during a public hearing, something that has taken 23 meetings with numerous
committee members and numerous participants and agencies, and I don't think it's our job as a
body, a deliberative body, to sit here and rewrite something unless, of course, those other entities
are involved. And I think we owe it to them to be involved, and if that's the case, then we just
send this back and tell the staff to start over again. But I don't have any interest in going through
this to rewrite this. This was presented to us as a whole, and I think that's the way it should be
voted on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any other observations?
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Both points well taken. And I took Chairman Fryer's
comments in the first meeting to be an introduction to concerns that he had and an attempt that he
would make to invest some time to come up with a more palatable version of it that we could
approve, we could review and approve.
But I guess my thought is, you know, I can't imagine -- we routinely run into conditions.
We add conditions as we go through the meeting. We express concerns. We add conditions to
approval of things. In this case that would be modifications to the particular amendments, and
maybe it's, you know, putting it --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm sorry I'm interrupting.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we typically do that in concert with the applicant and
staff. In this case, there are many stakeholders, some of whom are not here or not represented in a
meeting, and I think we owe it to all the stakeholders involved to have an input. So if we want to
have some kind of a public meeting where we go through this line by line with everyone concerned
and everybody impacted, then, yes, then we can sit and rewrite the legislation. But I think it's a
disservice to the staff and to the people who participated in these years of meetings to now attempt
to rewrite something that now they're not a participant in.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm going to exercise a prerogative of the Chair, and I
thank you for your comments.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This will be a Planning Commission decision how we go; whether
we go all or nothing or whether we go line by line, and we'll make that decision on the 25th, and
we'll proceed in that way. And having said that -- and I owe it to Mr. Davies to bring this to a
recess at this time so that we can take up the matter that we've allocated him 30 minutes for.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: May I just say one thing?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Of course.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This has already gone through the Planning Commission
line by line --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- at one time, and most -- the majority of it is still the
same.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is going to be a Planning Commission decision.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You want us to vote for it altogether?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You know, I will make my views known in a thorough manner to
the Board of County Commissioners whether it's just as an individual or however. But that will be
a Planning Commission decision when the time comes.
Unless there's anything else, I want Mr. Davies to begin.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Which item is this?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***This is, I think, 4. And we're continuing on Item
PL20160000221, Immokalee Road Estates commercial subdistrict, large-scale Growth
Management Plan transmittal hearing.
Mr. Davies.
MR. DAVIES: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I know you've had a very long day, but I think this one will go quickly given the efforts
we've made with staff since we were last in front of you.
We have worked nearly everything out with your staff since we were here last month. For
a refresher, this is the Barron Collier project at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Orangetree
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
Boulevard. You'll see an aerial on your screens.
You'll recall last time there were several discussion points raised. We did add the
interconnection language that was mentioned last time, which staff is in support of. We also
significantly reduced our use list, and staff is now in full support of the requested uses.
And the only item of disagreement with staff is the square footage. We're requesting
200,000 square feet of commercial, and staff is at 178,000 square feet. So a difference of only
22,000.
This is the applicant's revised subdistrict language, which has been approved by both the
County Attorney's Office staff, and will contain a reference to either the 178,000 or the 200,000
square feet depending on your recommendation today.
That is my very brief overview, Mr. Chairman. The full team is here today to answer your
questions, and that's all I have to start. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, I'll maybe say a thing or two.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the applicant and
by staff to close open issues and to work together and try to resolve.
There are one or two things that remain of concern to me that I want to express, and the
first one has to do with the economic feasibility study that was prepared in support of the Growth
Management Plan amendment, and your consultant referred to staff's required methodology as
flawed. I believe that was the word that was used, because it did not, on the supply side, take
account of properly zoned but undeveloped property.
And I think staff came up to their -- staff's calculations were derived from including not
only what is out there and already developed but also what has been properly zoned and is
available for development, and that's how they came to the 178,000.
And it seems to me that we should adhere to that number unless we're telling staff that we
don't support its policy, its methodology of including properly zoned but undeveloped land. And
I'm not willing to tell staff that. So that's where I am on that point. And also -- well, I'll let it go
at that.
Anybody else have any comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to wait till staff gives its presentation, because
that's a point of discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: If I may, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
MR. DAVIES: And Mr. Weyer is here to answer specific questions on the study or the
addenda. In the interest of time, however, to clarify, so staff is in support of the 178,000 square
feet of the commercial uses and is in support, since last time, of the changes we made and the
modifications and reductions to our use list. If it is the discretion, we're -- with the discretion of
the Commissioners today, if a motion is made with respect to the 178,000, certainly that is your
prerogative. Today our request is for 200-, but we certainly wouldn't stand in the way of a motion
with respect to the 178-, so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Staff?
MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins, interim zoning director, for the record.
Staff has continued to work with the petitioner and reviewed additional market analysis,
and we are in agreement with their petition with the exception of the differences of acreage, and
staff is supporting 178,000.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We also -- we also heard from the public a fair amount with
respect to compatibility with traditional Estates zoning, and I appreciate the applicant withdrawing
its request to have access to 4th Street --
MR. DAVIES: Northeast.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Northeast.
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That went a significant way toward removing one of the
objections that I had. But, nonetheless, there was still concern expressed that compatibility, when
it had been looked at by the planners, staff planners, that the area for this level of development was,
I believe, to be south of where you are; that that's where they saw this kind of development taking
place. And I think part of their reasoning was compatibility. So I do have some concern about
that, and I just wanted to go on record with it.
Do we have any members of the public or any speakers?
MS. JENKINS: I have no -- I believe Rae Ann Burton.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: Yes. I have Rae Ann Burton.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Davies, were you ready to -- did you want to respond to me or
to say anything further before we go to public speakers?
MR. DAVIES: Nothing further. I can respond after the public.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Who do we have from the public?
MS. JENKINS: We have one registered speaker, which was Rae Ann Burton. I'm not
sure that she's still here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well --
COMMISSIONER FRY: She spoke on the last issue.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That may be what she intended.
MS. JENKINS: No, she wanted to speak on both.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, she did. Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, she's not
here.
Any member of the public who hasn't registered wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, okay. You know, I neglected to swear people in, and if we
can try to fix that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I swore that I told the truth before?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. We've had -- we've had two speakers -- and this is my fault,
and I apologize. It's perhaps the late hour of the afternoon. But, Mr. Davies and Ms. Jenkins,
would you raise your hand and consider this in the past tense, please, for the testimony that you've
given.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you gave was the
truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MS. JENKINS: It was.
MR. DAVIES: I do.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And my apologies again.
Also, disclosures as respects things that have happened since this applicant was last before
us, starting with Secretary Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No additional disclosures outside public record, emails.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've had further discussions with staff and with the
applicant's agents.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did have discussions with the applicant, Noel, and
Wayne so -- Wayne Arnold. So after -- between -- well, prior to this meeting, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Very well. Does anyone wish to either speak on this or
make a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll open for discussion. The dispute primarily looks
right now -- because I believe one of the other things -- and I can't remember what. I thought we
had some issue with water retention on this site, but that's all been resolved, correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so the dispute is whether it's 178,000 or 200,000.
And if -- I think if we could make it a nice round number, 180,000, go with that, and see if we can
move forward with that. Does that sound like something we could do?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. And this, of course, was on transmittal.
This is a large scale.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Well, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let's go back and have --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that was approved at 180,000.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 180-.
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A nice even number for Noel to work with.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. All right.
Okay. We don't have any old business or new business.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me just bring up --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just -- we'll go back about -- I would like to go page by
page, though, like we normally do with the GMP amendments if there's wordsmithing that has to
be done, and I think that's valuable. So I'm willing -- I mean, I want to go through that. But I'm
not sure -- and we'll defer -- maybe we can confer and let the County Attorney -- but to vote
by -- policy by policy may be very cumbersome.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that may be right. That sounds like a good --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'm -- I need to hear from staff, because I -- this is
staff's proposals, and I want staff to address clearly and refute any of these. I know Mr. Cohen is
going to do that as well. Thaddeus wants to approach this from a standpoint of we need to
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
understand where staff is willing to compromise but without offending any of the people who are
involved in this, because there's a lot of people that were involved in this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I think that's a pretty good solution, Joe.
Mr. Cohen, did you want to speak, sir?
Ms. Jenkins?
MS. JENKINS: No. We're going to address that on the 25th with you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm still left slightly confused in that I've been documenting a
number of questions for staff in terms of addressing some of the concerns.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if you're confused, you can't come back.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would never have shown up -- but I guess, and those will
affect -- so if asked after those concerns, if there are a few of those things I'd like to see
incorporated, minor changes, whatever, beyond wordsmithing, I guess my predicament is, am I
then in a position of voting no because I don't like the exact wordage of the current amendments, or
is there -- what is the leeway for us to agree on some changes to the content?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: How about --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think we would need all parties impacted to agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's say that we're not going to pause and vote individually on
everything. We'll go through it page by page. Then at the end, after that discussion, we may have
a clearer idea where we are apart, and then it might be appropriate to bifurcate or trifurcate or
somehow separate various major points that find their way into the specific language, such as
"encourage," "discourage" versus "require" and "prohibit."
We may find that we have four, six items like that that we could split out at the end of all
of that and proceed in that fashion, if that would work for everybody.
COMMISSIONER FRY: If there are changes made, does it then require the staff to go
back and talk with the stakeholders and get consensus?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. And I am counseled wisely by our County
Attorney who has clarified that, you know, planning belongs to us. We're the Planning
Commission. This is our role. And we have every right to put forth -- oh, and also that the
Growth Management Plan is something that is within our purview, our spot --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's our responsibility.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is ours. So we have a right to put forth specific language.
Of course, we can -- that doesn't mean that staff has to agree with it or accept it or can't put forth
their own suggestion. And at the end of the day, as we all know, it's going to be up to the Board of
County Commissioners to decide, because they're the real owners of this stuff.
But I believe that it's appropriate for us to take ownership of the GMP and to do what we
feel ought to be done as we pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners, and I'm sure staff's
going to do the same.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I take that to mean that we could agree on changes, and they
could be incorporated into what we approve?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What we approve, and that doesn't bind staff.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that accurate, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The Planning -- the Comprehensive Plan is under your wings.
You're the local planning agency. By statute, you're responsible for the Comprehensive Plan and
all amendments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, again, we're caught between to evaluate -- as you
pointed out, we have the Conservancy in one camp, and we've got Wildlife Federation, Audubon in
another. So we've got Conservancy and League of Women Voters, and Wildlife Federation, so,
you know, those are the kind of things we need to consider.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
MR. KLATZKOW: I will give you another wrinkle.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Property owners.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, and the property owners.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which 86 percent of the property is -- or almost
96 percent of the property out there is privately owned.
Go ahead, Jeff. Sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: Assuming the Board of County Commissioners approves these items,
there will be two new Planning Commissions starting October 1st. Are we going to be finished
with this at the next meeting, or is this going to bleed over?
MS. JENKINS: I'm hopeful we'll finish at the next meeting, September 25th.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Because not having a vote and then putting two people on
who have never been a part of this before and then asking them to vote, it would be difficult.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point.
Ms. Jenkins, we had a conversation on Monday about the timing, and I don't remember
exactly what you said, but there was a -- there was a date that you put out that was the earliest that
the Board of County Commissioners could hear this. What was that date? Was it in November?
MS. JENKINS: November 10th, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: 10 November? And so what's the latest that we could talk about
this and still be faithful to that agenda item for the big board?
MS. JENKINS: I would have to rely on our staff to tell me advertising requirements. We
have to back up pretty far to get our items into the Board's agenda packet and to get the item
advertised. So I can't imagine that we could go much past September 25th to maintain that date.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, it seems to me, then, in following up on
the County Attorney's point, that -- let's all try to get this wrapped up on the 25th, but if for some
unforeseen reason we can't, we may have to have a special meeting before October 1 or see if we
can develop a quorum, because it really doesn't make sense to bring two new people on and expect
them to be able to make an informed decision.
So I'll just put that out there earnestly hoping that we don't have to add yet another
meeting. But those are the constraints that we're operating within.
Anybody else want to comment on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then, without objection, we're adjourned.
*******
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 3:49 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
_____________________________________
EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN
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.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 09-17-20CCPC (13720 : 9/9 and 9/17 CCPC Meeting minutes)