Loading...
Backup Documents 09/21/2023 September 22, 2023 To: Collier County Planning Commission Reference: Cocohatchee Bay Settlement / PUD 1 --- Paragraph 21 — Settlement Agreement — Says "executed with the same formalities as the Agreement and Release". 2 --- On March 24, 2015 during Hearing Richard Grant Attorney for Lodge Abbott said "So the Zoning is actually embodied in the Settlement Agreement that was entered into in 2008" 3 --- Collier County CCPS Staff Report 7/6/2023 — "Accompanying the PUD Amendment, but not subject to CCPC Action, is a proposed Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and Release" 4 ---Minutes of the CCPC Meeting 7-6-2023 — "Chairman Fryer — Thank You. And let me --- let me also add on, technically, the Settlement agreement does not pass through us." (.... ") 5 --- CCPC Cocohatchee Bert Harris Review 2-25-2008 OR: 4368 PG: 2351 required federal permits for the SDPs as referenced in this document and is therefore unable to build this project (exclusive of any federal peiiiiits or approvals for docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks. 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers;ire �artd former employees, owners, present and former elected or appointe/l7o' ia1s, insurers, pi-In and representatives, who shall f work together in good faith tb ac o w].ikh the-intent, this A ee ent and Release. 20. This Agreemen(aIfäR(lgas �S a l; e• �'ie by the laws of the State of Florid. 2 \ ``—,_ - �._� 21. This Agreem:n . d Release may bdki nd!� my by a written instrument i t \ b// specifically referring to this Agr + Release e/cuted with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreerrieni"a"nd Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. --�— ---- 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my exist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 7 2/28/08 revision March 24, 2015 Whittington might help me, but probably I will handle this all by myself. I just might need some help passing out papers. And what I'd like to do is run through briefly the history of the Cocohatchee PUD. I'm going to be very quick about that, and I'm going to explain the history and the background to this application which was initiated in December of 2013, how we got to today, point out some things. There's some things I want to explain that the applicant is prepared to do that are not part of the record that have been decided in the past several days. And then I'll turn it over to Wayne Arnold, who will run through a presentation on what is actually being proposed. And he will use some graphics that I think are very useful to your understanding of this. The Cocohatchee PUD was first approved in the year 2000, so it's 15 years old. It was amended in the year 2008, growing out of a petition that actually had been filed in 2005 to amend it. That led to some controversy. It was disapproved. There were challenges to it. It 01 -' resolved itse with a settlement agreement in 2008 which is wh there r is b tlh a settlement agreement that embodies in and of itself the PUD 1� c th in r the ro e\ document that is curre . So the zoning is ntly ern �fo p b rty L acts embodied in the settlement agreement that was entered into in ___Ihs_year 2008. The pending application was initiated in the year -- in December of 2013. It proposed -- and the significant change that it proposed was to propose that the east parcel, as it's called, which is the part of the property located east of Vanderbilt Drive no longer be a golf course, but it could be developed with housing. The application proposed a good bit more density than is currently pending before you. It was, we believe, completely consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. In any event -- and it also proposed the addition of 93 additional acres to the PUD, which is quite a significant amount of land, located Page 25 9.A.1.a V a it Q � J. , a ACCESS 1100'NAME fidb ROW' ACCESS PROJECT c I I f { a con uao .//•/ j-.+•::::.•:.-. � �_ s'w►-iair.�aeen.. "t_. O SCALD i''—,zoo' A/ ::•<:: I1 Z �•►.. `H8� c ?• e m a p,/�j' / •.t::v. jjpp��, % EurRCEnrr 1 F J . a) • ///%// ••• �k5 �' ACCESS PLUM E q E •.. E /�/ �/':;::;:• S \Y_ (SEE NOTE) Si S. �i //i;;%ce:: .::.... WI; 11 / � w a. LEGEND ., • .-: RESIDENTIAL NIGH RISE TRACT // ': m (53.70 AC+/•) %.'`''�i '•::;•i:•.. a) OI % GOLF COURSE/MAINTENANCE :::,15''' `''' Et I N a PRESERVE(OPEN WATER j PRLVECT ACCESS (308 AC+/-} / // -C // �// EMERGENCY ACCESS POINT NOTE: 0 -R''i / %'/' FINAL LOCATION OF EMERGENCY 0 '//',/'A',// . ?v.:.. ACCESS POINT TO BE DETERMINED BY ,/ • •'••::•'•'• .'`'•'• THE END USER{I.E.FIRE DISTRICT) ,,,.:.;;•...,..••,.;:.,..• ••.•.. I I DURING SITE PERMITTING. � N :.•:::.•::•::.•:•:i I I m t1' NOTE; LLI Cc CD o LAND USE AREAS CONCEPTUAL AND O • P.••:•::::: •:•:: SUBJECT TO RELOCATION/CHANGE c,Q CV N • • ••••_ PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. § a cc4 N 2 WATER .•`'r:•:•? ••.,••>}•r ••:•:,•:•' I Q. I C7 4 tt PRESERVE WETLAND :::; •:•: :•:::• :• ':• ::'•::• :::':• O !0 PROJECT ACCESS I ,- co * LOCATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES II 3s kg t m M N rt Proposed Master Plan t . o 0. Accompanying the PUD Amendment.but not subject to CCPC action, is a ro os Amendment ce o the Settlemen Re to reflec crease nu�m er of dwelling units and to Rs recognize the a licant will d si ermit construct a arking lot on 1.61 acres ou si e oft e limits at the southeast corner of the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive to be conveyed to the County for public parking. Additionally, an amendmeroposed to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated December 11 2016 of tmg a portion o tf eiF'Go a_ Course Trac�T recorded in Official Record Book 5322, Page 2347, to accommodate the use of m Essential Services being added as allowable within said Golf Course Tract. See Attach D a) and E to this st re Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and Release c ana proposed Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants an es ctions. _ _, 0 0 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: o This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties c surrounding the boundaries of the subject property,which is zoned Cocohatchee Bay PUD: E U fz Q PUDA-PL20220001142;Cocohatchee Bay PUDA Page 4 of 16 Revised:June 15,2023 Packet Pg. 149 well -- • six, the � �ER� 1T�: tbix�k� else I can say.. C K All 1pN�R S C - -14v`' w11at hate s CpISs lows it 1 dont with w zoning al ' e 11ot here dealing o f property• I existiilg on that piec• e 1ts114t -- we ed fox d again, An ' oiled and allow you already z ou�xe saying• that be �-rscussed what y When will again, please. understand EE.SNER; 1�T: say g and K MR. 1SSI0NER- SCB. l�/L n will that be discussed CpM EEBN�'�" When MR. there and thing before the decided on`? N CRY ER; Is CI�AIRMA • 1t on this Subect? s oil sated. the parcel is zoned County at this point No As I've indicated.MR. Bps 3. It allocates a number -- a C-3 C-3 is commerciallots a convenience store, those of uses. A parking variety ed b armatter of right. There are are uses that are allow y e contain within our Land compatibility measures that p � to be s�isfxed t o ensure Development Code that will have ' the protection of adjoining resident'a, TIvthat's __ that won't be up for discussion. The settlement agreement indicates thet will be a conveyance of land. A portion of that ' pem,'s being conveyed from the owner to the county f tithe additional parking,arking, and then what that individulroperty owner does within their remaining C-3 is within property rights that are associated with that parcel of lan CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. let me -- le me also add on, , th technical) e settlemen ement d`S oe -t_ not pass tl -�„�1, »c . MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It was logicypend it to the agenda packet because it answered some questions that we would otherwise have had, and certainly as a Planning Commission, we're always free to recommend whatever we want on whatever matter that comes before us. But, obviously, this is not going to be on the consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners. So those of you who take issue with the amendment to the settlement agreement will have eve opportunity to be heard by the Board itself that has the authority to grant an amen ment or not ent. - And if we decide to make a recommendation on that, we can. But, you know, I'm not -- I'm not recommending la at t is time. All right. Anything else for Mr. Heebner? MR. HEEBNER: I understand the zoning, you know, what it's approved for and everything like that, but I would ask you as a commission, you know, do the right thing and don't allow a convenience store to be placed right in front of probably 70 residents that would be looking right at that and very close by to our properties that we've worked a long time to be able to afford and live there and enjoy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's -- unfortunately, for -- I guess for you and for others who share your point of view, that's not before us. I mean, we're a reactive body, and we're going to deal with what is before us. Anything else, Mr. Heebner? MR. HEEBNER: That's it. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MS. PEDROI\T: Our next speaker is Gary Brogoch. 9 . . a :.R3 cc (6 • Agenda ite 4l J7,A April 22: 2008 Page 5 of 117 CCPC SUMMARY OF COCOHATCHEE BERT HARRIS REVIEW Date: 2-25-08 Background: Over a period of 3 months and 3 separate meetings, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) publicly reviewed a Settlement Agreement remanded to the CCPC by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). This Agreement was the result of a contested Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the Cocohatchee PUD. The BCC instructed the CCPC to review the content of the Settlement Agreement and determine consistency of the Settlement Agreement with the PUD and the County Land Development Code (LDC). Results: Each paragraph of the Agreement was reviewed and discussed. In many instances there were changes suggested to better focus and define the intent of the paragraphs, those are all outlined in the attached documentation. Certain sections of the Agreement required more intense discussion and thus debate with members of the CCPC as well as interaction with representatives of the ownership of the PUD. In order to provide the critical points in as brief a manner as possible, those items of primary concern are as follows: 1. In order to assure that future staff members as well as the public will be able to accurately track the actual development standards that this project will have as a result of the Settlement Agreement, it is recommended that the terms of the Settlement Agreement be incorporated into a strikethrough version of the PUD and recorded as an amendment to the PUD ordinance. The following is a summary of the various document and exhibits: a. Amended PUD (2/13/08 revision) b. Amended site plan as Exhibit"A" to the Amended PUD(Rev 01-25-08) c. Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan as Exhibit "B" to Amended PUD (with footnote #4 updated 2-27-07) d_ Settlement Agreement as Exhibit"C" to Amended PUD (2-08-08 revision) i. Original PUD as Exhibit 1 to Settlement Agreement(Ordinance 2000-88) ii. Amended PUD as Exhibit 2 to Settlement Agreement'(2/13/08 revision) (which includes the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan as Exhibit B (with footnote#4 updated 2-27-07)) iii. Phasing plan of Golf Course as Exhibit 3 to Settlement Agreement (rev 7- 18-07) iv. Pathways plan as Exhibit 4 to Settlement Agreement (Date: 12-10-07) 2. The on-site bald eagle relocated to a new nest north of the old location, the Settlement Agreement incorporates a new management plan reflecting the new location and re- establishes the phasing of the project consistent with the new nest site, Agenda Item No. 17A April 22, 2008 Page 6 of 117 3. All references that dealt with docks or alluded to docks are recommended to be struck from the Settlement Agreement. Since the SDP's, once they reach a tentative state of approval subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are incorporated as approved as part of this Agreement, it is recommended that the SDP's likewise remove all references to docks or dock permitting. 4. The terminology for retaining "passive recreation" on the golf course site,should the golf course operations cease, were defined and added to the Settlement Agreement. These uses were listed in the language in the Preserve section of the PUD and referenced in the Golf Course section. 5. The manner in which height was measured and defined originally in the Settlement Agreement was inconsistent with the PUD. This was corrected and the height references in the Settlement Agreement now coincide with the PUD. This project is utilizing two stories of primarily under building parking and the first habitable floor, as the term habitable is defined in our Code of Laws,begins above the second deck of parking. 6. There was lengthy discussion concerning the setbacks of the buildings from one another. The Settlement Agreement relied upon a footnote in the PUD referencing reduced setbacks based on common architectural theme. There was concern by some members of • the CCPC that this reliance in the footnote was not adequately disclosed in the original PUD approval. The development standards table in the. original PUD requires a ._ • separation of one-half the. sum of the building heights with a footnote to that table which states: *3 Where buildings with. a CO17i77i017 architectural theme are angled, skewed or offset from one another and walls are not parallel to one another; the setbacks can be administratively reduced. Without such a footnote, the building separation would have been as stated in the development standards table of the PUD, which is one-half of the total of the height of each building (200 feet plus 200 feet), or in the case of the first four buildings, a separation of 200 feet. With this footnote, the tower separations, for the 4 southern most towers, arc at a minimum 100 feet up to 153 feet. Due to the footnote above, the distance between the tower portions of the buildings was noted in the Settlement Agreement to be referenced at not less than l00 feet. However, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation he removed from the Settlement Agreement and the applicants rely upon the interpretation of the PUD with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDP's reviewed by the CCPC. As an alternative.to the reduction in this separation, greater distances could he provided by moving alternating towers closer to Vanderbilt Drive. Agenda Item I Va. 17A April 22, 2008 Paoe 7 of 117 7. One paragraph in the Settlement Agreement addresses the ownership of submerged lands. This issue had not been fully analyzed by County legal staff and is not necessary to be included within the Settlement Agreement and is thus recommended for removal. 8. As part of the original Agreement negotiations included moving all density, except two single family homes, to the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Since the PUD did not have development standards for single family homes, standards were provided and are recommended for approval. 9. The original PUD did not clearly address development standards for structures like a Clubhouse or Cabanas. Standards for these accessory uses were also provided and are recommended for approval. RESPECTFULLY WRITTEN ANI) REVIEWED FOR SUBMISSION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON 2-25-08.