Loading...
Backup Docs 01/31/2024Attendance Sign -In Sheet Development Services Advisory Committee — Land Development Review Subcommittee Wednesday, January 31, 2024 GMUM Building, Conference Room 609/610 2:00 PM Committee Members Clay Brooker Jeff Curl Blair Foley Mark McLean Robert Mulhere Staff Members Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager Richard Henderlong, Planner III Marissa Fewell, Planner III Maria Estrada, Planner II Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Division Director Public Name Representing Contact Information MIL4A 41.6 1 &C1 PO�A I , ) S1, e e6M C PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INC Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, and Planners AD MIN. MAILING ADDRESS: 5797ANEGADA DR. NAPLES, FL 34113 (239) 263.6934; (877) 263-0535 fax mfernandez(@planningdevelopmentinc.com State of Florida Corporate Certification of Authorization No's: Architecture AR95440 Engineering CA No.8450; AICP Cert.#9381 4 �7 1 �?a �e! From: Alan Carpenter <apcarpjrrge@gmail.com> Sent. Tuesday, January 16, 2024 8:06 PM Too Eric Johnson; Richard Henderlong cco Patricia Campbell; Peter Osinski Subject: Questions raised today at the DSAC sub -committee meeting Attachments : Comments to DSAC meeting Jan 16, 2024.docx EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Eric, Rich, Than{< you for allowing us the time to share our questions and comments today. Although the record of the meeting will have more details, I thought I would send the primary questions/comments that I had mentioned. These are attached. Thank you again, Alan Alan Carpenter Secretary, Board of Directors Riviera Golf Estates Homeowner's Association 425 Charlemagne Blvd, Naples, FL 34112 239-775-3573 (office) 857-928-4520 (mobile) 1 Questions/Comments to DSAC re: Proposed Changes to LDC 5.05.15 l . Will these proposed changes to 5.05.15 of the LDC apply to all GC rezoning applications going forward? (RGC, Evergreen?) If so, then the currently proposed dimensional standards and requirements would be applied? If not, then the current Code standards would be applied? 2. We applaud the proposal to require preliminary data on soil testing and protected species (wildlife and vegetation) in the rezoning application. Is that the intent? The RGC golf course is of the same vintage as the Golden Gate course, and we all know what was discovered when soil testing was performed there. In addition, there are known protected species on the land. Better rezoning plans can be created based on that foreknowledge, avoiding future delays and unanticipated development expenses. 3. What is the purpose of a greenway? The current and proposed revisions to this section of Code states that recreational use and open space views are part of the intent...and (implicitly) the preservation of abutting homeowner's property values is also critical to avoid any future legal disputes. It is a balancing of interests. Should that be recognized in the Code revisions? Other comments/suggestions: • stormwater retention lakes are not allowed for recreational use, should not include the areas in greenway calculations. • SOMs may be less unruly if scheduled in appropriate venues (not sports park) • Conceptual plans with preliminary stormwater and soil test results are needed for golf courses which also act as floodplains. • Post development stormwater plans should meet current day stormwater engineering standards, not "equivalent" to systems designed in the 1970s (such as the drainage on the RGC golf course) • Provisions for the exchange of alternative public benefits in a golf course redevelopment for deviations from greenway or other standards are appropriate; these are not be considered an additional burden on the applicant, but should be mutually agreed -upon benefits to the applicant in exchange for certain public benefits (e.g. recreational uses, infrastructure improvements, etc) Alan Carpenter Secretary, Board of Directors Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. January 16, 2024 Questions from Peter Osinski Rivera Golf Estates 3z',,.5 220 7622 oslnslclB@gmail.com C�Vlestlon i In Section ii9 the hr®posed language stipulates that the GRh NWAY shall have in average width of 75 feet (down from 100) and no less than 50 feet (down frorn N) at a.ny one location, �'� next se�rntence is ncw te��ta ��®l c�l��i�es �oncol Golf Co�.�rse arnd Recreational Uses.) "GC"a minimum �� Meet buffer zone and buildini setback wl/cilth �i�om abutti residential shall be maintained etc. Please define "buffer zone and building setback" in this context. Is it a term synonyfnous with Gree�nway or is it a separate dimensional entity to be rnainntalned in addition or conjunction with the Greenway9 If the newly i�acluded buffer �,o��e and b����ding setback is an a.d®lltion�al dirirnensional entity can we assume that the proposed language is adding another 50 feet .fro tl required distance from any new building to the property line000in other words `75 ��root Greenway plans 5® moot buffer/setback equals 125 feet? �7jJl�ille �i�e ;�e�-�J lang���age allows tl�r� ��'oard discn°ci�lon over the Greenway diflaCk"nsior`is, does it allow the board discretion over the 50 ft setback? Sections �d and �?, 1l � tl�e existing language re��e�°s �o °°®then recreatlon�al �nses°° i� Ll�e Gree�rnway and lighting in the conversion project to �e vetted" at the SOMs. The actual ale��initlor� on��r�tted iso to examine something or° car°ef-�lly to make certain thief it or they are acceptable or snnitable. Please define exactly what °°vetted" means in this context of the SOMs. Does It mean, as an applicant tried to represent to ins, is simi©ly aco���cei©t. that was presented at a SOD\,4 or does it mean i concept that was presented at a SOM and. after consideration, deemed acceptable by the stakeholder O �I it is the latter, now clo we establish that sorneMing was presented considered and Linally vetted at a SOM9 Should the language include some sort of written ,i,c,, owledgement that a particular concept was indeed vetted? And if there is no requirement to document a "vetted" concept, inuch of what hippens in the "kJOMs simply becomes whatever the applicant says happened in the follow up SOM relyonI�o o mrendering the SOM to be a far less meaningful exercise andl stalkeholder input easily disregarded. c��uestion At Rivera Golf Estates, the golf Course property subject to ®levelol®ment is entirely encompassed within oun° Over .55 con`1munithi an©1 Inscrting a nonage restricte®i development within our confines will create many serious compatibility, quality of life, public safety, and traffic issues° And we have to assume that there are other over 55 communities in Collier county that would be similarly affected by non=age resin°iictedl development adjacent to a signilcant portion of their borders. We feel that the 1I1�,�; r,uluirements shouldl_ address phis important compatibility issue by adding language that requires the applicant determine the percentage of Dver 55 communities adjacent to it's proposed, borders and require that the proposed community must also be Over 55 if more than a certain percentage of it's 3roperty borders such a community. Additional fencing and screening along the Dver 55 borders unighk also be prudent for proposed properties with less than the aforementioned 1®ercentageo question 4: What is the projected timeframe for approval and implementation of these updates? ill these updates apply to e��isting �[ 1 � applications or will such applications continue to be subject to the current regulations? Comments to the Proposed Amendments to LDC 5.05.15 The first paragraph of Section 5.05.15 states it's main purpose: "The intent is to involve the public and require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the community in outreach meetings early in the conceptual design phase of a conversion project and examine compatibirity issues to existing neighborhoods and build an early consensus on alternative uses. By involving the public early in the process, the application can be responsive to the neighborhood concerns and avoid delays. continuances and appeals." Engagement and Building Consensus is clearly a high priority goal, if not the very essence of this process. And yet, the SOM process we experienced gave us the distinct impression that the applicant simply went through the motions of presenting its design concept to us, endured / ignored our politely but firmly stated issues with it and never, at any point, solicited our input on alternative designs or uses. Ultimately, the SOM portion of this application met the letter of the regulations and was deemed to be satisfactory but I think we can all agree that it did not bring the applicant and stakeholders anywhere closer to the desired goal of consensus. And while the amended regulations reflect the intent to enhance engagement and consensus though the SOM process, I would like to present some constructive suggestions to improving the letter of the regulations to better enable the achievement of those goals. Now in the ITC portion of the regs, two SOMS are required and the applicant is required to include apoint-counterpoint list identifying input from the stakeholders and how and why it was not incorporated in the conversion application. No where in this section does it mention issues that were vetted in the SOM process yet in the most crucial and contested portion of the regulations, which involves giving the BCC wider powers over the design of the Greenway, Section 5, paragraph b, I states: "I he Board may approve an alternative design that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings..." So a crucial part of the Boards increased ability to regulate the Greenway relies on being able to approve an alternative greenway design that was "vetted" through the process of engagement and consensus building outlined in the SOM process. Yet nowhere in the SOM process is there a requirement for applicant and shareholders to specifically "vette" (i.e. to examine something or carefully to make certain that it or they are acceptable or suitable), or most importantly, document the existence of a "vetted" alternative greenway design. And nowhere in the entire regulation is "vetted" defined nor is the process of "vetting" described. So again, I constructively suggest to you that it is crucial to the effectiveness of SOM process and the very integrity of these amendments, that you as an Advisory Board define what it is to "vette" a concept in this context and build a "vetting" process as a specifically defined and required feature of the SOM process. RespectFully submitted, Peter Osinski, Chairman, Riviera Golf Estates Golf Course Work Group 543 Charlemagne Blvd., Naples Questions/Comments to DSAC re: Proposed Changes to LDC 5.05.15 1 /31 /2024 1. Will these proposed changes to 5.05.15 of the LDC apply to RGC and Evergreen that have already started the conversion process? If not, then the current Code standards would be applied? 2. We are disappointed to see that the proposal to require preliminary data on soil testing and protected species (wildlife and vegetation) in the rezoning application has been eliminated. The RGC golf course is likely to have similar soil contaminants, such as arsenic, as the Golden Gate course. In addition, there are known protected species on the land. Better rezoning plans can be created based on that foreknowledge, avoiding future delays and unanticipated development expenses. It is in the best interests of both the prospective developers of the property and the County to know this at the time of the rezoning application. 3. The greenway was originally included in 5.05.15, in part, to mitigate the negative impact of new construction on abutting homeowner's property values. The proposed addition to LDC 5.05.15 for consolidating all greenway area into one or two non-contiguous parcels does not prevent the devaluation of bordering properties. RGE properties which directly border the golf course are valued at 4125M based on 2023 sales data. The County's own study states that a premium of �30% is included in the value of properties directly bordering a golf course. The current proposal to allow for greenways which are not contiguous to existing community homes will create substantial property devaluation for the abutters, and create the basis for legal challenges such as Bert Harris claims. 4. Stormwater retention lakes do not provide recreational benefits or privacy (e.g. sight or sound) barriers to anyone and should not be included as part of the greenway. Stormwater retention lakes and greenways serve two different purposes. Other comments/suggestions: • SOMs may be less unruly if scheduled in appropriate venues (not sports park) • Conceptual plans with preliminary stormwater and soil test results are needed for golf courses which also act as floodplains. • Stormwater plans in a rezoning application should meet current day stormwater engineering standards; not "equivalent" to systems designed 40 to 50 years ago. In fact, the state's standards for stormwater discharge nutrient levels have changed substantially since the 1970s, • Provisions for public benefits in a golf course redevelopment in exchange for deviations from greenway or other standards may be appropriate in some situations; these are not necessarily an additional burden on the applicant, as long as they are based on mutually agreed -upon benefits to the applicant in exchange for certain public benefits (e.g. recreational uses, infrastructure improvements, etc.), without sacrificing abutting property values as noted above. Alan Carpenter Secretary, Board of Directors Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethre,,gh io GUFFeRt tev+ to he deleted Amend the LDC as follows: 2 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses 4 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of 5 golf course conversion on real property by FegWiriRg a itreonh ,.dth sto Lehelrtero d iriRg the 6 7 GOMpatihility with the evicting land i icec. The intent is to involve the public and require the 8 applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the community in outreach meetings 9 early in the conceptual design phase of a conversion protect and examine compatibility 10 issues to existing neighborhoods and build an early consensus on alternative uses. By 11 involving the public early in the process, the application can be responsive to the 12 neighborhood concerns and avoid delays, continuances and appeals. 13 14 For the purposes of this section, property owners within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall 15 hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. 16 17 1 . Stakeholder eutreach PFGEess. ThfTfteTrfO a provide a PF9GPS+�S f1V-^QCrf�/'Q"fCr 18 ense sus between Npii and the ctakehoIderc enr tttl�vved 19 on. in parti War, this SeGtien is designed to address I 20 Ee�rsear-.G. utt URded, in�rr- whole -eF IR part, by-resideRti es or lands ZGRed 21 reci a-. 22 r��M 23 2.Development-.standardsit i tire-'RteRt of�spnerif�Qev nmeRt cstandura.�c. 24 Gentained heroin to envoi irage the applicant to propose o nnnverc inn nroient with 25 land uses and amenities that are GOMpatible and GOMplementary to the existing 26 27 inp it provided by stakeholders into the development prepocal 28 29 Participation and/or completion of the intent to convert application process shall not imply 30 that a golf course conversion has received or will receive future rezoning approval to a 31 different land use by the Board. 32 33 B. Applicability. The following_ zZoning aActions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments, 34 and Compatibility Design Review petitions, hereafter collectively referred to as 35 "eConversion applications," shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A GConversion 36 application shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a constructed golf course 37 to a non -golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is 38 sought for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant 39 shall be exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.1514D, lighting and setback 40 design standards. Golf courses constructed prior to [effective date of Ordinance 41 amendment] as a conditional use in the Rural Agricultural Zoning District and constructed 42 golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to residentially zoned property are 43 also exempt from this section except for LDC Section 5.05.15.D. 44 45 1. Zoning aActions. This section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning 46 district where the proposed use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the 47 zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought. Zoning actions seeking 48 a PUD rezone shall be subject to the minimum area requirements for PUDs 7 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethre ,gh ' Rt text to be .deleted established in LDC section 4.07.02; however, the proposed PUD shall not be required to meet the contiguous acres requirement so long as the PUD rezone does not include lands other than the constructed golf course subject to the conversion application. 2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course constructed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area where the proposed use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the change is sought. 3. Compatibility Design Review. This section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a non -golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within the existing zoning district or designation. Conditional uses shall also require conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00. C. Application process for "Intent to Convert" (ITC) and "GConversion" applications. Intent to Convert application procedures. The applicant shall submit an "In#�� re�� ITC application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application except for existing constructed golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to residentially zoned property. The following is required of the applicant: a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application submittal requirements, including: ,a #i#Iopinion ortitle GOmmi#men# that identifies the GUrFeRt eF f_ #gonerty and all enGUmb ands against property; Developer's AlteMati es Statomen#andas provided for below; anthe p blin e itreonh methods to he used to engagestakeholders at the Stakeholder OUtreaGh Meetings, ec#ohlicherl heloei i. A title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances. ii. A statement describing the public outreach methods to be used to engage participants and stakeholders at Stakeholders Outreach Meetings, as established below. b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of LDC section 10.03.06. b c. Conceptual Development Plans for Partial or Full Conversion and Alternatives The gpp!�g� DAS shall be prepared by the appliGant and shall Glearly identify the goals and-objeEt�s f�GE);Ver�R pF9jeEt,. The DAS-shaallTl address, a 8 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrei ugh io eRt text to be deleted 2 ate one or more of the alternatives On the Gonversion PrOjeGt. I opportunities • t i�rru Ana su�rri_iiz� .tea �rim.�.� • 23 P040OR or all of the property I open spaGe, GI'ViG use, or other publiG faGilities. The appliGaRt Shall 25 pursue other alternatives and provide a written affidavit of these 28 to PUFGhase aRY lands, ROF shall this require the property GWRer to 27 Fesults of the diSGUSSOORS. Thus GeGtOOR shall net require the Count 30 31 iii, CORGept al development plans for partial GF full Ge RyerSOGR: The applicant 32 shall prepare one two or more proposed conceptual development plans, 33 consistent with the development standards established in LDC section 34 5.05.15 GC.5, depicting the proposed conversion. The goals and 35 obiectives for full or partial conversion shall be identified. The applicant 36 shall share the conceptual development plans with the stakeholders at the 37 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described below. The conceptual 38 development plans shall include a narrative describing how the plan 39 implements and is consistent with the goals and objectives identified +e the 40 DAS. The conceptual development plans shall depict the retained and 41 proposed land uses, including residential, non-residential, and preserve 42 areas; existing and proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing 43 and proposed trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the 44 greenway, including any passive recreational uses. The narrative shall 45 identify the intensity of the proposed land uses; how the proposed 46 conversion is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and any 47 methods to provide benefits or mitigate impacts to the stakeholders. 48 Diagrams and Vvisual exhibits to describe the conceptual development 49 plans and amenities, including the greenway, shall also be provided. 50 9 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh is currono text to he deleted 1 mod. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) for Gen%;on Intent to Convert 2 applications. The SOMs are intended to engage the stakeholders early in 3 the conversion project and inform the applicant as to what the stakeholders 4 find important in the neighborhood, what the stakeholders consider 5 compatible with the neighborhood, and what types of land uses they would 6 support to be added to the neighborhood. An assigned County planner 7 shall attend the SOM and observe the process. Unless otherwise stated in 8 LDC section C.1.d, the SOM shall be conducted in the same manner as 9 the NIM. The following is required of the applicant: 10 11 The dMinistrati Code ish a. e shall esty PFOGedure—and 12 applination submittal requirements. 13 14 bi. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in -person SOMs at 15 least 30 days apart from one another and a minimum of one web- 16 based visual survey on the proposed conceptual development 17 plan(os. The web -based survey web address shall be incorporated 18 in the mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in -person SOMs. 19 20 Gii. At the SOMs, a third party trained facilitator may moderate the 21 SOMs to stay on task, assure attendees have an opportunity to 22 participate, and protect members. The applicant shall provide 23 information to the stakeholders about the purpose of the meeting, 24 including a presentation on the goals and objectives of the 25 conversion project, the conceptual development plans, the 26 greenway concept, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility 27 with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The applicant shall 28 facilitate discussion on these topics with the stakeholders using one 29 or more public outreach method(s) identified in the Administrative 30 Code. The applicant shall identify primary issues, solicit input from 31 the participants, and ensure comments are included in the SOM 32 report. 33 34 de. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the 35 applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of 36 attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos from 37 the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from outreach 38 methods, and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The applicant 39 shall also include a point -counterpoint list, identifying input from the 40 stakeholders and how and why it was or was not incorporated in the 41 conversion application. The report shall be organized such that the issues 42 and ideas provided by the stakeholders are clearly labeled by the applicant 43 in the list and the GConversion application. 44 10 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh is ono text to be deleted 1 find per versus post development runoff analysis shall be provided with the 2 Conversion appliGation. 3 4 f. Participation and/or completion of the ITC application process shall not 5 imply that a golf course conversion has received or will receive future 6 rezoning approval to a different land use by the Board. 7 8 42. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion 9 application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, Compatibility Design Review) until the 10 Intent to Convert application, +s- including the SOMs and SOM report are deemed 11 completed by County staff and the corms are nomnletert. Thereafter, the applicant 12 may proceed by submitting a EConversion application with the County as follows: 13 14 a. Zoning Actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For 15 projects subject to LDC section 5.05.15 13.1., the applicant shall file a PUDA 16 or rezone application, including the SOM report. For projects subject to 17 5.05.15 13.2., the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area 18 Amendment application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC 19 section 5.05.15Lshalll be rehihited ; further, `Deviations to minimum design 20 standards, or other sections of the LDC shall be shared with the 21 stakeholders at a SOM or NIM prior to the Planning Commission 22 recommendation and Board approval. Any deviations requested shall 23 require the owner of real property to demonstrate the need for deviation 24 and agree to provide an enhancement to the property and/or make 25 improvements to existing external infrastructure such as stormwater, 26 roadways or traffic calming in exchange for the deviation. The grant of any 27 deviation, singularly or in combination with other deviations, shall not 28 adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of adjacent 29 residential use or land zoned residential. 30 31 b Stewardship Q 'ew, Area ° F�oiectsubjeGtte5.0515 . ee R g m eradmentS . 32 Gant shall file - Stewardship--rRec ping Area Arnend-rn d.i�e i ppi -, 33 'yppliGati„� iRGIuding theSOM report. npeviati�tO GseGtIE)R05 15 34 shall he prohibit • further, d is n too n f (� all he sest+ens-c�-t1��D-�eh�,� Ana.,--a�,�,�ed�t#er�ev;�rt+ens-�t#e� 35 shared with the eta ehelrlers at a corm or NIM 36 37 sb. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to LDC section 5.05.15 38 13.3., the applicant shall file a Compatibility Design Review application, 39 including the SOM report. 40 41 D C. Criteria and staff report for sConversion applications. In addition to the 42 requirements established in LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B., or 43 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff report shall evaluate the following: 44 45 4 i. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this 46 section and development standards in the LDC. In particular, that 47 the proposed design and use(s) of the greenway, as applicable, 48 meet the puFpese standards as described in LDC section 5.05.15 49 G-.2C.5.b. and minimum useable open space requirements 50 Dursuant to LDC section 4.07.02 G. 11 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh 'c ono text to he deleted 2 2ii. Whether the SOM report and point -counterpoint list described 3 above reflect the discussions that took place at the SOMs. 4 5 3iii. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by 6 the stakeholders to address impacts of the golf course conversion 7 on stakeholders' real property. 8 9 4iv. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why input from 10 the stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual 11 development plan. 12 13 V. Whether sigRifieant eRVirenmental imnaets teiol Ild- he real Tired to be V. 14 15 16 v;. Whether the —ap liEatiO provides fer the—mainteRaRGe Of Op�T 17 mono and the Gree Rway 18 19 V. Whether the proposed project is adequately setback from existing 20 residential development, or buffered by the Greenway and 21 compatible with existing adjacent residential development. 22 23 d. The resell14ien of real prep y oI n;braRGe eeSinfll IenGe the an;eupA ��o�,�r-�,--rear�e�t�enr« „�, a�11 24 of area eligible-fA-.rTedev nmeta4r-A-r__A_.M.4ers+o„-apeI,�t+eR may -,et -be 25 deemed GE)Fnpteeteuntil -real, ;�ert�9nc+J„TI ranGe6 IOnGluding alllea private use strl ens ant ons7 en sea McRtS that may 26 ,�,��c re��,Tc�r��c-e�er���,a--opeg� 27 impact and/er are Within the chain of title to anti pertien of the pelf eel Irse 28 property have been reselved between and among the parties. 29 30 € 3. Supplemental review and approval considerations for z2oning e&tions and 31 Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of 32 the Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the 33 Board shall show the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff 34 report for conversion applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, the 35 criteria established in LDC section 5.05.15 i3C.2.c, as well as the criteria 36 established in LDC sections 10.02.08 F, 10.02.13 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In 37 particular, the Planning Commission shall give attention to the design of the 38 greenway and how it mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention shall be 39 given to who can use the greenway. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC 40 section 5.05.15 i3C.2.c, as well as the criteria established in LDC sections 10.02.08 41 F, 10.02.13 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable, and Planning Commission report and 42 recommendation. The applicant is encouraged to consider cluster residential 43 develoDment and affordable housina within the master development Dlan. 44 45 F. 4. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3., this section is 46 intended to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by 47 requiring the conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the 48 existing surrounding uses. The following is required: 49 50 4a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal 51 requirements for the compatibility design review application. 12 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh 'c ono text to he deleted 2b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of LDC section 10.03.06. 3c. Compatibility Design Review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in LDC section 5.05.15 DC.2.c, the Compatibility Design Review application, and make a recommendation to the Board based on the following criteria: ai. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established in this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC section 5.05.15 D 2 - D 4 C.2 c.ii-iv. bii. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. eiii. Whether a view of open space is provided that mitigates impacts to real property for the property owners that surround the golf course. di_v. Whether open space is retained and available for passive recreation. 4d. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC section 5.05.15 €:-3 CA.c., above, the staff report and the Planning Commission report and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall obtain approval of any additional required development order, such as a SDP, construction plans, or conditional use. G 5. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The Compatibility Design Review process shall only be subject to LDC section 5.05.15 G-.6 C.5.d. and C.5.f. 4-a. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages utilized to meet the minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for any subsequent conversion projects. 2b. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space for stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a continuous strip of land set aside for passive recreational uses, such as: open space, nature trails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach frontage, disc golf courses, exercise equipment, and multi -use paths. The Board may approve other passive recreational uses that were vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. The greenway shall not include required yards (setbacks) of any individual lots. -ai. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties surrounding the golf course and generally located along 13 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh is ono text to he deleted the perimeter of the proposed development. The Board may approve an alternative design that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as provided for in LDC section 5.05.15 S-3 C.1.d and C.5.b.ii. bii. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the full or partial conversion project shall be dedicated to the greenway. The greenway shall have an mien average width of a --GO 75 feet and no less than 75 50 feet at any one location. Ger gGlf GE) irses wed ^l)If GO at Se-anvD e6r e•atrrenulrvUses "GG", a minima im 50 feet buffer er Zene and building sethaGk width from abutting residential shall he maintained fE)r GensistenGy withthe aGGess^rvey building and .;iiu Ire fO r g e l f,.f Ge u rse lets Se Ek set f ^rth OnrL[)v-aeEt't R n 02.03 D. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. the Board may reduce the averaae width of the greenway as a deviation subject to paragraph C.2.a. and aggregate the greenway into one or more larger parcels, Drovided there is 35 Dercent of the full or Dartial conversion Droiect is committed to the greenway. e iii. Maintenance of the greenway shall be identified through the zoning er and /or Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment process. iv. The areenwav land shall be owned and/or maintained by a homeowner's association, land trust, government entity, a conservation organization or other entity identified and recognized by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of SDP or PPL submittal. whichever is the first to occur. d V. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as noted in G4 paragraph C.5.a. above. e vi. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover) shall be preserved and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal improvements are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a minimum, canopy trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet within the greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, trees within preserves shall be excluded from the ratio. f-vii. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and around the greenway. g viii. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however, the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area than exists pre -conversion in the greenway. Any newly developed lake shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. 14 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh 'c ono text to he deleted h ix. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, in the County's official records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway as described in the zoning action or SRA Amendment. With each phase of development, there will be at least two tracts, one to identify the greenway tract (restrictive covenant and maintenance use) and the other as the project development tract. 6c. Preserve requirements. The following preserve standards supplement those established in LDC section 3.05.07. ai. Where small,isolated areas (of less than '/2 acre in size) of native vegetation (including planted areas) exist on site they may be consolidated into a created preserve that may be greater than '/2 acre in size in the aggregate to meet the preserve requirement. bii. Existing County approved preserve areas shall be considered as follows: �. a) Golf courses within a conventional zoning district. All County approved preserve areas shall be retained and may be utilized to meet the preserve requirements for the conversion project. 4]21 Golf courses within a PUD. All County approved preserve areas shall be retained. Preserve areas in excess of the PUD required preserve acreage may be used to meet the preserve requirement for the conversion project. 4d. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that the stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by pre versus post development stormwater runoff analysis inG' d!Rg env stormwater ri inoff from eutside the golf roe arse that posses on osier, or through areas of the pelf not arse 6e. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain compensation shall be provided at the time of the Conversion application. 6f. Soil and/or groundwater sampling may be deferred by the applicant to Early Work Authorization (EWA), SDP, or PPL submittal, whichever is the first to occur, if the sampling has not been completed by the rezoning, SRA amendment, or compatibility design review public hearings. See LDC Section 3.08.00 AAA. 15 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added. Text str'Lethre nh 'c ono text to he deleted 7-g. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply. HD. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce excessive glare, light trespass and sky glow. At a minimum, lighting shall be directed away from neighboring properties and all light fixtures shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. Lighting for the conversion project shall be vetted with stakeholders during the SOMs and the public hearings, as applicable. 2. Setbacks. All non -golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with residential uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one location. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 J:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2024\01-31\Materials\Word Versions\PL20230012905 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of Golf Courses 1-24-24.docx