The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Agenda 02/27/2024 Item # 8A (Official Interpretation by the Zoning Director regarding the type of usees that qualify as a Neighborhood Fitness Center)8.A 02/27/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, review the appeal of August 18, 2023, Official Interpretation issued by the Zoning Director regarding the type of use or uses that qualify as a neighborhood fitness and community center, a Conditional Use in the Golf Course Zoning District, and uphold the interpretation of the Zoning Director that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. This is a county -wide interpretation, not specific to the Lakewood Golf Course. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board), sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, review the appeal of the August 18, 2023, Official Interpretation issued by the Zoning Director regarding the type of use or uses that qualify as a neighborhood fitness and community center, a Conditional Use in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC" (Golf Course Zoning District). CONSIDERATIONS: Section 1.06.01.13.6 Responsibilities for Interpretations of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes a procedure for appeal of an official interpretation of the County Manager or designee. In accordance with Section 1.06.0l.D.6.c., the Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County Manager or designee's interpretation, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the interpretation. The Board of Zoning appeals shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designees, or building official's interpretation unless it finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable. On May 30, 2023, staff received a request for an official interpretation of the LDC submitted by Anthony P. Pires, Esq., representing Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. (Attachment A). The official interpretation, rendered by the Zoning Director on August 18, 2023, was advertised in the Naples Daily News in accordance with the procedures established in the LDC. It should be noted that the Official Interpretation is not site -specific, but applies to all properties within a County Golf Course Zoning District. The official interpretation (Attachment B) sets forth, in detail, the rationale used in making this interpretation. In summary, the interpretation is as follows: Staff notes that two of the four permitted uses identified within the Golf Course Zoning District, golf course, and disc golf course, are unique attractors. These uses draw from a broader market area than those that serve at a neighborhood or community basis. In fact, golf courses and the number of golf courses within Collier County help draw tourists from regional, state, national, and international markets, a scale well beyond that of a neighborhood or community attractor. This recognition is provided to recognize the geographic reach of the primary permitted use, golf courses, within the Golf Course Zoning District. It should be noted that the other three permitted uses within the Golf Course Zoning District, 2) hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths, observation decks, 3) passive recreation areas, and 4) disc golf, were added in 2017 as part of the adoption of the golf course conversion LDC amendments; prior to that ordinance's adoption, golf courses were the sole permitted use in the Golf Course Zoning District. Again, this distinction is made to clarify that a golf course is the primary permitted use of the Golf Course Zoning District, whose market draw was that of a scale much further than the neighborhood or community scale, was a use. A review of the Conditional Uses within the Golf Course Zoning District further establishes this fact. The conditional uses provided are: Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course, including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges and similar Packet Pg. 22 8.A 02/27/2024 uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course; 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens; 3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to residential uses; 4. Museums; 5. Water -related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat ramps, docks, and fishing piers; 6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and racquetball; 7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers; 8. Parks and playgrounds; 9. Pools, indoor or outdoor; and 10. Botanical gardens. Of the ten conditional uses allowed in the Golf Course Zoning District, one-half (5) are considered regional in their market attraction; they draw visitors/customers beyond that of a neighborhood or community scale. Based upon the fact that the primary Golf Course permitted use within the Golf Course Zoning District is a regional, national, and international attractor, and coupled with the fact that one-half of the allowed conditional uses also have a market area beyond one that serves a neighborhood or community scale market area. Staff concludes that market area is not a factor within the intent of the Golf Course Zoning District. Within the Appellant's request is a request for a definition of the use of "neighborhood fitness and community center," recognizing that the LDC does not provide a definition. Staff would offer a functioning example of a neighborhood fitness and community center, the Golden Gate Community Center. The Center provides the following amenities: • picnic pavilion, gymnasium, kitchen, auditorium, meeting rooms, game room, playground, restrooms, band shell, picnic pavilion, skate park, and BMX track. While all these amenities are not required to qualify for a neighborhood fitness and community center, similar types of facilities, which are community -based and focused on fitness and community building amenities, would define those facilities that qualify as a "neighborhood fitness and community center." It should be noted that while Golden Gate City is four square miles, the market draw or area of the Golden Gate Community Center is beyond that geographic area, and the facility is not restricted to only individuals within that defined area. Within the Appellant's request, three points are provided to define "a neighborhood fitness and community center." The first is that a neighborhood fitness and community center in the Golf Course Zoning District means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and near the property where the proposed facility is to be located. The second point states that such a center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area, which is no more than 500 feet from the neighborhood fitness and community center parcel boundaries. Finally, in the third point, the Appellant indicates that when there is a readily identifiable community or neighborhood, such as the Lakewood Community, a neighborhood fitness and community center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. For the reasons stated in the Official Interpretation, Staff finds that the LDC does not support the Appellant's points. The second point above is flawed in the context of the Lakewood Development. The Lakewood Community consists of 15 distinct residential communities. Still, if a neighborhood fitness and community center were developed at the location of the current recreational facilities (pool and tennis court) at the Lakewood County Club, only individuals within 500 feet of that facility would be eligible to utilize the neighborhood fitness and community center, excluding a majority of the population within the Lakewood Community, a fact that compromises the position and definition on the market reach of such a facility. In addition to the points established in the Official Interpretation, staff would point out that the request is to define the characteristics of what constitutes a neighborhood fitness and community center. The analysis provided by the applicant solely focuses on the term neighborhood as the limiting geographical factor that Packet Pg. 23 8.A 02/27/2024 defines a neighborhood fitness community center facility. Staff, while defining the characteristics of the facility, also recognize that these facilities are community -serving, and the term community center is one that geographically encompasses a greater distance than neighborhood reaching and could be interpreted as one that serves a specific community, such as adults with disabilities. The County has developed an additional planning tool, the Collier Inter -Active Growth Model (CIGM), to help assess requests for new commercial centers within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The CIGM has quantified market areas unique to the County for various types of commercial centers, neighborhood, community, and region. As the Appellant's proposed definition of a neighborhood fitness and community center focuses on market area, the CIGM parameters for each center provide guidance for the question (Attachment "C"). The CIGM provides the following: Neighborhood Center - Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13,110; Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center: 11; Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110,734 Community Center - Number of Persons per Community Center: 34,464; Number of Acres per Community Center: 28; Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 Regional Center - Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324; Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100; Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 The CIGM would suggest that a Community Center has a market area or reach two and a half times the market area or reach of a Neighborhood Center, in contrast to the market area requested by the Appellant, as identified in the text below. The Appeal and support material (Attachment D) submitted by Anthony P. Pires, Esq. and Zachary W. Lombardo Esq., representing the Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc., seeks to reverse the conclusion of INTP- PL20230010644 which determined that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. The appeal further seeks that the BZA find that: A. "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e., the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District ("GC District") refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. B. When there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood," such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" on the Golf Course zoned Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. C. A "neighborhood fitness and community center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area, and the limited geographic area can be guided by the notice distance requirements for NIMs. The Appellant's appeal contained within Attachment "D," which the appellant states supports the reversal of the determination of the Official Interpretation. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the appeal would have no quantifiable fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No Growth Management Impact is associated with this Executive Summary. Packet Pg. 24 02/27/2024 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: If the Board agrees with staffs interpretation, the Board may affirm staffs decision. If the Board does not agree with staff, it may reverse the decision. In either case, it may add conditions that it deems appropriate. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: To uphold the interpretation of the Zoning Director that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. Prepared by: Mike Bosi, Director GMCD Zoning ATTACHMENT(S) 1. County Attorney Memoranum 2-16-24 Lakewood appeal (PDF) 2. Attachment -A (PDF) 3. CIGM Typical functions-Attach-C (PDF) 4. Attachment-B (PDF) 5. Legal Ads and Notices Agenda ID 27807 (PDF) 6. [Linked] Applicants-Submital-Material-attach-D (PDF) 7.2024.02.16 RE PL20230014863 APPEAL OF INTP-PL20230010644; BZA Packet Pg. 25 8.A 02/27/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 8.A Doc ID: 27807 Item Summary: *** This Item to be heard no sooner than LOAM. *** Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, review the appeal of the August 18, 2023, Official Interpretation issued by the Zoning Director regarding the type of use or uses that qualify as a neighborhood fitness and community center, a Conditional Use in the Golf Course Zoning District, and uphold the interpretation of the Zoning Director that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. This is a county -wide Interpretation not specific to the Lakewood Golf Course. Meeting Date: 02/27/2024 Prepared by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bost 01/23/2024 3:17 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bost 01/23/2024 3:17 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Unknown Jaime Cook Additional Reviewer Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch Growth Management Community Development Department James C French County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Laura Zautcke OMB Reviewer Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Completed 02/05/2024 11:57 AM Completed 02/07/2024 2:07 PM Completed 02/13/2024 12:20 PM GMD Approver Completed 02/13/2024 2:19 PM GMD Approver Skipped 02/01/2024 6:37 PM Growth Management Completed 02/13/2024 3:01 PM Completed 02/20/2024 11:29 AM Completed 02/20/2024 1:32 PM Completed 02/20/2024 2:52 PM Completed 02/21/2024 9:16 AM Completed 02/21/2024 11:44 AM 02/27/2024 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 26 8.A.a OFFICE OF THE CO UNTYATTORNEY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2024 TO: Commissioner Chris Hall, District 2, Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3, Vice Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1 Commissioner Dan Kowal, District 4 Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 FROM: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney SUBJECT: Hearing on the Appeal of Official Interpretation by Zoning Director of the uses that qualify as "neighborhood fitness and community centers" in zoning district designated as the Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC" PL20230014863 On August 18, 2023, the Zoning Director issued an Official Interpretation PL20230010644 that a "neighborhood fitness and community center," a conditional use in the zoning district designated as the Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC", is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community, and gave as an example, the Golden Gate Community Center. This interpretation is a county -wide interpretation of the Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC" and is not site -specific. The Appeal Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. seeks to reverse the conclusion of the Official Interpretation and find that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a limited geographic area in the immediate vicinity and must be limited to an identifiable "neighborhood" or "community" such as the Lakewood Community. The Procedural Process General — In keeping with prior appeals of this nature before the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"), the appeal of the Official Interpretation process is quasi-judicial in nature and is therefore subject to the provisions of Resolution Number 95-376, requiring proper disclosure of any Commissioners ex-parte contacts, communications, site visits, or investigations, or receipt of expert opinions. Likewise, the procedural requirements of Resolution Number 98-167 also apply. Copies of both resolutions are attached for your convenience. 2-16-24 Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 27 8.A.a 2. The ultimate issues to be determined in the appeal are: a. Whether there is competent, substantial evidence to support the Official Interpretation; and b. Whether the Official Interpretation is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan ("GMP") or that it does not comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code ("LDC"), particularly Section 10.02.03, or County ordinances. C. LDC Section 1.06.0l.D.6.c. provides that "The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall consider the interpretation of the County Manager or designee or building official, whichever is applicable, and public testimony in light of the growth management plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code related matters, whichever is applicable. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall adopt the County Manager or designee's or building official's interpretation, whichever is applicable, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject their interpretation. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's or building official's interpretation unless such board finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the official interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable." 3. The appeal hearing before the BZA is informal. 4. Relevant evidence will be considered at the hearing. The Chairman of the BZA, with the assistance of the County Attorney, will determine what is relevant evidence. 5. The County Attorney recommends the following procedures: a. The court reporter administers the oath to those wishing to speak. If a speaker arrives at the hearing after the oath is given, the speaker must be sworn in before they can speak. b. The members of the BZA then make their individual ex-parte disclosures. All communications must be disclosed including letters, e-mails, phone calls, and meetings. Any personal investigation, such as a site visit, must also be disclosed. The subject matter of the communication and the identity of the person, groups or entity with whom the communication took place are all part of the disclosure. This applies to all communications that took place even before the appeal was filed. These disclosures must be made at the beginning of the hearing. The BZA must give any person who wishes to question its members concerning the ex-parte 2-16-24 Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 28 8.A.a disclosure the opportunity to ask questions of it. This right may be waived by a failure to ask questions of the Board. C. The presentation of the appeal should be as follows: i. The appealing party presents its case. The time limit is one hour. This time limit includes any presentation by an expert witness. a) The Zoning Director may question the appealing party and/or any of its experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The impacted property owner may question the appealing party and/or any of its experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. ii. Staff presents its case including the testimony of any expert witnesses. The time limit is one hour. a) The appealing party may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The impacted property owner may ask questions. The time limit is 10 minutes. iii. The impacted property owner presents its case including the testimony of any expert witnesses. The time limit is one hour. a) The Zoning Director may question impacted property owner and/or any of its experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. b) The appealing party owner may question the impacted property owner or any of its experts. The time limit is 10 minutes. iv. The members of the BZA may ask questions at any time during the proceedings. It is suggested that there be no time limit to the BZA's questions, subject, however, to the discretion of the Chair. V. Interested members of the public may then speak. Time limits per speaker, including any cross-examination, is 3 minutes. The BZA should only give consideration to "public testimony" that is relevant to the issues being discussed. vi. After Public Comment, in order, the appealing party, Zoning Director, and the impacted property owner will each have 10 minutes to sum up their respective position. This summation could include any rebuttal. vii. Time limits may be extended at the discretion of the Chair. viii. Upon conclusion of the public speakers' presentations, the BZA should close the public hearing and commence discussion. 2-16-24 Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 29 8.A.a ix. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the BZA will make its motion, second and then vote. A simple majority is required to approve the motion. The BZA shall either adopt the Zoning Directors' official interpretation, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the interpretation. Attachments: Resolution Number 95-376 Resolution Number 98-167 Section 250-58 Code of Laws and Ordinances 2-16-24 Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 30 JUH 2 0 " RESOLUTION NO. 25-376 A RESOLUTION RFLATING TO ACCESS TO LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS; PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL; PROVIDING FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS; AUTHORIZING I1IVESTIGA- TIONS AND RECEIPT OF INFORMATION; REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE C011MUNICATIONS; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. ')5-354. WHEREAS, government in Florida is conducted in the sun- shine pursuant to Chapter 286, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the public should be able to voice its opinions to local elected public officials; and WHEREAS, elected and public officials are presumed to perform their duties in a lawful and proper manner; and WHEREAS, quasi-judicial decision -making must be based on competent, substantial evidence of record; and WHEREAS, local elected public officials have been obstructed or impeded from the fair and effective discharge of their sworn duties and responsibilities due to expansive inter- pretations of Jenninc-, v. Dade County, a decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal; and WHEREAS, Section 5, Article I of the Florida Constitution gives the people the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of griev- ances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AUTHORITY Pursuant to Subsection 286.0115, Florida Statutes, Collier County has the authority to enact this Resolution which removes the presumption of prejudice from ex parte communications with local officials by establishing the process set forth herein to disclose such communications. SECTION TWO: DEFINITION As used in this Section, the term "local public official" means any elected or appointed public official holding a county -1- J U N 2 0 1995 office who recommends or takes quasi-judicial action as a member of such board or commission. SECTION THREE: ACCESS PERMITTED 1. Any person not otherwise prohibited by statute, charter provision, or ordinance may discuss with any local public official the merits of any matter on which action may be taken by the board or commission on which the local public official is a member. Adherence to the following procedures shall remove the presumption of prejudice arising from ex-parte communications with local public officials. �a) The substance of any ex-parte communication with a local public official which relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the official is not presumed prejudicial to the action if the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place is disclosed and made a part of the record before final action on the matter. (b) A local public official may read a written communi- cation from any person. However a written communication that relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the local public official shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action and such written communication shall be made a part of the record of the board or commission before final action on the matter. (c) Local public officials may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert opinions regarding quasi- judicial action pending before them. Such activities shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit, or e;:pert opinion is made a part of the record before final action on the matter. (d) Disclosure made pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken on such matters, so that persons who have opin- -2- 600K 000' ` 192 Packet Pg. 32 JuH 2 a 1M ions contrary to those expressed in the ex -pare communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication. SECTION FOUR: REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 95-354 Resolution No. 95-354 is hereby repealed in its entirety. This Resolution adopted this 7.0th day of June, 1995, after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.'BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By .BETTY f) TTHEWS, C airman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Kenneth B. Cuyl County Attorne aim nWnm5 - 3 - tw (100 prt 193 Packet Pg. 33 8.A.a RESOLUTION 98- 167 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners (Board), as the duly elected governing body for Collier County, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review and act upon items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), serving as the local planning agency and the land development regulation commission as required by F.S. §§ 163.3174 and 163.3194, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review, act upon and make recommendations to the Board relative to items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, included in these items may be advertised public hearings of a quasi- judicial or legislative nature; and WHEREAS, the public may wish to comment on these items scheduled for considera ion before the Board or the CCPC; and EREAS, in order to maintain, equity, decorum and order at these regularly schedul d public hearings, it is necessary to establish standard procedures for ` presentations and public comment before the Board and the CCPC; and `s WHEREAS, the Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public i participation during advertised public hearings, including quasi-judicial hearings, in a majrner consistent with the requirements of law,' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:.. The Board of County Commissioners declares that the procedures set forth, ' attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, applicable to the t Packet Pg. 34 8.A.a Board and the Collier County Planning Commission as stated in said Exhibit, are fair and reasonable, and are hereby adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to procedures for Board and CCPC presentations and public comment be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. Done this 4:_ day of 1998. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS y Dwight E. Brock, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ?Attest as to Chairm s •::r;, ,.,'r;, W!itlggnature only. ` V !Apprgved as to form and legal A David C. Weigel, Cou6ey Attorney Barbara B. Berry, Chairman Packet Pg. 35 Exhibit "All Procedures for Presentationsbeforethe Collier County Board of Commissioners and as Applicable to the Coiner County Plannin Commission A. Public Comment on General Topics: Members of the public may register to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the Board of County Commissioner's (Board) agenda. The number of speakers permitted to register under public comment on any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman recognizes additional speakers. I. Speaker Registration: Individuals wishing to speak to the Board under public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shall register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman. II. Time Limits: a) Public Comment: I Maximum 5 minutes per speakgr- B. Public Petitions: Public Petitions are limited to a single speaker. In general, the Board will not take action on public petition items on the day the petition is presented, but may direct staff to take action, or bring back the item to the Board at a future date for consideration. The County Administrator may defer scheduling a public petition for a reasonable period of time in order to allow sufficient time for staff to review the content and thus prepare for questions from the Board. 1. Registration: Individuals wishing to make a public petition to the Board of County Commissioners shall present such a request in writing to the County Administrator a minimum of 13 days prior to the Board meeting date on which the public petition is requested to be heard. The written request shall include the name(s) and address(es) of all petitioners, including a primary contact name, address and telephone number, and shall state the nature of the petition, including any exhibits and/or back up material which maybe pertinent to the petition. Il. ij:—me —Limits. Maximum 10 minutes per speaker. C. Advertised Public Hearings: For procedural purposes, advertised public hearings fall into two categories: those which are quasi-judicial in nature; and other types of advertised public hearings, including those which are legislative in nature. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearinim Packet Pg. 36 a) Purpose and Intent: The Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during quasi-judicial hearings in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. As part of that effort and within the confines of the law, the Board intends its hearings to be informal while recognizing the need for certain structure to maintain orderly hearings. Notwithstanding the procedures established by resolution, the Board may modify these procedures to effectuate the effective presentation of evidence. b) Applicability of these Procedures: (1) Ouasi-Judicial Proceedings. These procedures apply to all �uasi- udi ial proceedings heard by the Board and the CCPC regardless of the capacity in which the Board is sitting. Quasi -Judicial actions concern the implementation of policy, which has already been set, and affording the Board, and in some instances the CCPC, limited discretion in deciding whether to approve or deny a land use permit. These include land use actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners on identifiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing. Examples of quasi-judicial proceedings include but are not limited to: site specific rezonings (provided they involve policy implementation); development of regional impact hearings; conditional use permits; variances; boat dock extension petitions; and administrative appeals. (2) Legislative Proceedings. U 'onof these procedures by the Board or the e CCPC when sitting_jn a legislative capacity does not change the character of the legislative procee ding nor does it confer any additional rights or remedies upon any person or party. C) Pre-Hearina Submittals: (1) Ap plication. . An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staff/Agency Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, such written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to S for intended consideration by the s Board in support of or in opposit ion i the application. In order to be included in a Board or CCPC Agenda packet, any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation must be submitted to the appropriate staff no later than three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing before the respective body. All written Packet Pg. 37 IS submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x 11 -inch paper. No written materials will be accepted by the Board at its hearing unless, a-t-tic-Bo-ar-d-'s-&ts-cr-eUon, -Tcc-e-p�Mce-is necessary to Uli 2 ! rssae.Written i _S1WRT considered and entered into the record of the meeting in accordance wiN Public Hearings before the Board or the CC?C: (1) general. It is the expectation that the hearing will be informal. All members of the public who address the Board or the CC?C shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded. Each speaker shall state his or her name and address for the record. Additionally, speakers shall indicate whether they are speaking on behalf of themselves or others. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. Iti is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons of the following status will prepare their discussions and corm-nents to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1. Staff shall be responsible for presenting the case on behalf of Collier bounty and shall limit their presentations to twenti(20) minutes. 2. The applicant shall present his or her entire case in twenty (20) minutes. 3. Expert witnesses shall be limited to ten (10) minutes each. 4. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. 5. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 6. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman an,the any -speaker may be extende time for - A-_ (b) Registration of S2Mk_cn. Persons who desire to speak on an item shall, prior to the item being called to be heard by the Chairman, register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as Packet Pg. 38 (2) proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. Order and Subject of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall be the order of the proceeding: (a) Preliminary Statement. The Chairman shall read a preliminary statement once at the beginning of the quasi-judicial hearing portion of the agenda outlining the procedure, which shall be followed. (b) Sworn Testimony. The applicant, staff, and all witnesses requesting to speak shall be collectively sworn. Azreement- with Staffs Recommendation. If the applicant or agent of the applicant agrees with staffs recommendation and wishes to waive his or her right to present additional evidence, and if no commissioner or anyone from die audience wishes to speak for or against the quasi-judicial agenda item, the Board may vote on the item based upon staff s presentation and the materials in the agenda back-up, (d) Initial Presentation by Staff County staff shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the staff plesentation, the Board may make inquiries of staff at this time. An applicant or appellant may ask questions of, or seek clarification from, staff by request through the Chairman at the time that party makes its initial presentation to the Board. (e) Ap plicant's Presentation. After staff presentation, the applicant(s) shall be allowed to make a presentation to the Board based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after the applicants' presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or sock clarification from the applicant The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions or seek clarification from the applicant(s) at this time. ? (f) Speakers. After Board and staff inquiry of the applicant speakers shall be allowed to speak based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after a speaker's presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such speaker. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or seek clarification from speakers. (g) Staff Response and Sumrnarv. The staff shall be allowed an opportunity for response to the presentations by the applicant, proponents and opponents and a summary with any changes in position after consideration of relevant public comment. Proponents Packet Pg. 39 and opponents who believe that the staff response includes errors of fact or law may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such errors of fact or law. (h) -Applicant's Rebuttal EresenlatiM, I Applicant's rebuttal shall be allowed only on items where there is an applicant other than the Board or Board staff. After staff response, the applicant shall be allowed an opportunity for rebuttal, Rebuttal shall be limited to five (5) minutes unless otherwise set by the Board. Rebuttal shall only address previous comments. Z. Staff, who believe that the rebuttal presentation includes an error of fact or law, may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such error of fact or law. (i) Board and Staff Inguiry. After all presentations have been made as outlined above, the Board shall have a final opportunity to comment or ask questions. The Board may allow staff to respond to comments previously made at this time. Limiton Presentations. No person who has made a presentation for or against an item at a given meeting shall be allowed to make additional comments, unless requested to do so by the Board. (k) Closing of Public Comment. it, those matters on which public comment is heard by the Board, the Chairman shall close the public comment portion of the meeting (on that item) upon the conclusion of the last speaker's comments or, in the Board's discretion, if no new relevant information is being presented. No additional public comments shall be allowed, except in specific response to questions by members of the Board. (3) Miscellaneous Items: (a) Continuing Record /Speakers QIalificghons The Clerk to the Board ("Clerk') shall maintain a file with the most recent copies of resumes previously filed with the Clerk by county staff presenters. All other persons testifying on issues requiring educational, occupational and other experience who wish to be qualified as experts shall submit their qualifications in written form for the Board's approval to speak as expert witnesses. (b) Organizational or group Speakers. Prior to presenting his/her case, any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate, in writing, the organization or group he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. Packet Pg. 40 (c) Restrictions on Testimg= , or Presentation of Evidence. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt any presentation that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or but of order. (d) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official, or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. U(e) Continued Public Heariggg. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they can not be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such ,persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially] the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the sae subject. This waiver shall not preclude such persons from making different presentations based on new information or from offering response to other persons' presentation, if otherwise allowable, at any subsequent meeting. (4) The Record (a) Automatically Included in the record: The following documents shall automatically be included in the record of the hearing before the Board: (1) The record from any preliminary heating, the agenda packet, the staff report and the transcript of the hearing before the Board; (2) Written comments and documents previously entered into the record at a prior Board meeting on the particular matter. (b) Items Which Shall Be Placed in the Record:' Any additional documents, exhibits, diagrams, petitions, letters or other materials presented in support of, or in opposition to, an item to be considered by the Board shall be entered into the record, as long as it was received by the Board's Clerk or the applicable Collier County department seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing. Packet Pg. 41 11. a) b) (c) Additional Evidence. Except pursuant to subsection Q (3) above, Written Presentation, any additional written or documentary evidence filed within seven (7) days of the date of the hearing shall not become part of the record. (d) Custodian. The Clerk shall be the official custodian of the record. (e) Exhibits. Unless an oversized exhibit is absolutely essential, documentary paper or photographic exhibits should not exceed 24 inches by 36 inches and, if mounted on a backboard, shall be removable therefrom. All documentary evidence should be capable of being folded and filed. Other Public Hearings: The following rules apply to advertised public hearings oche{ than those which are quasi-judicial in nature, including those advertised public hearings which are legislative in nature. Pre --Hearing Submittals-, (1) Application. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staff/Agency Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, that written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applica4 proponent, or opponent may submit, in support of or in opposition to the issue which is the subject of the advertised public hearing, any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to staff for intended consideration by the Board. All written submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x, I I -inch paper. Public Hearing: (1) General. All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall identify themselves by name and local addresses, if applicable. Further, any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals (exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such authority whether by request, petition, vote, or otherwise. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons in the Packet Pg. 42 following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1. Staff shall be responsible for summarizing the item for the Board and shall limit such presentation to a maximum of twenty (20) minutes. 2. For advertised public hearing item (other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature), where there is an applicant other than the Board of County Commissioners or staff, following the staff summary of the item the applicant will have an opportunity to make a maximum (10) minute presentation. 3. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 5. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of th; Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended (b) Speakere erso Registration. P ns,;other than staff and the applicant (where applicable), wishing to speak on an advertised public hearing item shall, prior to the item being heard, register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) MisccIlqMus Item: (a) gigmizational or Grom S2MkM. Prior to making his/her cornments, any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate who he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak an behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. (b) Restrictions on Comments Deemed Not Germane to the I=. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may Packet Pg. 43 8.A.a restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. (c) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (d) Continued Public Hearings. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they cannot be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. D. Other Agenda Items Before the Board: In addition to public hearing, public comment and public petition items, with the approval of the Board, members of the public may speak on other Board agenda items. I. Registration: Persons wishing to speak on agenda items other than advertised public hearing items, public comment on general topics and public petition items, shall register to speak on the form provided by the County prior to the item being called by the Chairman to be heard. II Time Limits: Where the Board has requested or otherwise authorized public input on agenda items other than public hearing, public comment on general topic, or public petitions items, speakers will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Packet Pg. 44 8.A.a Sec. 250-58. - Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the administrative decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the administrative action from which an appeal is taken. (b) Due public notice of the hearing on the administrative appeal shall be given. (c) Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. (Laws of Fla. ch. 67-1246, § 16; Laws of Fla. ch. 2001-344, § 1) Page 1 Packet Pg. 45 8.A.b MARK J. WOODWARD Board Certified: Real Estate Law and baCondornimurn & PLmwed Development Law ANTHONY P. PIREs, JR Board Certified City, County, and Local Government Law J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMORA Licensed in FL mid OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD senior Counscl Board C ,, db I. Real Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD BOSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FL and NY F. SCOTT PAUzAR, III CHRISTOPHER R. HEFLIN REPLY TO: ® 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX O#E MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, FIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 30, 2023 By U.S. Mail, Email and upload to the GMD Public Portal Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Application/Request(s) for Official Interpretation By Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. of Section 1.06.01.11) of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual ("LDC Administrative Procedures Manual"). Mr. Bosi, The applicant, Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. (the "Applicant" or "Lakewood") by and through undersigned counsel, submits the Application/Request for Official Interpretation outlined below and herein ("ROI"). This ROI is being submitted and filed pursuant to Section 1.06.01.D of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC') and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual ("LDC Administrative Procedures Manual"). Please contact the undersigned for all communications on this matter at the postal address on this letterhead and at the email address of apires@wpl-Iegal.com. Please advise as to the appropriate fee to be submitted Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood") is a Florida not for profit corporation representing the fifteen (15) distinct residential communities in Lakewood, consisting of three (3) condominiums, nine (9) villa communities/neighborhoods and three (3) single family neighborhoods.' ' Lakewood Condominium 1, Lakewood Condominium 2, Lakewood Condominium 3. Lakewood Single Family Homes 1, Lakewood Single Family Homes 2, Lakewood Single Family Homes 3, Lakewood Villas I, Lakewood Villas Il, Lakewood Villas III, Lakewood Villas IV, Lakewood 1 a� E U a N E L V 2 Q Packet Pg. 46 8.A.b These fifteen (15) well established Lakewood residential communities and neighborhoods, located on property platted pursuant to six (6) "Lakewood" plats2, comprise the "Lakewood Community" or "Lakewood Neighborhood". In addition, Lakewood is the owner of four (4) properties in Collier County (see attached Exhibit "A"). Lakewood is also the responsible entity for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management (drainage) system for the Lakewood Community. As a land owner and affected person, pursuant to Section 1.06.01.D of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County LDC, Administrative Procedures Manual, Lakewood hereby submits and files this Request for Official Interpretation. BACKGROUND There is a golf course located within the Lakewood Community, referred to as the Lakewood Country Club, said golf course being depicted on the aerial photograph attached as Exhibit "B". As can be seen from the aerial photo, the golf course is surrounded by the residential Lakewood Community. The Parcel ID for the golf course property, per the Collier County Property Appraiser, is 00393280003 and the golf course is owned by SWF Golf Holdings, LLC. The golf course property is zoned Golf Course ("GC"), per the Official Zoning Atlas, see attached Exhibit "C". The golf course property is located in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan, see attached Exhibit "D". The listed conditional uses in the GC District include an undefined "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center". There is no definition for "neighborhood" in the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") nor is there a description or definition as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center" or what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center". This ROI is to obtain the following clarification and official and formal interpretation as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center that is, what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center": 1. That a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is a use that only a serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e., the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use of a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate a vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood 2 The plats are Lakewood Unit 1, Lakewood Unit 2, Lakewood Unit 3, Lakewood Unit 4, Lakewood Unit 5, and Lakewood Unit 6, Packet Pg. 47 8.A.b Fitness And Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. That a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is located. 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. A "NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER" IS A USE THAT SERVES A LIMITED GEOGRAPHIC AREA THE MEANING OF "NEIGHBORHOOD" No definition of "neighborhood" appears in the LDC or the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual. Black's Law Dictionary, LOTH Edition defines "neighborhood" as: "[t]he immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specified place", Black's Law Dictionary 1200 [loth ed 2014]. The Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, (2d ed. 2009) contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city: the area surrounding a particular place, person, or object. For many land use applications, the current LDC and the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual requires that the applicant conduct a noticed "Neighborhood Information Meeting". The notification area(s) for applicable land use petitions/applications can be found in Chapter 8 of the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual. The requirements in Chapter 8 as to the radius/distance of the persons required to be provided notice is consistent with the above definition. For property owners in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan entitled to mailed notice, the "notification area" includes: A. All property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property or one mile of the property lines of the subject property if located within the areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. B. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the 500 foot or one mile distance is measured from the boundaries of the entire ownership or PUD. a 0 Packet Pg. 48 8.A.b C. The maximum notification area is 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from the subject property, except for areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Chapter 8.C, LDC Administrative Procedures Manual Based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that you render an Official Interpretation that: 1. A "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. A "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is located. 3. When there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" on the GC zoned Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. If more information would be helpful, please let me know. We reserve the right to supplement this submittal with additional materials. Enclosure(s) Cc w/encl: Ray Bellows; Jeffrey Klatzkow; Amy Patterson; Client a 11 Packet Pg. 49 8.A.c CIGM Typical functions: 1. The CIGM is primarily a tool to better align the spatial allocation of projected population and the optimal placement of public infrastructure expenditures to best serve the anticipated demand. 2. The CIGM was designed to provide for the Transportation Division's update to the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure of the model allows for updates in later years as required. This better tie between transportation system improvements and specific future land use activities allows for an improved modeling effort, which helps reduce the inherent inefficiencies associated with projections. 3. The CIGM has provided a portion of the land use modeling in the development of the Master Mobility Plan (MMP). The MMP is an effort to identify means to reduce vehicle miles traveled within the County and the corresponding green house gas reduction associated with that reduced travel. The specific goals of the MMP are as follows: a. Provide needed infrastructure and reduce redundancies by the establishment and incorporation of an Infrastructure Master Plan with the goal of reducing the VMT. b. Strategically locate public services as well as private residential, commercial and industrial development by the establishment and incorporation of a Land Use Master Plan with the goal of reducing the VMT. c. Incorporate multi -modal transportation alternatives by the establishment and implementation of a Mobility Master Plan with the goal of reducing the VMT. d. Preserve environmentally sensitive land, habitat and agricultural land by the establishment and incorporation of a Wildlife Crossings and Habitat Preservation Master Plan 4. The CIGM allowed for the development of local, Collier County specifics related to market area for commercial properties. As illustrated within the following thresholds. a. * Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13,110 b. * Number of Persons per Community Center: 34,464 C. * Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324 d. * Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center: 11 e. * Number of Acres per Community Center: 28 f. * Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100 g. * Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110,734 (8.45 SQFT Per Capita) h. * Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 (7.48 SQFT Per Capita) Packet Pg. 50 8.A.c i. * Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 SQFT Per Capita) S. These guidelines allowed for an additional benchmark to evaluate requested commercial square footage increases within the Growth Management Plan. 6. The CIGM allowed for the Comprehensive Planning department to develop a series of maps to evaluate not only individual GMP amendments, but a series of maps that evaluated the numerous request as a whole, and the total relationship to projected supply and demand. 7. The CIGM provides the County the ability to indentify market opportunities, not anticipated by the GMP, such as identification of regional facilities in the eastern portion of the County. 8. For future, Developing the CIGM for the full County jurisdiction will allow the County the option of replacing the current population methodology applied for capital improvements, population projections supplied by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BERB), with population projections provided by the CIGM which are based on more localized data. Additionally, The CIGM was not utilized by two current GMP amendments, due to their locations being west of CR951. The expansion of the model to cover the entire County will rectify this limitation for future amendment cycles. 9. The CIGM will be updated with the results of the 2010 Census and allow for each TAZ to utilize updated persons per household data, that will bring further refinement to the population projections. Additionally, information related to vacancy rates and seasonal population trends will be incorporated into the model post the 2010 Census. 10. The CIGM will also need to be updated related to the anticipated MPO adoption of a new TAZ structure for the County. Additional TAZ's are being created to reduce the size of the TAZ's in the east of CR951 area to better accommodate the regulatory allowed growth. CIGM additional functions: i. To provide assistance and technical support to the Planning staff to develop and apply the CIGM to evaluate propose changes in the FLUE as to the physical and demographic changes and impacts on the need for timing and location of schools, parks, commercial centers, firefighting, law enforcement, etc. Also to annually monitor the changes to determine the rate of development, impacts and effects. ii. To assist in the application of the CIGM for the analysis of DRI projects as to the apportionment of land by use, location and timing to meet the needs of future Packet Pg. 51 8.A.c populations and to forecast their demographics in support of their needs. Provide supporting documentation and testimony for hearings. iii. Meet with respective agencies (i.e. libraries, parks, law enforcement, fire fighting, and schools) to review and revise parameters for the size, timing and service areas of facilities. Adjust level of services to include module size; timing and service areas where applicable. iv. The initial results of the CIGM identified and quantified specific needs or deficiencies in the Growth Management Plan. Assist staff with the preparation to update the GMP and development of plan amendments. V. The results of the baseline 2007 scenario identified facility deficiencies for various sub -districts of the study area such as Golden Gate Estates and regional facilities. Assist staff with the development of a master plan for meeting the needs of future residents by determining location, size, timing and service area for facilities. Cost/Benefit Analysis Utilization of the CIGM for land use modeling and the spatial population distribution for Master Planning efforts, i.e.: Parks Master Plan, EMS Master Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, Corridor Studies, Sector and Neighborhood Planning Efforts, Golden Gate & Immokalee Area Master Plan, and Individual FLUE Sub -District long Range Planning efforts, RLSA, RFMUD. For each one of these plans identified, a full County CIGM would provide the consultants the land use and population forecasting in a usable excel format. This would represent a significant amount of data acquisition in the form of a $10,000 to $50,000 reduction in the overall price of the planning effort, dependent upon the scope of the planning effort. Over the course of ten years the County will undertake a minimum of 10 long range planning efforts for its various service providers and/or sub area planning sectors. At a median cost savings of $30,000 per effort, the County could expect to save approximately $300,000 over the ten year period with the development of a full County CIGM. With the cost for expanding the CIGM quoted at $150,000, this would represent a 200 percent return on the original investment, which does not factor the contributions the CIGM will allow for within the traditional planning day to day utilization. Packet Pg. 52 8.A.d Co, f1i e-T County Growth Management Department - Zoning Division August 18, 2023 Anthony P. Pires, Jr.,Esq., Woodward, Pires & Lombardo 3200 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 RE: INTP-PL20230010644, TYPE OF USE OR USES THAT CONSTITUTE A NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER, OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST Dear Mr. Pires: Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 1.06.01.1), the Planning and Zoning Director has been requested to render an official interpretation of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc., PL20230010644. The official interpretation request states "clarification and official and formal interpretation as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center", that is, what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center". Further within the request you assert: That a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e., the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use of a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. That a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is located. 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. Packet Pg. 53 Response: Prior to addressing the three positions advanced in your request for an official interpretation on the type of use or uses qualify as a neighborhood fitness and community center, a review of the Golf Course Zoning District and the permitted and conditional uses is needed. Per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.09A. "Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory apses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. LDC Section 2.03.09A. La, provides for the four enumerated permitted uses: l.Golf courses. 2.1liking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks. 3.Passive recreation areas. 4.Disc golf. Staff notes that two of the four uses identified within the zoning district, golf course and disc golf course are unique attractors, in that these uses draw from a wider market area than those that serve on a neighborhood or community basis. In fact, golf courses and the number of golf courses within the County help contribute to the draw of tourist from regional, state, national and international markets, a scale well beyond that of a neighborhood or community attractor. This recognition is provided to recognize the geographic reach of the primary permitted use, Golf courses, within the Golf Course Zoning District. It should be noted that the other three permitted uses within the Golf Course Zoning District were added in 2017 as part of the adoption of the golf course conversion LDC amendments; and prior to the adoption of that Ordinance, golf courses were the sole permitted use in the zoning district. Again, this distinction is made to clarify that the primary Golf Course permitted use of the zoning district was a use, who's market draw was that of a scale much further than the neighborhood or community scale. A review of the Conditional Uses within the Golf Course zoning district further establishes this fact. The conditional uses provided are: l . Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course. 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 3. Equestrian faci ities, incuiding any trails, no closer than 500 feet to residential uses. 4. Museums. S. Water Mated activities, mclndIlng non -motorized boating, Moat warps, doers, and fishing piers. 6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and racquetball. 7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers. Packet Pg. 54 8.A.d 8. Parks and playgrounds. 9. Pools, indoor or outdoor. 10. Botanical gardens. Of the ten conditional uses allowed in the Golf Course Zoning District, one-half (5) are considered regional in their market attraction, that is they draw visitors/customers beyond that of a neighborhood or community scale. Based upon the fact that the primary Golf Course permitted use within the Golf Course Zoning District is a regional, national, and international attractor; and coupled with the fact, that one-half of the allowed conditional uses also have a market area beyond that of one that serves a neighborhood or community scale market area, I draw a conclusion that market area is not a factor within the intent of the Golf Course Zoning District. Within your request you ask for a definition of the use, "neighborhood fitness and community center", recognizing that the LDC does not provide a definition. I would offer a functioning example of a neighborhood fitness and community center, the Golden Gate Community Center. The Center provides the following amenities: picnic pavilion, gymnasium, kitchen, auditorium, meeting rooms, game room, playground, rest rooms, band shell, picnic pavilion, skate park, and BMX track. While all of these amenities are not required to qualify for a neighborhood fitness and community center, similar type of facilities, which are community based and focused on fitness and community building amenities would define those facilities which qualify as a "neighborhood fitness and community center". It should be noted that while Golden Gate City is four miles square, the market draw or area of the Golden Gate Community Center is beyond that geographic area and the facility is not restricted to only individuals within that defined area. Within your request, as noted, you provided three points that you believe defines "a neighborhood fitness and community center". The first is that a neighborhood fitness and community center in the Golf Course zoning district means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed facility is to be located. In your second point, you state that such a center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area, which is no more than 500 feet of the neighborhood fitness and community center parcel boundaries. Finally, in your third point, you indicate that when there is a readily identifiable community or neighborhood, such as the Lakewood Community, a neighborhood fitness and community center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. For the reasons stated in this Official Interpretation, I find that the LDC does not support your points. Your second point above is flawed in the context of the Lakewood Development. The Lakewood Community consists of 15 distinct residential communities, but if a neighborhood fitness and community center was developed at the location of the current recreational facilities (pool and tennis court) at the Lakewood County Club , only individuals within 500 feet of that facility would be eligible to utilize the neighborhood fitness and community center, excluding a majority of the population within the community, a fact that compromises your position and definition on the market reach of such a facility. The type of facility you describe in your request is in line with accessory use number two of the Golf Course Zoning District, which reads, "Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms ". Packet Pg. 55 In conclusion, I find that Conditional Use No. 7 in the Golf Course Zoning District, "neighborhood fitness and community center", is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy ofthis interpretation and appeal time frames will be placed inthe Naples Daily News. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected parry may appeal the interpretationto the Office ofthe Hearing Examiner, as directed by Section 2-87 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. A request for an appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of the date of this Official Interpretation and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back-up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed tomy attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning Growth Management Community Development Division/Planning and Regulation Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Amy Patterson, County Manager Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager Jamie French, Head, GrowthManagement Department Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Packet Pg. 56 � 1% 07 8.A.e NOTICt,OF PUSLIO 00AING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier CtfW* Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at 9,00 A.M. on February 27, 2024, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL to consider: LAKEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. FILED AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT-PL20230010644 TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR FINDING A "NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER", A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT, IS A FACILITY THAT SERVES THE FITNESS AND COMMUNITY NEEDS OF VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS AND A BROADER COMMUNITY. THIS IS COUNTY -WIDE INTERPRETATION OF THE GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT. [PL20230014883). Coles County Florida v orNAPM .. 0 o err � 9 ia,vo VAMRL4= -M. A copy of the Official Interpretation is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested.parties are invited to attend and be heard. All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted.ten (10) minutes to speak on an item. Written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues, For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey. Wi l lig0colliercountyfl.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County' Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Soard of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CHRIS HALL, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER By:.4ennifer Hansen Deputy Clark (SEAL) ND-39806"2 Packet Pg. 57 8.A.e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of Count} Commissioners (BC(:') at 9:00 A.M. on February 27, 2024. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room. third floor. Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tatniami. Trail, Naples FL to consider: LAKEWOOD COMMUNITS' SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. FILED AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT-PL20230010644 TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR FINDING A "NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER". A. CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT, IS A FACILITY THAT SERVES THE FITNESS AND COMMUNITY NEEDS OF VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS AND A BROADER COMIT%IUNITY. THIS IS A COUNTY -WIDE INTERPRETATION OF THE GOLF COARSE ZONING DISTRICT. [PL202300148631. (See map below) A copy of the Official. Interpretation is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (31 ininutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted ten (10) minutes to speak on all item. Written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a ininiinuin of seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement. the public will have the opporhinity to provide public comments remotely. as -well as in person. during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at tzvxv.colliercouiityfl.gov,'our-coturtv:`visitorsicalendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting. or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals Nvho register will receive all. ernail in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely ill this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-5369 or email to Geoffley.WilligCacolliercountyil.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. «-hick record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accornrnodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tanuanii Trail East, Suite I01, Naples. FL 34112-5356, (239) -152-8380. at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the Bearing impaired are available in the Board of Coiuity Conurlissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA Packet Pg. 58 8.A.e 7a CHRIS HALL. d a CHAIRi1I,.\ Q_ O CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, y CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER = d U Bv: Jennifer Hinsen. Deputy Clerk w 3 E E O U c N m c ii O O t L O Posted to notices. collierclerk.com on February 7, 2024. a, Q z Clerk to the Board g w m a. c .. N Date: .211 J�j00 ti N ti O co I- N W l0 C d 8� a N d V 'rr O z C N 21 io d J w C d E t V O Q Packet Pg. 59 8.A.e a O r a rn c O N I, - CD 00 r- N ti O O r- N C d QI Q N d V O Z c R N Q J C d E t V r Q Packet Pg. 60 NARRATIVE SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL BY LAKEWOOD SERVICES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF INTP-PL 2023-0010644 INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS This Appeal, filing and submittal of various arguments(s), documents, reports, and material as part of this Appeal, appealing INTP-PL2023-0010644 (the "Official Interpretation"), requesting reversal of the Official Interpretation and rendering a decision requested by the Appellant, is being made and provided while reserving the right to further amend, modify or supplement this filing and Appeal with additional arguments, materials, evidence and testimony. As noted in the Appeal Form and submittal cover letter, this Appeal is being filed by the undersigned counsel on behalf of Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood") the applicant in INTP-PL2023-0010644, an affected property owner, and an aggrieved or adversely affected party. As outlined and detailed herein, and as supported by the enclosed opinion from Susan Swift, AICP, of Boggs Engineering, Inc., there are several reasons why the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"), in its capacity as the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"), should hear and consider this Appeal and set aside the Official Interpretation and grant Lakewood the relief and interpretation requested by Lakewood. APPELLANT Lakewood Community Services Association Inc. is the owner of the real property in the Lakewood Community depicted on the attached Exhibit "A". Appellant was the applicant in the Application for Formal Interpretation dated June 1, 2023 (the "Application" see Exhibit "B-1 "), that resulted in .the issuance of INTP-PL2023-0010644 (see Exhibit «B_2„ Lakewood is a Florida not for profit corporation representing the fourteen (14) distinct residential communities in Lakewood, consisting of three (3) condominiums, nine (9) villa communities/neighborhoods and two (2) single family neighborhoods: Lakewood Condominium 1, Lakewood Condominium 2, Lakewood Condominium 3. Lakewood Single Family Homes 1, Lakewood Single Family Homes 2, Lakewood Villas I, Lakewood Villas II, Lakewood Villas III, Lakewood Villas IV, Lakewood Villas V, Lakewood Villas VI, Lakewood Villas VI I, Lakewood Villas VIII, Lakewood Villas IX. These fourteen (14) well established Lakewood residential communities and neighborhoods, located on property platted pursuant to six (6) "Lakewood" plats1 comprise the "Lakewood Community" or ' The plats are Lakewood Unit 1, Lakewood Unit 2, Lakewood Unit 3, Lakewood Unit 4, Lakewood Unit 5, and Lakewood Unit 6 Page 1 of 7 "Lakewood Neighborhood" and are zoned as either RSF 3 or RMF. The center of the Lakewood Community consists of two golf courses. All of the streets in the Lakewood Community are "local streets", there are no arterial or collector streets. THE BZA IS THE PROPER ENTITY THAT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL As outlined in this Appeal and the submittal cover letter, the BCC sitting as the BZA is the body that has the jurisdiction to hear and consider the Appeal. This is clearly stated and outlined in Section 1.06.01.6.a of the Collier County Land Development code ("LDC"), Chapter 4.G (at page 107), of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual (3/8/2022 version, hereinafter the "Administrative Code") and section 250.58, Collier County Code of Ordinances. Copies of these are attached as Exhibit "C". Prior actions of the BCC and Collier County zoning staff affirm and confirm that the jurisdiction to hear and consider and decide the Appeal is within the sole jurisdiction of the BZA. As clearly and succinctly stated by Mike Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director, in the October 12, 2021, Executive Summary for BCC Agenda Item 8.A, the Appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 (the "Food Truck Park Interpretation"): CONSIDERATIONS Section 1.06.01.D.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes a procedure for appeal of an official interpretation of the County Manager or designee. In accordance with Section 1'.06.01.D.6.c., the Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the - County Manager or designee's interpretation, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the interpretation. The Board of Zoningappeais is not authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's interpretation unless it finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable." (see attached Exhibit "D-1 ", emphasis added) On October 12, 2021, the BCC sitting in its capacity as the BZA, heard and considered and rendered its decision(s) on the appeals of official interpretations, including the Food Truck Park Interpretation. A copy of the resolution approving same is enclosed as Exhibit "D-2". By its actions on October 12, 2021, the BCC sitting as the BZA, made it clear and affirmed and confirmed its role as the body that hears appeals of official interpretations. Page 2 of 7 Appellant has found no statement in the LDC or Administrative Code that an appeal of an Official Interpretation may go to any reviewing body other than the BZA, e.g., the Hearing Examiner. Jurisdiction to hear and decide this Appeal rests with the BCC sitting as the BZA, consistent with and in compliance with the Collier County LDC, the Administrative Code, and the actions and practices of the BCC. Accordingly, appropriate edits to the appeal form have been made by the Appellant. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THIS APPEAL: REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION This matter involves the interpretation of the term "neighborhood" in the phrase "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the list of conditional uses in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District ("GC District"). In rendering his Official Interpretation, the Zoning Director outlined factors he used in an effort to support his erroneous determination. The Zoning Director made a number of assertions and assumptions without detailing any independent data or analysis to support these bare assertions and assumptions. As part of his analysis, the Zoning Director references that in 2017, certain recreational uses were added to the list of conditional uses in the GC District. However, the Zoning Director mischaracterized the 2017 amendments to the LDC that added additional uses to the GC District. Of the ten (10) conditional uses now allowed in the GC District after the 2017 amendments, one stands out as geographically restricted and- restrictive in nature. One of the new conditional uses has a limitation or qualifier as to geographic area. That one use is the use that. is the subject of the Official Interpretation and this Appeal: the "neighborhood fitness and community center". It is interesting to note that none of the other nine- (9)- conditional uses in the GC District contain that limitation or- qualifying language. Thus, a "neighborhood fitness and community center' in the GC District is uniquely restricted as to its intended "customer', geographic or "user" area. This geographic limitation is consistent with the October 12, 2021, statements and position as to the meaning of "neighborhood" made by Mr. Bosi, in his testimony to the BCC/BZA, during the public hearing on the aforementioned appeal of the Food Truck Interpretation: "What's that saying is the neighborhood commercial was a neighborhood commercial zoning district, meaning that it doesn't serve multiple neighborhoods, it serves one neighborhood." (Excerpted from minutes, October 12, 2021, page 130; Exhibit "E") Page 3of7 In its application for the Official Interpretation, Lakewood provided significant authority and support for the proposition that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the GC District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" is to be located. The Zoning Director completely failed to refute or address key portions of Lakewood's Application. Lakewood's Application provided dictionary definitions of "neighborhood": Black's Law Dictionary, 10TH Edition defines "neighborhood" as: "[t]he immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specified place", Black's Law Dictionary 1200 [10th ed 2014]. The Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, (2d ed. 2009) contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city: the area surrounding a particular place, person, or object. The Zoning Director never discussed, addressed, or refuted these definitions. Further, the Zoning Director did not provide any authoritative source for his alternative definition of a neighborhood that broadens the meaning of "neighborhood" to that beyond these accepted dictionary definitions. Instead, the Zoning Director created an expansive definition of "neighborhood" to mean "various neighborhoods and a broader community', without any geographic constraints, limitations, or borders, and without any citation to any authority whatsoever. Further, the Zoning Director's interpretation contradicts his October 12, 2021, statement that the word "neighborhood" as a modifier means "it doesn't serve. multiple neighborhoods, it serves one neighborhood." As articulated in the enclosed zoning report and opinion from Susan Swift, AICP, enclosed as Exhibit "H" and resume enclosed as Exhibit "I", the word "neighborhood" has meaning. And, it is a restrictive meaning. The report contains the following findings supporting this Appeal: ■ The staff's conclusion merely rearranges the words in the question asked in the ROI; ■ The staff conjectures that because some of the other GC District uses may be national and/or regional attractors, therefore the Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center can be a regional attractor; Page 4 of 7 ■ The Official Interpretation does not provide any definitions, features, facilities, characteristics of use or relevant examples of types of activities that comprise a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center use, as requested in the ROI; ■ A review of the other Conditional Uses in the GC district is irrelevant and does not shed any light what constitutes a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; ■ The Official Interpretation misconstrues the questions about "neighborhood." The word is a qualifier that acknowledges the location in a neighborhood - not its Market Area.; ■ The staff's reliance on Market Area is faulty and irrelevant for non- commercial uses such as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; the CG District does not list commercial uses except for a "snack shop" which is only a support use within Accessory Use #2.; ■ Mr. Bosi's reference to "various neighborhoods" implies that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center could serve any neighborhood in the County, even if it does not serve the neighborhood in which it is located. This is not supported by the Growth Management Plan, professional planning standards or definitions. Ms. Swift concludes her opinion with: "After analysis of the 'County's documents and other professional planning, recreation and traffic resources, it is my opinion that a "Neighborhood Fitness and. Community Center" must be focused on the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods, which in the context ' of Lakewood would be the Lakewood neighborhoods. If a Neighborhood Fitness and. Community Center is proposed for development within a residential neighborhood, it must be limited to primarily or exclusively serving that neighborhood.' . Additionally, the Golden Gate Community Center is not a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. The staff's example is irrelevant to Conditional Use #7 for two reasons: 1) Golden Gate is a County public park and facility and 2) would be classified as Conditional Use #8, Parks and playgrounds, in the GC district. The Zoning Director leans heavily on the Golden Gate Community Center as a basis to create an expansive definition of a "neighborhood fitness and community center". Such reliance is misplaced. As outlined, described, and defined in the existing Collier County "Parks and Recreation Master Plan", there are three (3) "park types" in Collier County. The three (3) park types are neighborhood, community and regional. The Golden Gate Community Center is classified as a "community" park or center and not a "neighborhood" park or center. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (see Exhibit "F") and the Collier County 2022 Annual Update and Inventory Report ("AUIR") listing the park inventory (see Exhibit "G"). In addition, true to its nature as a community park, the Golden Gate Community Center is located on a busy commercial corridor, at the Page 5 of 7 intersection of two (2) four (4) lane roads, Golden Gate Parkway (a minor arterial) and Sunshine Boulevard. Lastly, Lakewood's Application also put forth the proposition that the radius/distance required to be used to notify property owners of a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) forms a useful guide as to the extent of a "neighborhood". For many land use applications, the current LDC and the Administrative Code require that the applicant conduct a noticed "Neighborhood Information Meeting". The notification area(s) of the "neighborhood" for certain land use petitions/applications can be found in Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code and are consistent with the concepts articulated in the above definitions. For property owners in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan entitled to mailed notice, the "notification area" includes: A. All property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property or one mile of the property lines of the subject property if located within the areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. B. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the 500 foot or one mile distance is measured from the boundaries of the entire ownership or PUD.. C. The maximum notification area is '/2 mile (2,640 feet) from the subject property, except for areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Similar to the manner in which the Zoning Director turned a blind eye to the above definitions provided by Lakewood, the Zoning Director did not explain or address this approach and guidance rooted -in Collier County's required defined notice areas for Neighborhood Information Meetings. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and the attached, exhibits and documents it is respectfully requested that the BCC sitting as the BZA: 1. Reverse and set aside the above noted August 18, 2023 Official Interpretation. 2. Enter a ruling, decision, and determination that: a. A "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District Page 6 of 7 (" GC District") refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. b. When there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" on the GC zoned Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. c. A "neighborhood fitness and community center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and the limited geographic area can be guided by the notice distance requirements for NIMs. 3. Enter a ruling, decision, and determination that the exclusive jurisdiction for the consideration of this Appeal is by BCC sitting as BZA. 4. Enter a ruling, decision, and determination that The Collier County Hearing Examiner ("HEX") has no jurisdiction to hear or consider this Appeal. Respectfull W ard, es & ombar P.A. Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esq. Zachary W. Lombardo, Esq. Enclosures. Copies with enclosures: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Commissioner Rick LoCastro Page 7 of 7 Exhibit " A " Print Map https://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=... � V a N Y* / MAP LEGEND - ti Ma]of Roads kStreet y f Names • Aer lals 2023 Urban [fit NJ 1 �p zj •'? Aer lals 2023 Rural [21Fi] Collier County Folio Number: 53750160001 Name: LAKEWOOD COMM SERV ASSOC INC Street# & Name: e Build# / Unit#: B / 1 Legal Description: LAKEWOOD UNIT 1 UNDIV BILK B LT 1 THAT PORT OF BILK B DESC AS COMM NWLY CRN A BILK B, S 39 DEG E 94FT, N 50DEG E 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 1 of 1 5/30/2023, 1:47 PM Print Map https://maps.collierappraiser. com/mapprint. aspx?pagetitle=&orient=... 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 1 of 1 5/30/2023, 1:48 PM Print Map https://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=... — r MAP LEGEND -4 - MaJOf It -Dads Street Names Parcels Aer lals 2023 Urban [fit NJ 5 is Aer lals 2e23 R ucal [2Fi] Collier County EJ � � _ Folio Number: 53754440206 l Name: LAKEWOOD Comm SERV ASSOC INC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: RW / 2 �, r< I Legal Description: LAKEWOOD UNIT 1 DRAINAGE R/W LYING BETWEEN .h,. BLOCK "L" AND BLOCK "H"; NKA �+. DRAINAGE R/W 2 16a CovMY_�rop�lY AApra¢ar,N�7es,FL f I�•�# - 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 1 of 1 5/30/2023, 1:49 PM Print Map https://maps.collierappraiser. com/mapprint. aspx?pagetitle=&orient=... 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 1 of 1 5/30/2023, 1:50 PM Exhibit cc Bml 55 EST. 1971 MARK J. WOODWARD Board Certified: Real Estate Lawand inCondorninirun & Planned Demlopment Law ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. Board Certified: Ciq,, County, and Local Gm=unent Law J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DLMORA Licensed in FL and OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD Senior Ca rlsel Board Certified: Real Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FL and NTY F. SCOTT PAUZAR, III CHRISTOPHERR. HEFLIN REPLY TO: 11 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX 606 BALD FAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ONE MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. June 1, 2023 ATTORNEYS AT LAW By U.S. Mail and Email Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: May 30, 2023 Application/Request(s) for Official Interpretation By Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. of Section 1.06.01.1) of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual ("LDC Administrative Procedures Manual"); Correction Mr. Bosi, The applicant, Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. (the "Applicant" or "Lakewood") by and through undersigned counsel, submitted its Application/Request for Official Interpretation on May 30, 2023 [copy attached] ("ROI"). This letter is for the limited purpose of correcting and/or supplementing the following in the ROI: 1. Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood") is a Florida not for profit corporation representing the fourteen (14) distinct residential communities in Lakewood, consisting of three (3) condominiums, nine (9) villa communities/neighborhoods and two (2) single family neighborhoods. 2. The fourteen (14) distinct residential communities are: Lakewood Condominium 1. Lakewood Condominium 2, Lakewood Condominium 3. Lakewood Single Family Homes 1, Lakewood Single Family Homes 2, Lakewood Villas I, Lakewood Villas II, Lakewood Villas III, Lakewood Villas IV, Lakewood Villas V, Lakewood Villas VI, Lakewood Villas VII, Lakewood Villas VIII, Lakewood Villas IX. 3. These fourteen (14) well established Lakewood residential communities and neighborhoods, located on property platted pursuant to six (6) "Lakewood" plats' comprise the "Lakewood Community" or "Lakewood Neighborhood". WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM 1 The plats are Lakewood Unit 1, Lakewood Unit 2, Lakewood Unit 3. Lakewood Unit 4, Lakewood Unit 5, and Lakewood Unit 6, If more information would be helpful, supplement this submittal with additional appropriate. please let me know. We reserve the right to and further documents and materials as Enclosure(s) Cc w/encl: Ray Bellows; Jeffrey Klatzkow; Amy Patterson; Client 2 MO*CV EST. 1971 MARKJ. WOODWARD Board Cerdfied: Real Estate Law and in Condonwmun &. Planned Deirlopment La"- ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. Baud Certified: City, Comm, and Loa- Gommrnenr Lacy J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMoRA I lcinz d in FI, vid OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD Scninr CounstJ Baird Ccst;firvl. Roil Estatc I .air KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FI. and NY F. SCOTT PAUZAR III CHRISTOPH ER R . -H EFLIN RE PLY TO: 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX J 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX 0N4-- MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL-LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, P I RE S & LOMBARDO, P.A. May 30, 2023 ATTORNEYS AT LAW By U.S. Mail, Email and upload to the GMD Public Portal Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Application/Request(s) for Official Interpretation By Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. of Section 1.06.01.D of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual ("LDC Administrative Procedures Manual"). Mr. Bosi, The applicant, Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. (the "Applicant" or "Lakewood") by and through undersigned counsel, submits the Application/Request for Official Interpretation outlined below and herein CROI"). This ROI is being submitted and filed pursuant to Section 1.06.01.D of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual ("LDC Administrative Procedures Manual"). Please contact the undersigned for all communications on this matter at the postal address on this letterhead and at the email address of apires@wpl-legal.com. Please advise as to the appropriate fee to be submitted Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood") is a Florida not for profit corporation representing the fifteen (15) distinct residential communities in Lakewood, consisting of three (3) condominiums, nine (9) villa communities/neighborhoods and three (3) single family neighborhoods.' ' Lakewood Condominium 1, Lakewood Condominium 2, Lakewood Condominium 3. Lakewood Single Family Homes 1, Lakewood Single Family Homes 2, Lakewood Single Family Homes 3, Lakewood Villas I, Lakewood Villas II, Lakewood Villas III, Lakewood Villas IV, Lakewood 0 These fifteen (15) well established Lakewood residential communities and neighborhoods, located on property platted pursuant to six (6) "Lakewood" plats2, comprise the "Lakewood Community" or "Lakewood Neighborhood". In addition, Lakewood is the owner of four (4) properties in Collier County (see attached Exhibit "A"). Lakewood is also the responsible entity for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management (drainage) system for the Lakewood Community. As a land owner and affected person, pursuant to Section 1.06.01.D of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") and Ch. 4.G of the Collier County LDC, Administrative Procedures Manual, Lakewood hereby submits and files this Request for Official Interpretation. BACKGROUND There is a golf course located within the Lakewood Community, referred to as the Lakewood Country Club, said golf course being depicted on the aerial photograph attached as Exhibit "B". As can be seen from the aerial photo, the golf course is surrounded by the residential Lakewood Community. The Parcel ID for the golf course property, per the Collier County Property Appraiser, is 00393280003 and the golf course is owned by SWF Golf Holdings, LLC. The golf course property is zoned Golf Course ("GC"), per the Official Zoning Atlas, see attached Exhibit "C". The golf course property is located in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan, see attached Exhibit "D". The listed conditional uses in the GC District include an undefined "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center": There is no definition for "neighborhood" in the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") nor is there a description or definition as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center" or what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center'. This ROI is to obtain the following clarification and official and formal interpretation as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center", that is, what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center": 1. That a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e., the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use of a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood 2 The plats are Lakewood Unit 1, Lakewood Unit 2, Lakewood Unit 3, Lakewood Unit 4, Lakewood Unit 5, and Lakewood Unit 6, F Fitness And Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. That a "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is located. 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. A "NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER" IS A USE THAT SERVES A LIMITED GEOGRAPHIC AREA THE MEANING OF "NEIGHBORHOOD" No definition of "neighborhood" appears in the LDC or the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual. Black's Law Dictionary, 107-H Edition defines "neighborhood"as: "[t]he immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specified place", Black's Law Dictionary 1200 [10t" ed 2014]. The Oxford American Dictionary& Thesaurus, (2d ed. 2009) contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city: the area surrounding a particular place, person, or object. . For many land use applications, the current LDC and the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual requires that the applicant conduct a noticed "Neighborhood Information Meeting". The notification area(s) for applicable land use petitions/applications can be found in Chapter 8 of the LDC Administrative Procedures Manual. The requirements in Chapter 8 as to the radius/distance of the persons required to be provided notice is consistent with the above definition. For property owners in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan entitled to mailed notice, the "notification area" includes: A. All property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property or one mile of the property lines of the subject property if located within the areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. B. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the 500 foot or one mile distance is measured from the boundaries of the entire ownership or PUD. 3 C. The maximum notification area is '/2 mile (2,640 feet) from the subject property, except for areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Chapter 8.C, LDC Administrative Procedures Manual Based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that you render an Official Interpretation that: 1. A "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. A "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is located. 3. When there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" on the G_ C - zoned Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the. Lakewood Community. If more information would be helpful, please let me know. We reserve the right to supplement this submittal with additional materials. Enclosure(s) Cc w/encl: Ray Bellows; Jeffrey Klatzkow; Amy Patterson; Client 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION ]'" I ram' : ^, � •;?'`s: � • rK F� MAP LEGEND Major Roads Street Names Parcels .. Aerials 2023 Urban ]61N] Aerials 2023 Rural j3FT] collier County Folio Number: 53750160001 Name: LAKEWOOD COMM SERV JASSOC INC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: B / 1 Legal Description: LAKEWOOD UNIT 1 UNDIV BLK B LT 1 THAT PORT OF BLK B DESC AS COMM NWLY CRN BLK B, S 39 DEG E 94FT, N 50DEG E 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein. its use, or its interpretation. 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a)pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties a>pressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. aLn CCru 0 LL a NO) C) O O i 1. :,�. ii11�111it1�1�t1i orRom: r. $ �� ;++ • - _ alr fFlct LLJ -;ts _ ti .•# �,.v' -,Ifj! � � +�rR �;'lNh�l!�1li�l� 1 M44 air '►;lri-lyl�r. '•� �I ui rb•.:AIM- IL jr 00.M R IL i LL i..4 • 'n, i►_hi�S` ��t '�A�P ��;k� —y ��p 7i'i- �r4-a �;-'ram b ... _ • -r • r ••i- �' ,•� __ —. _- - - _ — _ — - .%iL r t �+� Alt t+C' (� � Ail 9 xtiii) 4 a4 L.f� yal 4l w(.• P tto o ui ,w r_ z s, , t t ro •R.rat Z 0 1 1 W ny 1.... ry W Z ry 0 H r� V J W w ly- 0 CU W W G 4-J I LL 0 w w J �A LL. Cn cx 4t J two= w t •'MW Exhibit cc B=2 55 Collier County Growth Management Department - Zoning Division August 18, 2023 Anthony P. Pires, Jr.,Esq., Woodward, Pires & Lombardo 3200 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 RE: INTP-PL20230010644, TYPE OF USE OR USES THAT CONSTITUTE A NEIGHBORHOOD FITNESS AND COMMUNITY CENTER, OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST Dear Mr. Pires: Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 1.06.0 LD, the Planning and Zoning Director has been requested to render an official interpretation of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc., PL20230010644. The official interpretation request states "clarification and official and formal interpretation as to what type of facility qualifies as a "neighborhood fitness and community center", that is, what use or uses constitute a "neighborhood fitness and community center". Further within the request you assert: 1. That a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e., the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use of a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 2. That a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property where the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is located. 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood", such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such "Neighborhood Fitness And Community Center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. Response: Prior to addressing the three positions advanced in your request for an official interpretation on the type of use or uses qualify as a neighborhood fitness and community center, a review of the Golf Course Zoning District and the permitted and conditional uses is needed. Per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.09A. "Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. LDC Section 2.03.09A. La, provides for the four enumerated permitted uses: 1.Golf courses. 2.Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks. 3.Passive recreation areas. 4.Disc golf. Staff notes that two of the four uses identified within the zoning district, golf course and disc golf course are unique attractors, in that these uses draw from a wider market area than those that serve on a neighborhood or community basis. In fact, golf courses and the number of golf courses within the County help contribute to the draw of tourist from regional, state, national and international markets, a scale well beyond that of a neighborhood or community attractor. This recognition is provided to recognize the geographic reach of the primary permitted use, Golf courses, within the Golf Course Zoning District. It should be noted that the other three permitted uses within the Golf Course Zoning District were added in 2017 as part of the adoption of the golf course conversion LDC amendments; and prior to the adoption of that Ordinance, golf courses were the sole permitted use in the zoning district. Again, this distinction is made to clarify that the primary Golf Course permitted use of the zoning district was a use, who's market draw was that of a scale much further than the neighborhood or community scale. A review of the Conditional Uses within the Golf Course zoning district further establishes this fact. The conditional uses provided are: 1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course. 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to residential uses. 4. Museums. 5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat ramps, docks, and fishing piers. 6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and racquetball. 7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers. 8. Parks and playgrounds. 9. Pools, indoor or outdoor. 10. Botanical gardens. Of the ten conditional uses allowed in the Golf Course Zoning District, one-half (5) are considered regional in their market attraction, that is they draw visitors/customers beyond that of a neighborhood or community scale. Based upon the fact that the primary Golf Course permitted use within the Golf Course Zoning District is a regional, national, and international attractor; and coupled with the fact, that one-half of the allowed conditional uses also have a market area beyond that of one that serves a neighborhood or community scale market area, I draw a conclusion that market area is not a factor within the intent of the Golf Course Zoning District. Within your request you ask for a definition of the use, "neighborhood fitness and community center", recognizing that the LDC does not provide a definition. I would offer a functioning example of a neighborhood fitness and community center, the Golden Gate Community Center. The Center provides the following amenities: picnic pavilion, gymnasium, kitchen, auditorium, meeting rooms, game room, playground, rest rooms, band shell, picnic pavilion, skate park, and BMX track. While all of these amenities are not required to qualify for a neighborhood fitness and community center, similar type of facilities, which are community based and focused on fitness and community building amenities would define those facilities which qualify as a "neighborhood fitness and community center". It should be noted that while Golden Gate City is four miles square, the market draw or area of the Golden Gate Community Center is beyond that geographic area and the facility is not restricted to only individuals within that defined area. Within your request, as noted, you provided three points that you believe defines "a neighborhood fitness and community center". The first is that a neighborhood fitness and community center in the Golf Course zoning district means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed facility is to be located. In your second point, you state that such a center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area, which is no more than 500 feet of the neighborhood fitness and community center parcel boundaries. Finally, in your third point, you indicate that when there is a readily identifiable community or neighborhood, such as the Lakewood Community, a neighborhood fitness and community center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. For the reasons stated in this Official Interpretation, I find that the LDC does not support your points. Your second point above is flawed in the context of the Lakewood Development. The Lakewood Community consists of 15 distinct residential communities, but if a neighborhood fitness and community center was developed at the location of the current recreational facilities (pool and tennis court) at the Lakewood County Club , only individuals within 500 feet of that facility would be eligible to utilize the neighborhood fitness and community center, excluding a majority of the population within the community, a fact that compromises your position and definition on the market reach of such a facility. The type of facility you describe in your request is in line with accessory use number two of the Golf Course Zoning District, which reads, "Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms ". In conclusion, I find that Conditional Use No. 7 in the Golf Course Zoning District, "neighborhood fitness and community center", is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community. Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy ofthis interpretation and appeal time frames will be placed inthe Naples Daily News. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretationto the Office ofthe Hearing Examiner, as directed by Section 2-87 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. A request for an appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of the date of this Official Interpretation and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back-up information in support ofthe appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. An appeal can be hand delivered or mailedtomy attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning Growth Management Community Development Division/Planning and Regulation Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Amy Patterson, County Manager Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager Jamie French, Head, GrowthManagement Department Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Exhibit it C 55 1.06.01 -Responsibility for Interpretations A. The County Manager or designee shall have the authority to make all interpretations of the text of this LDC, the boundaries of zoning districts on the official zoning atlas, and to make all interpretations of the text of the GMP and the boundaries of land use districts on the future land use map. B. The County Manager or designee shall have the authority to make all interpretations of the text of this LDC on matters related to the Building Code, building permit requirements, building construction administrative code or building permits. C. During the course of review of a development order or permit, as the case may be, should an applicant and staff be unable to concur on the application of a specific provision or provisions of this LDC, the County Manager or designee shall be authorized to make a final determination. D. Request for Official Interpretation. The County Manager or designee may render an official interpretation of any part of the LDC. The building official may render an official interpretation of any part of the Florida Building Code. 1. Generally. An official interpretation may be requested by any affected person, resident, developer, land owner, government agency or department, or any person having a contractual interest in land in Collier County. 2. Procedure. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and submittal requirements for an official interpretation. 3. Request Criteria. Each request must identify the specific LDC or building code citation to be interpreted. Each request for interpretation must be accompanied by the appropriate fee as set forth in the fee resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Under no circumstances may the request for interpretation contain more than 3 issues or questions. It must not contain a single question with more than 3 sub -issues or questions. If it is determined by the appropriate official that the request for interpretation contains more than 3 issues, the applicant will be required to submit a separate request accompanied by the applicable fees. 4. Notice. The interpretation shall be in writing and shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail return receipt requested. Public notice procedures are identified in LDC subsection 10.03.06 P. 5. Effective time limits of an interpretation. a. An interpretation rendered by the County Manager or designee shall remain in effect until the appropriate LDC section is amended to clarify the applicable provision or provisions which warranted the interpretation, or until such time as the interpretation is adopted, modified, or rejected as a result of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, by the applicant or other individual or entity identified in LDC section 1.06.01 D.1, above. From the time the interpretation is rendered and the time the appropriate LDC section is amended, or in the case of an appeal, until such time as the Board of Zoning Appeals and/or Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals has rendered its finding, no further request for interpretation regarding the same issue shall be permitted. b. An interpretation rendered by the building official shall remain in effect as provided for in the Florida Building Code. 6. Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board ofAdjustments and Appeals. a. Within 30 days after receipt by the applicant or affected property owner of a written official interpretation sent by certified mail return receipt requested by the County Manager or designee or building official, or within 30 days of publication of public notice of the official interpretation, the applicant, affected property owner, or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals for matters relating to building and technical codes as shown in LDC section 1.07.00 or to the Board of Zoning Appeals for all other matters in the LDC. For the purposes of this section, an affected property owner is defined as an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the official interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, LDC, or.building code(s). The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. b. A fee for the application and processing of an appeal shall be established at a rate set by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time and shall be charged to and paid by the applicant. c. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall consider the interpretation of the County Manager or designee or building official, whichever is applicable, and public testimony in light of the growth management plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code related matters, whichever is applicable. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall adopt the County Manager or designee's or building official's interpretation, whichever is applicable, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject their interpretation. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable, shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's or building official's interpretation unless such board finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the official interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable. d. Time limitations on appeals. Any appeal that has not been acted upon by the applicant within 6 months of the applicant filing the appeal will be determined to be withdrawn and cancelled unless extended by the BCC. Further review and action on the appeal will require a new application subject to the then current LDC. (Ord. No. 13-56, § 3.A) Sec. 250-58. - Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the administrative decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the administrative action from which an appeal is taken. (b) Due public notice of the hearing on the administrative appeal shall be given. (c) Upon the hearing, any parry may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. (Laws of Fla. ch. 67-1246, § 16; Laws of Fla. ch. 2001-344, § 1) 2022 Administrative Code for and Development Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual Chapter 4 / Administrative Procedures G. Official Interpretation of the Land Development Code Reference LDC section 1.06.01 and LDC Public Notice subsection 10.03.06 P. Applicability Any affected person, resident, developer, land owner, or entity that is subject to the LDC may make a request to clarify the requirements for development approval or the meaning of a particular term, phrase, or requirement of the LDC. Pre -Application A pre -application meeting is not required. Initiation The applicant files an "Application for Official Interpretation" with the Planning & Zoning Division. Application The application must include the following: Contents 1. Applicant contact information. 2. Request details, pursuant to LDC section 1.06.01: • Each request must identify the specific LDC citation to be interpreted; and • A request for interpretation may contain no more than 3 issues or questions. The request must not contain a single question with more than three sub -issues or questions. If it is determined by the appropriate official that the request for interpretation contains more than three issues, the applicant will be required to submit a separate request accompanied by the applicable fees. 3. An interpretation of the request prepared by the applicant. The interpretation shall include justification for the request. Completeness After submission of the completed application packet accompanied with the required and Processing of fee, the applicant will receive an electronic response notifying the applicant that the Application petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., XX201200000) assigned to the petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Notice — For Notification requirements are as follows. q See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code interpretation of for additional notice information. County wide application of the 1. Newspaper Advertisements: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County GMP and LDC Manager or designee shall provide a legal advertisement that is published in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: • Brief summary of interpretation; • Location of affected property; and • Appeal time frame. Notice- For Notification requirements are as follows. C* See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code interpretations for additional notice information. affecting a 1. Notification of affected property owner: If an official interpretation has been requested by an affected party other than the property owner, Collier County 106 1 Page Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual Chapter 4 1 Administrative Procedures specific parcel of shall notify the property owner that an official interpretation has been land requested. 2. Mailed Notice: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County Manager or designee shall provide written notice of the interpretation to property owners within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is requested. 3. Newspaper Advertisements: Upon issuance of the interpretation, the County Manager or designee shall provide for a legal advertisement that is published in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: • Brief summary of interpretation; • Location of affected property; • Appeal time frame; and • Project Location Map, if site specific. Public Hearing No public hearing is required. Decision maker The County Manager or designee. Review Process 1. The Planning & Zoning Division shall determine whether the request is complete. If the Department determines that the request is not complete, the Department shall identify the deficiencies in a written notice to the applicant. The Department shall take no further action on the request for the official interpretation until the deficiencies are addressed. 2. After the request for the official interpretation is complete, the County Manager or designee shall review and evaluate the. request in light of the Growth Management Plan and LDC, as applicable, and render an official interpretation. 3. The County Manager or designee may consult with the county attorney and other county departments before rendering an interpretation. Prior to the release of the official interpretation to the applicant, the official interpretation shall be reviewed by the county attorney for legal form and sufficiency.. 4. The interpretation shall be in writing and shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Timing Pursuant to LDC section, official interpretations shall be rendered within 45 days of issuance of a determination of completeness. Official Record The County Manager or designee shall maintain an official record of all interpretations rendered. The official interpretations shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. Appeals An official interpretation may be appealed to the BZA by the applicant, affected property owner, aggrieved, or adversely affected party within 30 days from the receipt by the applicant or affected property owner of the written official interpretation or within 30 days of the newspaper publication. hW See Chapter 3 A. of the Administrative Code. Updated 107 1 Page Exhibit itD-1 " 10/ 12/2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, filed an appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts. [PL20210002121], (Companion to items 8B & 8C) OBJECTIVE: The objective of this Executive Summary is to provide the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with all the relevant information regarding the above referenced matter, and to establish a complete record for consideration by the Board in rendering a determination. CONSIDERATIONS: Section 1.06.01.13.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes a procedure for appeal of an official interpretation of the County Manager or designee. In accordance with Section 1.06.0l.D.6.c., the Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County Manager or designee's interpretation, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the interpretation. The Board of Zoning appeals is not authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's interpretation unless it finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable. On April 15, 2021, staff received a request for an official interpretation of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) submitted by D. Wayne Arnold of Grady Minor., representing FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC (Exhibit "A"). The official interpretation, rendered by the Zoning Director on August 4, 2021, was advertised in the Naples Daily News (Exhibit "B") in accordance with the procedures established in the LDC. The request for interpretation focuses on if a food truck park is a use authorized in the Commercial Two or Commercial Three Zoning District. The request is for a formal interpretation contending that a food truck park is not a permitted use in either the C-2 or C-3 Zoning Districts. A copy of the Zoning Director's Official Interpretation Letter is attached (Exhibit "C"). In preparing for the rendering of this interpretation, staff reviewed and relied on the following documents (in addition to those cited elsewhere in this executive summary): 10.02.06.K. Comparable Use Determination - «D» HEX NO.2016-37 Hearing Examiner Decision - Zoning Verification Letter for 1995 Elsa St. - "I'" Approved SDPI to add food trucks to C-3 Hitching Post - November 10, 2020 Exhibit September 22, 2016 Exhibit "E" December 6, 2019 Exhibit January 17, 2019 Exhibit "G" Packet-Pg 2 10/12/2021 Approved SIP to add food truck to C-4 site- July 25, 2019 Exhibit "H" The official interpretation (Exhibit "C") sets forth in detail the rationale used in making this interpretation. In summary, the interpretation is as follows: The uses provided for within the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts, as enumerated within LDC sections 2.03.03.B and 2.03.03.0 currently do not list food truck parkas a permitted use. LDC section 2.03.03.B.1. a. 74 (C-2 permitted use) and 2.03.03. C.1. a. 96 (C-3 permitted use) provide for the following uses, "Any other commercial convenience use which is comparable in nature with the list ofpermitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as determined by the Hearing Examiner or CCPC, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. " & "Any other intermediate commercial use which is comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as determined by the Hearing Examiner or CCPC, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K " As noted within your application LDC section 2.03.00.A states, "Rules for Interpretation of Uses. In any zoning district, where the list of permitted uses contains the phrase "any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district" or any similar phrase which provides for a use which is not clearly defined or described in the list of permitted uses, which requires the discretion of the County Manager or designee as to whether or not it is permitted in the district, then the determination of whether or not that use is permitted in the district shall be made through the process outlined in LDC section 10.02.06 K. " Further LDC section 10.02.06.K in part reads, "Comparable Use Determination. 1. The following Comparable Use Determination (CUD) shall be used to determine whether a use is comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses, and the purpose and intent statement of the zoning district, overlay, - or PUD.2.To be effective, the Comparable Use Determination shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner by decision, or Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution, at an advertised public hearing based on the following standards... " Within Hearing Examiner Decision HEX NO. 2016-37 (Exhibit "E'), the Hearing Examiner determined that the proposed use of a food truck park is comparable and compatible in nature to other permitted uses in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district and affirmed staffs determination as stated in the Zoning Verification Letter ZVL (CUD) -PL20160001881, which was an attachment of the decision. Zoning Verification Letter PL20160001881, which initiates the comparable use determination, requested that staff determine that the use of 'food truck park" is comparable with the permitted use in the C-4 district of "eating and drinking establishments" or SIC 5812. The conclusion of that zoning verification letter determined that, "the requested use is comparable and compatible to other permitted uses in the district and is therefore a permitted use. In order to become valid, this determination requires affirmation by the Hearing Examiner. " As noted, HEX NO. 2016-37 affirmed the determination of the zoning verification letter PL20160001881. Based upon the determination, food truck parks are treated as permitted uses within zoning districts that permit SIC 5812, subject to whatever size limitations imposed by the respective zoning district. Both the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts permit SIC 5812 with square footage limitations and based upon HEX NO. 2016-37 determination, food truck parks are permitted within those zoning districts 10/12/2021 subject to the square footage limitations. Further evidence of the position that food truck parks are permitted within the zoning districts that permitted SIC 5812, eating establishments, ZLTR-PL20190002574 (Exhibit 7'), determined that a food truck park was permitted within the Industrial zoning district under Eating Establishment (SIC 5812). ZLTR-PL20200001955 (Attachment "C") provides a second example where the County determined that the C-3 zoning district permits restaurants/food truck establishments (SIC 5812) by right. While the Commercial and Industrial zoning districts do not specifically designate food trucks as permitted uses, the Comparable Use determination process has been established to identify similar uses to a zoning district when the proposed use has been determined to be comparable and compatible to existing uses in the zoning district. Hearing Examiner Decision No. 2016-37, established food truck parks as comparable and compatible to a restaurant use and based upon that determination, all zoning districts that permit restaurants (SIC 5812) are determined to also permit food trucks subject to whatever restrictions imposed by the zoning district including square footage limitations. In addition to the instances referenced within the Official Interpretation where Staff has determined that a food truck park were permitted within zoning districts that permit eating places, staff has identified additional instances of that determination. Exhibit's "G" and "H" provide for specific examples of where food trucks have been added to existing commercial facilities within the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts, as well as a zoning verification letter, Exhibit "F", where the County confirmed that a food truck park, comparable to an eating place was an allowed use in the Industrial zoning district. The appeal to the official interpretation submitted by Mr. Yovanovich (Exhibit "I") sets forth in detail his objections to the official interpretation, as well as a supplemental filing. The main points are as follows: 1) A food truck park is not listed as -a permitted use in the C-3 Zoning District. 2) That a food truck park is not comparable or compatible to a restaurant, per the written narrative of AICP planner Wayne Arnold. 3) The LDC in section 10.02.05K identifies specific criteria that must be analyzed when determining whether a use is a comparable use.. These review criteria are there to protect the nearby property owners. 4) A food truck park is not a neighborhood commercial use. 5) The "Food Truck Park" use is not comparable to a restaurant in that it is not located in a brick and -mortar facility and does not meet any Collier County LDC definition for a restaurant. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval or denial of the appeal can be expected to have a fiscal impact to the County, as both sides of the issue could appeal to the Courts. In addition, the decision will have a fiscal impact to the developer of the proposed food truck park. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: a Pac�Cet Pg .2 a 10/12/2021 Not applicable. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Section 509.102. F.S. was enacted with an effective date of July 1, 2020, which provides in part "(2)... A municipality, county, or other local governmental entity may not prohibit mobile food dispensing vehicles [food trucks] from operating within the entirety of the entity's jurisdiction." For a few years, staff has approved development orders and issued zoning verification letters to allow food trucks in zoning districts that allow Eating Places (SIC Code 5812). If the Board agrees with staff s interpretation, the Board may affirm staff s decision. If the Board does not agree with staff, it may reverse the decision. In either case, it may add conditions that it deems appropriate. The Board can also consider directing staff to amend the LDC to expressly address where food truck parks may be allowed. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the interpretation of the Zoning Director that food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District and Commercial Intermediate District. PREPARED BY: Mike Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Exhibit-A-OI-Request (PDF) 2. Exhibit-B-NDN-Advertisement. (PDF) 3. Exhibit-C-Issued-Official-Interpretation (PDF) 4. Exhibit-D-Ordinance 2020-044 (PDF) 5. Exhibit-E-2016-HEX-Decision (PDF) 6. Exhibit-F-ZVL-1995 Elsa St. (PDF) 7. Exhibit-G-C-3-Approval of Hitching-Post-SDPI (PDF) 8. Exhibit-H-Food-Truck-C-4 (PDF) 9. [Linked] Exhibit -I-Applicant's-Exhibits (PDF) 10. legal ad - agenda ID 20031 (PDF) Pack�ei Pg. 2T 10/12/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 8.A Doc ID: 20031 Item Summary: * * * This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. * * * FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, filed an appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts. [PL20210002121 ], (Companion to items 8B & 8C) Meeting Date: 10/12/2021 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 09/09/2021 8:45 AM Submitted by: Title: — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 09/09/2021 8:45 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Mike Bosi Additional Reviewer Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Growth Management Department Lissett DeLaRosa Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Trinity Scott Transportation Growth Management Department James C French Growth Management County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 3 Attorney of Record Review Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review County Manager's Office Sean Callahan Level 4 County Manager Review Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Skipped 09/08/2021 12:02 PM Skipped 09/08/2021 3:53 PM Completed 09/09/2021 9:24 AM Skipped 09/09/2021 5:25 PM Completed 09/17/2021 3:58 PM Completed 10/01/2021 3:08 PM Completed 10/01/2021 3:25 PM Completed 10/04/2021 2:35 PM Completed 10/06/2021 2:11 PM Completed 10/06/2021 3:28 PM 10/12/2021 9:00 AM Exhibit itD-2 " m• RESOLUTION NO. 2021— 216 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INTP-PL20210000943 AND FINDING THAT A FOOD TRUCK PARK IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. [PL2021.00021211 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a 1-,and Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC filed a request for an official interpretation of the I.,and Development Code seeking to confirm that a food truck park is not a permitted use in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning districts or any commercial component of a Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2021; the "Zoning Director issued Official Interpretation 1NTP- PL20210000943 (the "Official Interpretation") finding that a food truck park is a permitted use in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C- 3) zoning districts; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 202.1, . an appeal of the Official Interpretation was submitted by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., on behalf+ of FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, owners, of property within 300 feet of the proposed food truck park; and WHEREAS., on October 12. 2021, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board"). held a properly noticed public hearing to consider Petition ADA-PI_,20210002121: and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board has fully considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. that: 1. The Board finds that a food truck park is not a permitted use in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning di stri cts. 2. Petition Number ADA-PL20210002121, submitted by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., on behalf of FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, is [2 1 -CPS-02139/1674471/2] Isle of* Capri - Food Truck Park (ADA) 1 of 2 PL20210002121 hereby APPROVED in accordance with the record of the proceedings of the public hearing held before the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, on October 12, 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted by the Board after motion, second and majority vote this 12`' day of October, 2021. ATTEST: CRYSTAL I�, KINZEL, CLERK ,r ,SOr an's eputy Cler 'tin 4on ApprovJ461�-'rjfand le al' Jeffrey A11Kla County 4torr [21-CPS-02139/1674471 /21 Isle of Capri - Food Truck Park (ADA) 2 of 2 P1,20210002121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIE O TY, FLORIDA By: Penny Taylohairman Exhibit it E 19 October 12, 2021 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 12, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Penny Taylor William L. McDaniel, Jr. Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis ALSO PRESENT: Sean Callahan, Interim County Manager Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Derek Johnssen, Clerk's Office Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations Page 1 (` COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 October 12, 2021 9:00 AM Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — Chair — CRAB Co -Chair Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; Vice Chair - CRAB Co -Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District l Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD Page 1 October 12, 2021 WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA.) 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. Lunch Recess scheduled for 12: 00 Noon to 1: 00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Invocation by Rabbi Ammos Chorny of Beth Tikvah Synagogue 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.) B. September 14, 2021 BCC Meeting Minutes 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS A. EMPLOYEE Page 2 October 12, 2021 B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 4. PROCLAMATIONS (One Motion Taken to Adopt All Proclamations) A. Proclamation designating October 2021 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Linda Oberhaus, Chief Executive Officer, The Shelter for Abused Women & Children and copies to Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriff and Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court. B. Proclamation designating October 2021 as "Careers in Construction" Month in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Amelia Vasquez, Executive Officer, Collier Building Industry Association. C. Proclamation designating October 10, 2021, as Republic of China (Taiwan) Day in Collier County. The proclamation was mailed to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) in Miami, Florida. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the Collier County Businesses of the Month for October 2021 to Ridgway Bar & Grill, Tony's Off Third, Bayside Seafood Grill & Bar, and Sukie's Wine Shop. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, filed an appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts. Page 3 October 12, 2021 [PL20210002121 ], (Companion to Items #813 & #8C) (District 4, All Districts) B. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 a.m. FCC Beach & Yacht, LLC, filed an appeal of the administrative approval of the Site Development Plan SDP-PL20200001903, pursuant to Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 250-58, which authorized the development of a food truck park in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning District. The subject properties are located at 300, 320, 322 Capri Boulevard and 218 Kon Tiki Drive in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20210001944] (Companion to Items #8A & #8C) (District 1) C. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Paul M. Grider and Tametha Grider, as trustees of the Grider Revocable Living Trust filed an appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts to clarify that the Official Interpretation is not site specific but applies County -wide to all properties designated within the C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts. [PL20210002241 ] (Companion to Items #8A & #813) (District 1) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid ("ITB") No. 21-7923, "Collier Beach Renourishment 2021-2022," to Phillips and Jordan, Inc., in the amount of $4,987,323.21, authorize the Chair to sign the attached Agreement, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Project Nos. 90066, 90068, and 50126) (Andrew Miller, Manager, Coastal Zone Management). (All Districts) B. Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Strategic Marketing Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this plan promotes tourism. (Paul Beirnes, Tourism Division Director) (All Districts) Page 4 October 12, 2021 C. Recommendation to approve the Immokalee Road Corridor Congestion Study from Livingston Road to Logan Boulevard and authorize the County Manager or designee to pursue the recommended improvements. (Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner; Capital Project Planning) (District 2, District 3, All Districts) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. This item must be heard prior to items 8A, 8B, and 8C. Recommendation that the Board accept without comment four motions filed by the owner of the proposed Isles of Capri Food Truck Park and either (1) move directly to hearing the three publicly noticed appeals, or (2) remand the appeals to the Hearing Examiner. (District 1) 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS ---------------------------------------------------- 7---------------------------------------------------- 16. - CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the board, that item(s) will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for the sale of an Access Easement over county property located on the southwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Painted Leaf Lane. (District 3) Page 5 October 12, 2021 2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements, and acceptance of the plat dedications, for the final plat of Vincent Acres Replat, Application Number PL20190001665 (f/k/a Vincent Acres, Application Number PL20150002012), and, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3) 3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Palazzo at Naples, Application Number PL20130002119, acceptance of County maintenance responsibilities for all sidewalk easements (SW.E.) of Palazzo at Naples and authorizing the release of the maintenance security. (District 3) 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the potable water utility facilities for Rookery Bay — Goodland Field Station Replacement, PL20210002089. (District 1) 5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item. all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Euclid Estates (Application Number PL20200002589) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (District 2) 6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item. all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the amended final plat of SkySail - Phase One, (Application Number PL20210000065) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (District 5) 7) Recommendation to review and approve the Fiscal Year 2022 Capital Improvement Plan of the Big Cypress Basin (BCB), a part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). (District 1, All Districts) Page 6 October 12, 2021 N 8) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of $37,562.03 for payment of $2,512.03 in the code enforcement action titled, Board of County Commissioners v. Peter A. Helff, Code Enforcement Case No. CEV20120016482 relating to property located at 2080 21 st St SW, Collier County, Florida. (District 5) 9) Recommendation to terminate for convenience Agreement No. 17- 7200S with eTitle Agency, Inc. for Real Estate Title & Closing Services. (All Districts) 10) Recommendation to approve the selection committee's ranking of Request for Professional Services ("RPS") No. 21-7900, "Design Services for Stormwater Improvements for the BCG&CC/CCN Areas", Project Number 60102 and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the top -ranked firm, Hole Montes, Inc., so that a proposed agreement can be brought back for the Board's consideration at a future meeting. (District 4) 11) Recommendation to provide after -the -fact approval for Amendment 1 to the TIGER IX Immokalee Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Grant Award #693JJ32040007 (District 5) 12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment transferring $290,000 from Fund (313) Project #60172 - Traffic Signal to Fund (313) Project #60252 — VBR at Logan Blvd Intersection Improvements (District 3) 13) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Department Funded Agreement (DFA) FM# 437103-1-88-01, which was renewed by the Board on June 22, 2021, between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County; to unencumber remaining unused funds initially allocated, in the amount of $18,375; to execute a Resolution memorializing the Board's action. (All Districts) B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Page 7 October 12, 2021 1) Recommendation to terminate for convenience Contract No. 17- 7208 with Ground Zero Landscaping Services, Inc. (District 4) 2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring back for future consideration an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 2006-60, as amended, to expand the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) boundaries of the unit to include two parcels within the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development. (District 4) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with 23-81 LNT, LLC, for warehouse storage space to be used by Facilities Management. (District 4) 2) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Agreement No. 18-7416 for Public Utilities Lime Sludge Pond Cleaning to adjust the fee schedule rate during the remaining three-year renewal term of the Agreement. (District 5) 3) Recommendation to approve an Assignment and Assumption of Lease Agreement between L3 Harris Technologies (Assignor) and the State of Florida Department of Management Services (Assignee). (District 5) 4) Recommendation to approve the selection committee's ranking and authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Johnson Engineering, Inc., for Request for Professional Services ("RPS") No. 2 l -7904, "CEI Services for Hamilton Avenue and Danford Street," to bring a proposed agreement back for the Board's consideration at a future meeting. (District 4) 5) Recommendation to authorize the necessary budget amendment from the Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund (318) to fund the Jail Buildings J l /J2/J3 & Parking Garage 1 (PG 1) Fire Alarm Replacement project (Project No. 50237). (District 1) 6) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services ("RPS") No. 20-7749, "Domestic Animal Services Facility Design Page 8 October 12, 2021 Services," to ADG Architecture, LLC in the amount of $578,508, authorize the Chair to the sign the attached Agreement, and authorize the necessary budget amendments (Project No. 50145). (District 5) D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign two (2) Subrecipient Agreements between Collier County and (a) David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc in the amount of $261,466.60 and (b) Collier County Sheriff's Office in the amount of $845,280, for the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse grant program. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign agreements between Collier County and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., in the amount of $1,315,066 and NAMI Collier County, Inc., in the amount of $146,700 pursuant to the state -mandated local match requirement for mental health services. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve the FY21-22 contract with the State of Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier County Health Department in the amount of $1,495,900. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to approve "After -the -Fact" contract Amendment, Attestation Statement, and Budget Amendment with the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., Alzheimer's Disease Initiative grant program for the Collier County Services for Seniors to increase the allocation, revise Attachment 11 Exhibit 2 Funding Summary and Attachment IX Budget and rate Summary and the supporting Budget Amendment. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the chairperson to sign two (2) mortgage satisfactions for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the amount of $38,250 and the associated Budget Amendment. (All Districts) �1-- 6) Recommendation to approve one (1) Release of Lien for full Page 9 October 12, 2021 payment of $27,907.45 ($22,325.96 plus interest), pursuant to Agreement for Deferral of 100% of Collier County Impact Fees for Owner -occupied Affordable Housing Dwellings. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign the Second Amendment to the Subaward Agreement between Collier County and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research for the Building Bridges Between Jails and Community -Based Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder Demonstration Project. (All Districts) 8) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to fund the restoration of Sugden Regional Park Dock #4 and recognize insurance proceeds. (District 4) E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts) F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to recognize Lucia Martin, Growth Management Department, Development Review Division as the September 2021 Employee of the Month. 2) Recommendation to approve the Federally Funded Subaward and Grant Agreement with the Florida Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $2,650 under the Federal Emergency Management Agency Fire Assistance Program in the response to the 36th Avenue Fire in May 2020 and authorize the County Manager to execute subsequent modifications. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment totaling $17,100 from Fund (178) reserves to Public Defender's Fund (178) to cover Purchase Orders for laptops and desktops that did not Make it on to Purchasing's Request to Carry Forward list. (All Districts) Page 10 October 12, 2021 (r 4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to the long- term lease and operating agreement for the Golf and Entertainment Complex between CCBSG Naples, LLC (`BigShots") and Collier County to include an updated exhibit of the leased area for the BigShots facility, and the remaining portion of the golf course redevelopment project. (District 3) 6) This item continued from the September 28, 2021 BCC Meeting Agenda. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Extension and Amendment of the Agreement with The Partnership for Collier's Future Economy, Inc. ("Partnership") in continued support of the established public -private partnership designed to advance the County's economic development efforts. (All Districts) G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid ("ITB") No. 21-7907, "Marco Terminal Punch List -Grant Funded," to O-A-K/Florida, Inc. d/b/a Owen -Ames -Kimball Company in the amount of $78,885.00, and authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement. (District 1) 2) Recommendation to approve the document necessary to convey an easement to Florida Power & Light (FP&L) Company over property owned by Collier County at the Marco Island Executive Airport (District 1) H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget amendments appropriating carry forward budget in the amount of $11,207,629.60 for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2022. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20210001116, to Page 11 October 12, 2021 disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in the sidewalk easement as recorded in Official Records Book 4523, Page 3037 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (District 5) I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) October 12, 2021 Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts) J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the periods between September 16, 2021 and September 29, 2021 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts) 2) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of October 6, 2021. (All Districts) K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. (District 5) 2) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. (District 3) 3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit styled Paula Yoanys Alpizar Gomez v. Collier County Board of Commissioners, (Case No. 19- CA-3709), now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, for the sum of $65,000. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the l total amount of $330,000 plus $55,358.75 in statutory attorneys' fees and costs and expert fees and costs, for the taking of Parcel Page 12 October 12, 2021 215FEE, required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project, Project No., 60168, and delegate authority to the County Manager or his designee to process payment of additional statutory attorney's fees for supplemental proceedings, if any, as authorized by Ch. 73, Fla. Stat. (District 5) 5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $75,000 plus $15,820 in statutory attorney and experts' fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 239FEE, required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (District 5) 6) Overview of Agenda Item #7, Public Comments on General Topics not on the Current or Future Agenda. (All Districts) 17. SUMMARY AGENDA This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. A. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating the Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all matters relating to the public art within the entire unincorporated area of the County, including the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (All Districts) B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts) C. This item has been continued from the September 28, 2021 BCC Meeting Agenda. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners Page 13 October 12, 2021 proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in -fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] (District 1, District 3, District 5) 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 14 October 12, 2021 Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting October 12, 2021 Add on Item 10A: Request that the Board discuss the current condition of the parcel at the intersection of Davis Blvd. and Santa Barbara Blvd. which abuts the Boys & Girls Club of Collier County and explore whether further action is appropriate. (Commissioner Saunders' Request) Add on Item 10B: Recommendation to accept changes to the U.S. Department of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance 1 and 2 programs to streamline eligibility requirements and add allowable activities for households seeking assistance under the programs to benefit all eligible residents and those impacted by the sale of the Gordon River Apartments. (Commissioner Taylor's Request) Continue Item 17C to the October 26 2021 BCC Meetin • A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in -fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation .in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] (District 1, District 3, District 5) (Staffs Request) Continue Item 16F6 to the October 26 2021 BCC Meetin • Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Extension and Amendment of the Agreement with The Partnership for Collier's Future Economy, Inc. ("Partnership") in continued support of the established public -private partnership designed to advance the County's economic development efforts. (All Districts) (Commissioner Taylor's Request) Continue Item 17A to the October 26, 2021 BCC Meetin • Recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating the Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all matters relating to the public art within the entire unincorporated area of the County, including the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (All Districts) (Commissioner Taylor's Request) Note: Items 8A, 8B, and 8C - These items require that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on these items, all participants are required to be sworn in. Time Certain Items: Item 12A to be heard prior to items 8A, 8B, and 8C — Isle of Capri Food Truck Park motions Items 8A, 8B, and 8C to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm — Appeal of Food Truck Park Official Interpretation, Appeal of Administrative Approval of SDP-PL2020001903, and Appeal of the Official Interpretation for a Food Truck Park in the C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts 11/2/2021 9:49 AM October 12, 2021 (r ACCEPT MOTIONS WITHOUT COMMENTS — APPROVED; MOTION TO HEAR APPEALS — APPROVED MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that will take us to Item 12A, which must be heard prior to Items 8A, 813, and 8C. It's a recommendation that the Board accept, without comment, four motions filed by the owner of the proposed Isles of Capri Food Truck Park and either, one, move directly to the hearing of the three publicly noticed appeals or, two, remand the appeals to the Hearing Examiner. I'll let Mr. Klatzkow take it from here. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, to my knowledge, we've never done motions in this boardroom, in the 20 years I've been watching this Board, anyhow. We have no motion procedure, no motion practice, and my suggestion is that you simply accept the four motions. They'll be accepted into the record. Should the -- anybody want to appeal at that point in time, they can bring up the issues then. The second part of it is, it's your discretion to hear this or to send this to the Hearing Examiner, and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think we have two decisions to make. Do we follow the recommendation of the County Attorney to note that we have these appeals before us, if that's what they're called; is that correct, sir? MR. KLATZKOW: Motions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motions before us and not proceed, just acknowledge they're here, and then let them be. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I make a motion that we proceed. We have all the main players here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, not the -- not with -- not the meat of it. The particular -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- appeals, or the motions. Page 114 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The motions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The motions about the standing. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those four. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SALJNDERS: I was going to suggest that we do hear the items but, I think, follow the County Attorney's advice in terms of the motions; just accept those as being filed, and then move on to the two substantive issues. So if that is consistent with Commissioner LoCastro, what you were thinking, then -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely, yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. There's a motion on the floor and a second to -- to -- and you said hang on, hang on. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SALJNDERS: No. I was just saying that I think I've caused some concern on Commissioner Solis again. Oh, oh, he's got his button pushed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got my button pushed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, forgive me. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I know there's -- obviously, there's a motion on the floor. You know, without any procedure, without having heard these before, it's my opinion that this is why we have a Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is a land -use attorney and has the ability to set up a process for hearing these. They're motions that have been filed by the applicant, so I don't think there's an argument that can be made that somehow it's just a delay tactic by the opposition or something. Page 115 October 12, 2021 And that's why we have a Hearing Examiner. I mean, for us to try to work through -- because these are legal issues -- to try to work through legal issues on the fly in a public hearing just doesn't -- that doesn't make sense to me. I think that's why we have a Hearing Examiner, and we should refer the motions to the Hearing Examiner and the appeal, because the appeals relate to the motion. It will come back to us with a written opinion and a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner after however many hearings the Hearing Examiner thinks it requires, and then, once we have that recommendation, we can have the usual process that we would go for hearing one of these things. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I think we should have a fairly in-depth discussion about this before we make a decision, and I think I'm going to turn to Commissioner Saunders, then C Commissioner McDaniel, then Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't disagree with what Commissioner Solis has just said in terms of the ability of the Hearing Examiner to hear these things and come up with a proposed order and file a report, but it still comes back to us as a de novo hearing. And so all that accomplishes, quite frankly, is just delay. I know that's not the intent, but that's ultimately the net effect of it. So I think that the residents in Isles of Capri and the property owner that's filed this petition, I think they're entitled to a more speedy resolution of this one way or another, and that's why I supported Commissioner LoCastro's comment in terms of let's go ahead and hear this, because we're going to have to hear it anyway. And we can hear this, and if we get to a point where, quite frankly, we are so confused, which happens to me all the time, we can then vote to send it to the Hearing Examiner. �. So I would say let's proceed, and then if we get stuck, I think we Page 116 October 12, 2021 still have that option. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my only response to that is is that without -- I think the County Attorney's expressed some concern about not having a procedure and trying to do this without any kind of procedures or a set way of handling this that we create some due process argument for somebody. And I just -- I just think that why do that if we can refer this to the Hearing Examiner to make sure, very methodically in a very flexible schedule, that none of that -- that we don't create those kinds of arguments unintentionally. That's just -- that's my thought. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe the County Attorney can respond to that, because if the County Attorney says, hey, we don't have the procedure, we shouldn't hear this, then I'm going to follow the advice of the county. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. I'm saying don't hear the ( motions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I thought you said. So I just wanted to clarify. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me skip the sideshow and go right to the main event is basically what I'm -saying. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That was my point of clarification. There's two parts to this, the motions and then the appeals. What we're discussing right now is the motions, and that's what the County Attorney has recommended, that we acknowledge they're here and then go right to the appeals. And then when we're faced with the appeals, we make a decision, do we want to hear the appeals, or do we send it to the Hearing Examiner. So I need two motions. I need about -- the recommendation of how we address the motions before us right now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I would move to accept Page 117 3 the motions without comment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. October 12, 2021 Okay. There's a motion on the floor to accept -- and a second to accept the motions without comment. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That would mean we would go right into the appeals? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. And then we're going to make a decision about the appeals. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, in essence, we're just going to ignore the motions? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. That's the Board's -- if that's what the Board wishes to do. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think I was -- I followed Commissioner McDaniel. Did you have something, sir? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a concern with the folks that have an expectation of being heard today. I agree that remanding it back to the Hearing Examiner is not a delay tactic, but inevitably it's going to just back to us, and that was what I wanted to say on the record. There are folks that have an expectation of being heard today. We may end up with this process going back to the Hearing Examiner in any case, but I think this recommendation by the County Attorney gets us to where we need to go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But let's talk -- let's talk specifically about the motions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. I'm okay with what the County Attorney's recommended. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I mean, I agree with, you know, Commissioner Saunders. I also don't disagree with Commissioner Solis about going back to the Hearing Examiner, but I Page 118 October 12, 2021 (r think it's a nice to-do. It's not a must -do, and I also think we run the risk of just adding more bureaucracy into -- this isn't -- we're not launching the space shuttle here. This isn't the biggest thing that we've ever heard. You've got the experts out here, and I agree strongly with Commissioner Saunders that it costs us nothing to at least start the process since we're here, and if we think we get to the a point, his exact words, I couldn't agree more, where we think, wow, you know what, let's go -- you know, I think we've got to a point where we're at a little bit of a stalemate or we don't have all of the information but, you know, this is why we're elected to sit here and hear from the people. And if we think that it's over and above our heads, then, you know, we kick it back. I think it would be a stall tactic. I mean, you look out in the audience. I don't think this is too complicated to at least have the process start and hear the appeals. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So there's a motion on the floor and a second to. accept the motions and to -- and to leave it -- you said it so eloquently, and I'm rephrasing it -- to accept the motions, right? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just accept them without comment and move on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Without comment. That's the word. Without comment. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask one question of the County Attorney? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If this was to be referred to the Hearing Examiner, the motions, would we have to procedurally first accept those as well? MR. KLATZKOW: At this moment in time, you can send L everything, the entire package -- Page 119 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I know. But I'm saying -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- without doing anything further. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just trying to --since we don't have a procedure, I'm trying to figure out what the procedure is. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess we're going to make it up. But if -- and I don't mean to be facetious, but that's what we're doing here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's why I'm asking. So my question is: Do we need to accept these motions? MR. KLATZKOW: You're accepting these motions. If later on down the pike you decide to send everything to the Hearing Examiner, you would make a motion, and it would include, well, the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The motions -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- the motions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS:. -- and the appeal, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Which he may decline to hear, too, because, again, there is no right to a motion in these proceedings, and we have no procedure on this. So that would be -- but that would be up to the Hearing Examiner to decide. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You okay? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second to accept the motions without comment. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Page 120 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. Now, we have the appeals, Commissioner LoCastro, before us. And we have a choice; we can hear it today or we can refer this to the Hearing Examiner. And we're open for discussion. And I'm going to be a little informal with this. We have two attorneys on this board, so I think we need to be very fluid in our discussion right now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I don't have that much complicated discussion here. I'd like to make a motion that we hear the appeals, but I'd also would like to hear from my colleagues if they have something to add that would -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to second that motion because I think, as you said, everybody's here, the experts are here. The procedure, I think, will. be fairly easy for us. It's -- I guess this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And assuming that it is, we can easily follow that procedure. MR. KLATZKOW: I have a proposed procedure that's in your backup if you want to use that one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Is that a -- I apologize. Is that a quasi-judicial type of a procedure? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I think we're in good shape to move forward, so I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the floor, and there's a second to proceed with the appeals. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. C CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. Page 121 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. Very good. County Attorney, would you please read the appeals. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If Mr. -- do you want me to read the appeals -- you mean the procedure? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The procedure, but I think the appeals. I think we need to talk about the appeals, and then the procedure after that, please. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. You've got three separate appeals, and I'm going to refer to both the owner of the property and then the neighboring property rather than by their corporate names. In the first appeal, the --. well, to give you backup, in July 2021 staff approved the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park Site Development Plan allowing a food truck park for nine trucks on 2.9 acres of lot zoned C-3 commercial on the Isles of Capri. An official zoning interpretation was requested by the neighboring property owner. Staff issued the official interpretation that a food truck park is a permitted use in this particular zoning. Item #8A RESOLUTION 2021-216: FCC BEACH & YACHT, LLC, FILED AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT- PL20210000943 THAT FOOD TRUCKS ARE PERMITTED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT (C-2) AND COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICTS — MOTION TO GRANT APPEALS AND DENY THE SDP — APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP Page 122 October 12, 2021 AN LDC AMENDMENT SUPPORTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IN REGARD TO FOOD TRUCKS — APPROVED There are three appeals resulting from that decision. In the first appeal, the neighboring property owner is appealing the approval of the Site Development Plan. In other words, the neighboring property owner does not believe that a food truck park is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning. Item #8B RESOLUTION 2021-217: FCC BEACH & YACHT, LLC, FILED AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP-PL20200001903, PURSUANT TO CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES SECTION 250-58, ( WHICH AUTHORIZED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD 0 TRUCK PARK IN THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 300, 320, 322 CAPRI BOULEVARD AND 218 KON TIKI DRIVE IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — MOTION TO GRANT APPEALS AND DENY THE SDP — APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP AN LDC AMENDMENT SUPPORTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IN REGARD TO FOOD TRUCKS — APPROVED The second appeal of the neighboring property owner is appealing the official interpretation. The official interpretation, again, provided that a food truck park is a permitted use in this district. Page 123 October 12, 2021 (- Item #8C RESOLUTION (OF DENIAL) 2021-218: PAUL M. GRIDER AND TAMETHA GRIDER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GRIDER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST FILED AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT-PL20210000943 THAT FOOD TRUCKS ARE PERMITTED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT (C-2) AND COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICTS TO CLARIFY THAT THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT SITE SPECIFIC BUT APPLIES COUNTY -WIDE TO ALL PROPERTIES DESIGNATED WITHIN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS — MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL — APPROVED ( The third appeal, which may be withdrawn, I want it done on the record, is that the owner of the food truck site is also appealing the official interpretation for the very narrow grounds to clarify that it applies countywide and not site specific. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And if you would outline our procedure, and then we'll go forward, please. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. If Mr. Miller could put it on starting with Page 4. My recommendation -- normally the appealing party goes first, but here we have two appealing parties, and I think, for a matter of clarification, I think staff going first here to explain its official interpretation as well as the Site Development Plan would be beneficial. And in keeping with past practice, staff would be limited to 15 minutes in its presentation. The property owner may ask staff questions. I'd recommend 10 minutes for that, and the neighboring Page 124 October 12, 2021 property owner may also cross-examine staff. Again, 10 minutes. Note, these minutes are at the discretion of the Board. You can always expand it. Following staff s presentation, my recommendation is that the neighboring property owner presents its case, including the testimony of any expert witnesses. I'd recommend one hour for this. The zoning director has the ability to question the neighboring property owner for 10 minutes, as does the property owner. Again, these times are flexible. Following that presentation, the property owner will then present its case that the food truck park is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. In essence, the property owner will be supporting staff s position. Again, the zoning director could question the property owner, if Mr. Bosi would like, and the neighboring property owner may question the property owner, again, for 10 minutes. The Board may question anybody at any time. That is your discretion. When we are done with the parties, it is the public's time to speak. In keeping with our practice, the public's time is limited to 3 minutes, but since this is quasi-judicial, only relevant evidence should be discussed, but I'd leave that to the Board to decide whether the speaker is relevant to the issues or not. Typically, we've been very broad with that interpretation giving the public the access to speak. After that, essentially, we have closing in the same order of the zoning director, neighboring property owner, and the property owner for 10 minutes, and that should include any rebuttal they might have. At the conclusion, the Board will make its motion. And it's ultimately your decision as to whether or not this use should be at this site will lead to your conclusions as to whether to deny or accept the appeals. Page 125 October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. We will have a court reporter break at 2:30, yes, and we will break for 15 minutes. At this point, I think all those who are going to give testimony today need to rise and raise your right hand. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, does that include the people registered to speak publicly? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yes. MR. MILLER: So if you registered to speak, please. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The online folks couldn't hear that, but... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So the folks online check a form when they register to speak, which means that they agree to tell the truth and the whole truth. So thank you very much. Mr. Bosi. ( COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we want -- quasi. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Quasi, I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. Let's do quasi ex parte communication, please. I guess the -- what we're talking about is 8A, 813, and 8C. Commissioner McDaniel, you were ready. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had meetings, e-mails, and phone calls on all three. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Same here with e-mails, communications, meetings, on both sides of the issue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. For all three I've had meetings, correspondence, e-mails, and phone calls. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've had meetings with both the Page 126 October 12, 2021 applicant and the appellant's attorneys, e-mails, and phone calls. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I've had the same; e-mails, meetings, correspondence, calls on both sides of this issue with the attorneys and discussions with staff. Thank you. Mr. Bosi, excuse me. MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, Zoning director. As the County Attorney's Office and as the discussions have indicated, the focus of the questions of the two appeals, 8A, the appeal of the official interpretation, as well as 8B, the appeal -- the SDP approval, focus upon the same question: Is a food truck park allowed within the Commercial 3 zoning district? The other appeal is about the reach, whether it's a specific or whether it's countywide. Staff s position is it has always been interpreted to be a countywide .application of the question of the C-2 and the C-3 zoning districts and not specifically to this parcel of land. The essential question for the BZA to decide is, how far does the comparable -use determination process reach? The comparable -use determination has been designed by this county, by our code, to take a use that's not contemplated, that's not identified within our zoning district, and then we bring that use and we compare it against the uses that are within a PUD, uses within that individual zoning district, and see if that use is then comparable to that -- to uses that are already permitted in that zoning district to see if that could be included within the zoning district, the PUD, or how it's to be treated by our Land Development Code moving forward. There's going to be three potential -- or four potential conclusions. Is a comparable -use determination only applicable to the parcels seeking the comparable -use determination? Is it a Page 127 October 12, 2021 conditional use, essentially? A conditional use is a different process than the comparable use. I'll get into that. But is it only applicable to that parcel that's seeking a comparable -use determination? Is it only applicable for the zoning district that is being evaluated; in this case, the C-3 zoning district. Would that be the only district that it would be applicable? Is it cumulative in that the use is permitted in all zoning districts that are more intense than the zoning district that it was found to be comparable? Our Land Development Code is cumulative, meaning the lower uses in your commercial categories all rise up and are permitted within your higher intensity zoning districts. Or does it apply to all zoning districts which provide for the use that the proposed use is determined to be compatible to? We'll get back to that at the very end, and I think it will be -- those questions _will be framed in a little bit more informed manner. But I'll go through the process that -- how staff -- and, Troy, it doesn't want to seem to be advancing. Okay. I want to go through the series of processes as to how staff arrived upon the decision of approving the SDP in the C-3 zoning district and providing the interpretation that a food truck was a permitted use within the C-2 and C-3 zoning district, the two appeals that are 6n hand. And I want to read you -- and it started back with a HEX determination in 2016. The decision that was provided by Mark Strain, the Hearing Examiner says, the Hearing Examiner approves Petition ZVL(CUD)PL2016000188 [sic] filed by Laura DeJohn AICP, Johnson. Engineering, representing Naples 2 Point, LLC, requesting approval of a zoning verification letter determination that proposed use of a food truck park is comparable and compatible in nature to other permitted uses in the general commercial Bayshore mixed -use district neighborhood commercial district subdistrict (C-4-BMUD-NC) on property located at the Page 128 October 12, 2021 intersection of Bayshore Drive and Becca Avenue and further described in here. And I think this is the important part of that decision that staff has reacted to: And affirms staff determinations as stated in the zoning verification letter attached as Exhibit A subject to the conditions set forth below. So when you look at the zoning letter, the zoning letter that was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner's decision, the conclusion of that letter stated, based on the research above and in the application, the planning manager has determined that the requested use is comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses in the district and is, therefore, a permitted use. In order to become valid, this determination requires affirmation by the Hearing Examiner. I just read you the decision of the Hearing Examiner. He affirmed that statement that a food truck park was, therefore, a permitted use in the zoning district in which the comparable -use determination was requested. That's the plain and unambiguous language that staff has reacted to to make determinations for how food truck parks would be treated when broached the question related to it. In particular, there was a staff report that was associated with that Hearing Examiner determination. And within that, it was pointed out that staff also recognizes that the Bayshore CRA encourages pedestrian -friendly business and human -scale business in the neighborhood commercial subdistrict; therefore, the compatibility analysis staff has limited the use -- the use to the Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict. So what does that mean? It was zoned Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict as well as C-4. Staff put their focus upon the Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict. And why that's important is because if you look at the intent in the description of !, what the neighborhood commercial subdistrict is, you read it, the Page 129 October 12, 2021 purpose and the intent of this subdistrict is to encourage a mix of low -intensity commercial and residential uses including mixed -use projects in a single building. This subdistrict provides for an increased presence and integration of the cultural arts and related support uses, including galleries, artist studios, live -work developments. Developments will be human -scale and pedestrian -oriented. What's that saying is the neighborhood commercial was a neighborhood commercial zoning district, meaning that it doesn't serve multiple neighborhoods. It serves one neighborhood. And with that, that's a low -intensity commercial zoning district, and that's important for -- that's important because the permit -- or the zoning letter stated that the food truck park was a permitted use in the neighborhood commercial zoning district, and that's what staff has acted upon when we made evaluations upon whether a food truck ( park was a use that was allowed in other zoning districts. Based upon that direction that staff took from that Hearing Examiner's decision, we've issued approval of the Hitching Post Shopping Center SDPI to add four food truck parking spaces to the C-3 zoning district. The property that we're talking about is C-3 today. The action of this government, the action of Growth Management in 2019 was approval of an SDPI in the C-3 zoning district to add four food truck locations. We also, in 2019, provided for approval of an SIP in the C-4 zoning district. That was based upon the Hearing Examiner's determination. And then, finally, on a third occasion, within the industrial zoning category, we issued a zoning verification letter that stated that a food truck park was a permitted use because of the comparable -use determination in 2016 compared it to an eating place. So we have consistently, consistently said, the way that our Page 130 October 12, 2021 zoning code works is if you're in a lower zoning district and a use is permitted, it's permitted in all the higher zoning districts. And within the -- and within the determination of the review of the SDP and the official interpretation, when asked is a food truck park an allowed use in a C-2 or a C-3 zoning district, staff mainly maintained the same position that it has maintained since that 2016 zoning determination that a food truck park would be a permitted use in the zoning districts. Now, this is the findings of the Hearing Examiner's decision in 2016. It says, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to Section 2.87 [sic] of the codes of law and ordinance, and that's related to the powers of the Hearing Examiners. Also, related to Subsection 2.03.03.D.1.C.26 of the Land Development Code. What that is is that's a section within the -- within the Land Development Code that dictates how conditional -- or how comparable -use determinations can go forward in the C-4 zoning district. And what that's saying is that through a conditional use, the following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the commercial intermediate C-3 zoning district. And it says that the -- it says that for -- and this was crossed out because this was -- this was the language that was in effect at the time. It's been subsequently changed, is what I'll get to in the presentation. But it said, any other intermediate commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent in the statement of the zoning district as determined by the Board of Zoning and Appeals. So the jurisdiction that the Hearing Examiner was claiming was related to the conditional -use section of this C-3 or actually the C-4 zoning district at the time. There was an inconsistency in the application of the determination, because a conditional use and the Page 131 October 12, 2021 questions of a conditional use never came up. It was the comparable -use determination that was cited, and that was -- or that was referring to -- let me go back. I'm just looking for the findings section. Yes, the 2.03.03.D.1.C.26 provided jurisdiction. And then the other aspect that was cited for the findings was based upon the applicant's written petition, the testimony, and a hearing and the application, Section 10.02.06.J, and that is the comparable -use determination. So he cited the conditional -use process as well as the comparable -use determination as the justification for how he had jurisdiction to hear the case. And as I described, the conditional -use criteria evaluation, it's different than the comparable -use determination. And in a conditional use, there's four questions you basically ask. The consistency of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, ingress and egress to the property, and the .proposed structure and its particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety, traffic flow control and access. The affect a conditional use would have on neighbor properties in relationship to noise, glare, economic odor effects, and compatibility with adjacent properties and the other properties in the district. If you reviewed the Hearing Examiner case, none of these questions were asked. There was no analysis that was ever done as to what the surrounding properties were. There was never -- there was never any reference to the affect a food truck park would have upon the adjoining properties. The question was, is the food truck park comparable to the uses that are contained in the neighborhood zoning district or the C-4 zoning district and the -- and the zoning verification letter agreed that both of those districts provided for a comparable -use determination related to the food truck, and it was affirmed by the decision of the Page 132 October 12, 2021 Hearing Examiner. And this is the comparable -use determination section that was in effect at the time. Comparable -use determination, the County Manager or designee may issue a zoning verification letter to determine whether a use within a PUD is consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses within the PUD. To be effective, the zoning verification letter should be approved by the BCC by resolution at the advertised hearing. Now, there wasn't a PUD. This was a zoning overlay in a C-4 zoning district, but it was approved, and it was provided for the comparable -use determination, and it was approved at an advertised public hearing that everyone was entitled to be able to attend. And, finally, in 2020, the Board of County Commissioners approved the revised comparable -use determination. We realized .that there was -- there was gaps within the process of how we were providing for a comparable -use determination and what the code is actually stating. And in that new section, we provided an expanded way the comparable -use determination is to provide for. And it's informative for the Board to understand.' And it says, the following comparable -use determination shall be used to determine whether a use is comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses and the purpose and the intent and statement of the zoning district overlay or PUD. So what it did is expanded the reach in terms of how the comparable -use determination would be allowed for. And to be affected, the comparable -use determination shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner by decision or the BZA, by resolution, as an advertised public hearing. And here's the standards that you utilize in a comparable -use determination. The proposed uses possess similar characteristics to other permitted uses in the zoning district overlay or PUD including, but not limited to, the following: Hours of operation, traffic volume, type of vehicles Page 133 October 12, 2021 associated with the use, type of -- the number and type of parking spaces, best -practice activities. B, the affect a proposed use would have on neighboring properties in relationship to noise, glaze, odor effects shall be no greater than the other permitted uses in the zoning district. So that says -- this doesn't say to look around and see what's around you. It says, the affect that you would have related to noise, glare, and odor in comparison to the other uses in that zoning category. That's where the comparison is. And then, C, the proposed use is consistent with the GMP, meaning the applicable future land -use designation does not specifically prohibit the use where the future land -use designation contains a list of allowable and proposed uses, and is not admitted. D, the proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other permitted uses in the zoning district. Again, it goes back to reiterate that it's the use that you're comparing this proposed use to -- not the compatibility issue that's required if you were doing a conditional use -- and any other relevant information that may be required by the County Manager or designee. So that's how we established the determination on the three other outside applications we received to make a determination for how food truck parks would be treated. And that's how we arrived upon the decision related to the approval of the SDP, and that's how we arrived upon the OI, based upon that 2006 [sic] comparable -use determination. Now let me just set the stage for the Board to understand what is the area we're talking about. Where you have the uses we're talking about -- the arrow's not showing up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's there. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, we can see it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can't see it, but we can see it. Page 134 October 12, 2021 MR. BOSI: Right here and here and here is the property in question. For the -- where the proposed food truck is located where the SDP has been approved. Zoning of that is C-3. The surrounding area is C-3 except for that one pocket of the RMF-16 that's to the north of the facility. So this is clearly the area on Isles of Capri that's been designated for the highest type of intensity. It's a large area of commercial zoning with a small area or a smaller area of RMF-16, the most intense multifamily that's allowed by our individual zoning districts. The purpose -- the proposed foods truck, as I said, is within the C-3 zoning district, and let me read you the intent, because this is -- relates to how staff established the consistency of our findings and how we've treated a food truck park since moving on from that -- the 2016 hearing determination. The proposed -- the purpose and intent of the commercial ( intermediate district, C-3, is to provide for a wider variety of goods and services intended for areas expected to receive a high degree of automotive traffic. The type of variety of goods and services are those that are providing an opportunity for comparison shopping, have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods, and are preferably located at the intersection of two arterial level streets. Most activity centers meet this standard. This district is also intended to allow for all the uses permitted in the C-1 and the C-2 zoning districts. That determine -- or that description is part of the evaluation. That is a higher intensity of design within a commercial zoning district than a neighborhood -- than a neighborhood -serving commercial zoning district, which is comprised to serve the needs of an individual neighborhood. This serves the individual needs of multiple neighborhoods and can be appropriate for activity centers. And I'll remind the Board of County Commissioners that activity Page 135 October 12, 2021 centers are areas of the most intensity that are allowed by our Growth Management Plan. And as part of the C-3 zoning district, it allows for Use No. 31. Use No. 31 is eating place. It's 5812. But it has a limitation. You're only allowed 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure. An eating place is the use that's allowed. It's not a restaurant. The eating place is the use that's provided by our zoning district. And if you look in our zoning -- if you look to the zoning district, you see that it has 5812. 5812 is a reference to the Standard Industrial Classification Code, and the Standard Industrial Classification Code provides for all the uses that are contained within 5812. So this is what -- if you have an SIC code book, and you look to see, what are the uses that an eating place would allow for? And you look, oh, there is restaurant, but there's restaurant carryout, there's restaurant fast food, there's sandwich bars, shops, snack shops. The ones that I had highlighted, boxed -lunch stands, frozen custard stands, hamburger stands, hot dog stands, ice cream stands, refreshment stands, drink stands. The reason why I highlighted those is because the functional equivalent difference between a series of food trucks and a series of food stands, functionally, is no different. You go to a counter, you go to a window, whether it be in a food truck or whether it be in a stand, you purchase your food, and you go sit outside. So the question -- and when that original 2006 [sic] determination was provided for, this, I believe, influenced the decision. This is a wide range of activities that fall under 5812. It's not isolated to restaurant. It's isolated to every single one of these uses that are contained within -- within the SIC code, and those are rights that are associated with that land, with that C-3 zoning district. So we get back to the -- to the beginning slide, the four questions that I think that are being asked of the BZA. Is a Page 136 October 12, 2021 (� comparable -use determination only applicable to the parcel -- to the parcel seeking the comparable -use determination? If the question [sic] to that is yes, then the action is to overturn the SDP and the OI. Is it only for the zoning district being evaluated? If that's the determination of the BZA, then the action is, again, to overturn the SDP and the OI. Is it cumulative in that the uses would be permitted in all zoning districts that are more intense than the zoning districts evaluated? Then the action is to uphold the SDP and the OI. And, finally, does it apply to all zoning districts which provide for the use -- the proposed use determined to be comparable to? And then the action is to uphold the SDP or the OI. So, essentially, the question is, did staff act properly? Did we handle the condition -- the comparable -use determination in the appropriate manner when that decision was made by the HEX that he said it was a permitted use in the zoning districts that it was requested .against, and that we looked to those zoning districts, looked at the intensity and said, any zoning district that was more intense than that neighborhood commercial, a food truck park could be determined to be a permitted use. And that is the actions and the framework and what motivated and what drove staff to make their determination. If the Board of County Commissioners feels that that was an incorrect determination based upon the comparable -use determination, we yield to the wisdom of the Board. But that is -- that's the action that has been consistently applied. If we've been consistently wrong, please tell us, and we'll take a different direction, but that's how we viewed the Hearing Examiner's determination in ' 16 and have treated every question since then. And with that, any questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. Page 137 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And thank you very much. That was a -- that was a very succinct explanation, and an enormous amount of logic for coming up with the OI. My question is reaching back to a decision that, personally, I felt should have been treated as a conditional use in the first place and then not applying that decision forward on zoning districts that are outside a delineated decision and approval on the Bayshore CRA overlay and the uses that are allowed in there and then bringing that forward for these additional decisions and approvals. And in all candor, and then certainly information, time, we've learned that a food truck park is not what we all conceived as a food truck park, in fact, is. And your determinations on the other two properties that you talked about, two or three, I think, that you talked about and you brought forward didn't have -- they had more of the criterion afforded to them that would typically be .brought in, being an arterial or in an area that was, if you will, more conducive for that type of intensity in those areas. So -- and I don't want to say we were just lucky, but maybe we were just lucky on those to not have as much objection for the use determination and the OI, and that's where I've been grappling with grabbing onto or utilizing the Hearing Examiner's opinion for allowance of that food truck park down on Bayshore Drive as being applicable to all C-3 and up pieces of property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a question, or just a statement? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. How -- the question, I guess, is, it seems a bit of a reach to go back to a decision that was made on a, relatively speaking, isolated zoning classification, the Bayshore overlay, and the allowable uses within the Bayshore overlay and then applying it to a countywide circumstance. How did -- how did we -- how did we justify that? Because, personally, what I'm -- I mean, I understand -- and you and I spoke Page 138 October 12, 2021 about this yesterday when we were talking about it. There's an enormous amount of logic in the allowed uses of an eating place in that -- in that definition of eating places there are a lot of similarities between those food stands and food truck vendors. But how did we think -- how did we come up with that it was okay to go back to that decision by the HEX '06 [sic] when people that aren't impacted by it, these folks -- I didn't know about that decision. I mean, I was aware of it, but how did we rationalize utilizing that as our basis coming forward? MR. BOSI: As I stated, in staff s perspective, the comparable -use determination was to -- was designed and developed to bring in uses that were not recognized by a PUD or the -- or the zoning district and evaluate whether that use shared similar characteristics to the permitted uses in that PUD or that zoning district to see if it was appropriate to bring that new use in. Because we recognized the Standard Industrial Code it hasn't been updated since two thousand -- or 1987. It's dated. There is a number of industries and businesses that have emerged that did not exist 30 years ago or 34 years ago. So that use determination was based upon -- was based in that neighborhood commercial zoning district, brought that use in. And as I said, staff s perspective is the neighborhood commercial zoning subdistrict is less intensive than a community -serving zoning district. The way that zoning districts work, C-1 through C-5, your C-1 is your most limited. It's the one that's supposed to be most limited in terms of -- in relationship to where existing -- or where residential would be proposed. C-2 is a step up beyond that, is more, a little bit, neighborhood serving. C-3 gets to be your community commercial where the outreach and the draw of the businesses that are allowed are a little bit beyond the -- just the neighborhood. They go beyond. It could Page 139 October 12, 2021 be a five- to 10-minute drive. And then you'd go to C-4, which is more your regional serving where you have a much larger radius, a 25- to 30-minute expected market zone, and then C-5 is a mix of your regional as well as your heavier commercial. So what -- we viewed the neighborhood commercial as a lesser intense zoning district than the C-3 zoning district. And the way that our code informs us is it's cumulative. You -- the ones that reached out, reach up to that zoning district, and that was the logic that was utilized by staff. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. Well -- and that's what I said at the beginning. There was an enormous amount of logic applied to how you came up with that process save the fact that this particular site doesn't have the infrastructure, if you will, to support that on a more intense scale. MR. BOSI: And I would agree. The infrastructure, it's a very limited transportation system. You know, the limitation is unique. This is not two arterial collectors as it was suggested within the C-3 zoning district, but the zoning district is the Commercial 3 zoning district, and that's what we reacted to. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't disagree at all. I just -- the comment that I had was the intensities that are allowed for within C-3, if other uses were put in, could be significantly more intense than the proposition of the food truck park. MR. BOSI: Oh, there's a tremendous amount of opportunities for much more intense activities to be developed within the C-3 zoning district. Remember, this was -- this is a place that's considered appropriate for entertainment districts. It's appropriate -- if these food trucks were food stands, we wouldn't be here, and there's no functional equivalent difference. But we are here, and we're trying to seek guidance from the Board of County Page 140 October 12, 2021 Commissioners, did we correctly react to the factors that staff has identified as what led us to the decision that we're making, the SDP appeal or approval as well as the OI approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro, are you -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just had -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On a 10,000-foot view, I would prefer at some stage a recommendation come to treat all food truck parks as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Save that for later. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm finding all this very interesting, because I hadn't heard anything about this topic at all, ever. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. Obviously, this is in District 1. It's been a big conversation. Mr. Bosi, if you'd go back a few slides to that list. That's it. The list where it was a more detailed list that we take a look at to decide use. And you just had the slide. It had, like, eight things on it. It was traffic. It was a much -- there you go -- a much more robust list. So this -was a new updated list from our previous determination, correct -- MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- to get things more correct. Did the staff aggressively use this list and come up with a detailed determination on each one of these specific questions/topics concerning the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park? MR. BOSI: No. No, we did not. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Why not? MR. BOSI: Because a comparable -use determination was not requested by the applicant. Page 141 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. BOSI: As I said -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- the permitted use was identified by the Hearing Examiner in a lower zoning district and, therefore, we've -- we've determined that that permitted use rises up to the more intense commercial zoning district; therefore, it's a permitted use. There would -- based upon staff s position, there would be no reason why the applicant would submit a comparable -use determination with the position that staff has provided for. The applicant did seek a zoning verification letter that basically said a food truck could go at the C-3 zoning district. So they did -- they did submit clarification, but they did not request to go through a comparable -use determination, so we never posed these questions. But if we did pose these questions, every one of these questions, the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Really? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Wow. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. If you look at -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They did it in a district. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. BOSI: If you look at what's allowed within -- if you look what's -- eating place, and that's the permitted use. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, I follow you. Here's the -- here's what -- there's so much more information we have to get, so it's not a matter of just us all making speeches. I really want to ask, you know, a question. But the point of clarification I want to make is when we keep referring back to what the HEX initially decided for Food Truck No. 1, basically, on Bayshore, I don't really think -- you know, we Page 142 October 12, 2021 keep -- we keep referring to it as almost like precedent. Well, that automatically approved everything, you know, that went forward. And, you know, my comment -- and, like I said, maybe it's not a question, and I'm going to -- you know, I'm going to wait because there's so much more to come. But I think we have to be dynamic enough to decide if we think we got it wrong, because who was an expert on food trucks that initial time? So, you know, I guess the statement I would make is, I would just caution you -- and I'm not saying you sort of did this verbatim. But I certainly feel like I'm hearing that, well, you know, back for the Bayshore food truck, you know, that precedent was decided, the HEX decided, the HEX decided. Okay, the HEX was deciding something that had never been decided before. I can tell you right now -- I don't know if there's people from Bayshore in this audience, but there's quite a few people that are less happy about the food truck park than they were when they saw it on the drawing board, you know. And to Commissioner McDaniel's point, I don't know that we knew exactly what the final product was going to look like and whatnot. So, you know, I just caution and say, just because it was decided back in '06 -- MR. BOSI: ' 16. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: --'16, rather, that I wouldn't really call it precedent. I mean -- and even the couple of trucks that we had after that, I agree strongly with Commissioner McDaniel that I actually think we got lucky. Those were in areas that weren't as complicated, intense. And I actually disagree with you on that long list. Like, if I went down that list, I mean, these are my constituents, and I can tell you the people that live there -- you don't live there. I don't either, but I bet I'm there a heck of a lot more than you. I l _ wouldn't say those are automatic yeses but, you know, to your point. Page 143 October 12, 2021 (Applause.) MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner, I defer to you 100 percent. And one of the things we're looking for from this the -- from the Board is comparable -use determination. I've stated, it's how staff and how the code has been designed to incorporate a new use to our Land Development Code. So we're looking -- if you're saying it's only applying -- a comparable -use determination that doesn't look around at surrounding property owners but looks at the other uses in the zoning district, how far should that apply? Is it only that zoning district? Because then that's every C-3 parcel of land in the entire county, or it's C-2, whatever the zoning classification is. Staff interpretation of what the zoning -- or the comparable -use determination was, how we make a determination for new uses to be brought in, it goes through an advertised public hearing. You're evaluating that use against other uses in that.zoning district. So if it ( should only be limited to that zoning district or only that parcel of land, if it's only that parcel of land, I would suggest you do away with the comparable -use determination and just have a compatible -- or a conditional -use application. But that -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Couldn't agree more. MR. BOSI: But that's cumbersome. And one of the things that we were trying to do and what this government's trying to do is recognize that there's some inflexibility towards zoning, and the comparable -use determination is to recognize that new industries, new businesses are created, and if we evaluate through professional planners, applications that are provided by professional planners, put forward the conditions of here's the external effects of this use compared to the other uses in the zoning district, if you find that that is equal or less intense, you can bring that into the zoning district and, therefore, the process is determined that that's, moving forward, a use that's allowed. And that's how staff viewed it. Page 144 October 12, 2021 C COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Bosi, so -- let me go back to the list here. And you said that if it was a hamburger stand or a hot dog stand, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because it's an allowed use. So not to be flippant, but the difference here are wheels. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what we're talking about? MR. BOSI: That's the difference. Functionally, I don't think it has any difference with how the consumer engages. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. If those -- if those didn't have an axle and it was set on the ground and attached to the ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation today? MR. BOSI: There would be no basis for this conversation.. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Secondly, are there -- are there other instances where staff has relied upon a comparable -use analysis that included a use that's not specifically referenced in the Land Development Code into a zoning classification other than just this one particular one from 2016? MR. BOSI: The majority of the comparable -use determinations are actually against PUDs, PUDs. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. BOSI: And the majority of those have not proposed new uses, just uses that haven't been provided for by that PUD, and therefore -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But the PUD sets the zoning for -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- a particular piece. MR. BOSI: Yes. Page 145 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So -- but with regards to a PUD, that's been done before. MR. BOSI: It's been done before, but not a new -- not a use that hasn't been recognized by staff. We never said, okay, that the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Got it. This was something that, obviously, was kind of a new trend. MR. BOSI: Yes, it was a new trend, and that's one of the things staff is seeking direction from the Board moving forward on how we treat the comparable -use determination and new uses and how far that reach should be. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But the way -- the way that this area of the Land Development Code has been developed, the intent was -- and this is a question: Was the intent to do what you were saying, and that is, if there's a comparable -use determination that finds that a use that's not expressly, stated in a zoning district is comparable to the ones that are, that then that is considered to be part -- you know, included within the zoning district? I mean, was that the intent of how we have laid this out over the years? MR. BOSI: The code was rather shallow in terms of the comparable -use determination. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Right. MR. BOSI: It's been much more defined in terms of the update of 2020 in terms of, you know, how we make those evaluations. The question and the text of the code doesn't provide -- is not instructive as to how you treat other zoning districts. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But in terms of how the staff has been looking at this, that's -- MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's how you've been applying it. MR. BOSI: That's how staff has been applying it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so how long -- at least Page 146 since 2016? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: October 12, 2021 Okay. No other -- no other questions at this point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sure, go ahead. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. If you don't mind. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Go ahead. I'll ask later. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we're going to try to contain ourselves and have one time to speak, not that we can't interrupt, and I certainly will bow to that, but it is now 2:00, and we have yet to hear from the property owners or the neighboring property owners, and they each get an hour each. So if I could ask the property owner to see if there are any questions, your time is limited to 10 minutes. And if you would please identify yourself. Thank you. MR. LINCOLN: Thank, Madam Chair. Robert Lincoln here _for the. property owner, the Grider Family Trust. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. LINCOLN: And so I want to be clear on a couple of things that you said first. The C-3 zone district, eating places, I think, is Use 31 in a list of 96 or 97 uses; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And normally wouldn't a comparable use be looking at whether or not the list of uses that are actually set out in the code and comparing a new use to what's actually in the code as opposed to the list of what's in the SIC code; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: So if you could do me a favor, can you read the description for SIC 5812. MR. BOSI: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for the on -premise or immediate Page 147 October 12, 2021 f consumption. Caterers, industrial, and institutional food service establishments are also included in this industry. MR. LINCOLN: Is a food truck park -- does a food truck park meet that definition? MR. BOSI: In my opinion, yes. MR. LINCOLN: In your expert opinion, administering the Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. LINCOLN: And -- so let me just ask, because this is the SIC codes, and all of the things that are in this specific list, they're examples of establishments that meet that definition; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And it's not necessarily an exhaustive list, is it? MR. BOSI: Staff would utilize this as the -- as the list of uses that we would consider permitted uses within -- within the Land Development Code, within the zoning district. MR. LINCOLN: Well, does that mean that if somebody came in and listed on a building permit or site plan that it wanted to do a bistro that you'd require them to go through a comparable -use determination if one hadn't been done? MR. BOSI: I would say no. MR. LINCOLN: You would interpret a bistro -- MR. BOSI: I would interpret the code -- a bistro to be similar to a restaurant, similar to a coffee shop, similar to a place that served food. MR. LINCOLN: And, likewise, if -- I noticed, like, frozen custard stand is up here, but there's no mention of frozen yogurt. So if somebody came in for a TCBY, would you require them to go through a comparable -use determination? Page 148 October 12, 2021 ( MR. BOSI: No. MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So the issue here is that the staff has a lot of discretion to determine, when a particular application comes in, whether or not it meets the definition and is consistent with that list of examples; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Yes, that's correct. MR. LINCOLN: And I'm just -- because I'm getting to an alternate way from the way the staff approved it to look at what's going on here. Because, as you said, a food truck park, it meets the definition and, therefore, it is an eating place; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: An eating place, yes. MR. LINCOLN: Okay. And if it's an eating place, then it's permitted in the C-3 zoning district subject to the 6,000-square-foot limitation; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: Staff has utilized the Hearing Examiner's determination of a comparable -use determination that it says similar to an eating place, that it would be eligible at the C-3 zoning district to a limitation of 6,000 square feet. MR. LINCOLN: And going to the list of considerations for the modified -- MR. BOSI: Comparable -use determination. MR. LINCOLN: Yes. If you'd put that back up. Isn't it true that that was adopted mid November of last year? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And this food truck park had its pre-app in October or September of last year; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: I believe so. MR. LINCOLN: And the zoning verification letter that was issued was issued last October for this Isles of Capri Food Truck Park; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: I believe that's the date of it. Page 149 October 12, 2021 MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So those were all in place prior to that list of -- that comparable -use determination list existing; isn't that true? MR. BOSI: Yes, from a timing perspective. MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So -- and going to the entire question of impacts -- and you may not be the right person in the staff to address it. But once a food park is determined to be a permitted use, if somebody comes in and requests it, they're going to have to go through either Site Development Plan review or SIP review if it's an existing site; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: That's the process any site would have to go through. MR. LINCOLN: Right. And so all of the standards that are required through that process will be applied to the food truck park at that point; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And that includes concurrency review? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: That includes traffic circulation for safety; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: That would include all kinds of site improvement like water/sewer, other kinds of things; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And if they have outdoor seating as a group of stands, they'll have to go through the special review for -- that would apply to any restaurant that had outside seating and outside entertainment; isn't that correct? MR. BOSI: There's no special consideration for outdoor seating. The seating is identified specifically to determine the number of parking spaces that would be needed by the facility. Page 150 October 12, 2021 MR. LINCOLN: Well, the site plan review process has a special provision for restaurants that have outdoor service areas. And, again, maybe you're not the right person to discuss that part of the code. We'll either pick it up with someone else, or we'll present when we get there. But is there any reason to believe that a site plan for a food truck park would not be reviewed for all the core issues like traffic, noise, safety, utilities, all the other kinds of things that might be compatibility issues? MR. BOSI: The approval of any Site Development Plan requires the satisfaction of all provisions of the Land Development Code and development standards, so yes. MR. LINCOLN: Just give me one second. Let me just ask -- maybe it would be appropriate if Ms. Cook or somebody else from the staff might address the site plan questions. MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Jaime Cook, director of Development Review. MR. LINCOLN: Good afternoon. Ms. Cook, do you know what I was referring to when I was talking about the outdoor seating area standards? MS. COOK: So the -- for outdoor seating, the only things that staff reviews are outdoor entertainment such as noise and to ensure that the parking can accommodate the outdoor seating. MR. LINCOLN: But it requires that the site plan define where all the outdoor seating areas are going to be located? MS. COOK: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And the number of seats? MS. COOK: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: And their location? MS. COOK: Yes. MR. LINCOLN: And the -- if there's outdoor entertainment, Page 151 October 12, 2021 the buffering and the configuration can be looked at and increased if it's going to be a problem? MS. COOK: Configuration, hours of operation, yes. MR. LINCOLN: And so -- and do you know whether all those things were done and applied to the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park? MS. COOK: Yes. All of the Land Development Code standards for this zoning district for this particular food truck park have been met. MR. LINCOLN: So -- so outdoor entertainment was suggested for that site plan; is that correct? MS. COOK: Correct. I believe the hours of operation were until 10:00 p.m. MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So all of those standards and all of those considerations are part of the approval for this -- for the Site Development Plan for this food truck park? ( MS. COOK: Correct. MR. LINCOLN: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Right on time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple questions for you, and I'm going to ask to put something on the visualizer, so I may have to get a little close to him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you identify yourself. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of -- I guess I'm the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Neighbor. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- appellant or I'm the neighboring property, however I'm referred to today. A couple of things. I believe in one of your earlier slides you said that the correct process that was to be followed for the one food truck park that was going through in 2016 was a conditional -use process, correct? Page 152 October 12, 2021 (` MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And the code actually -- the jurisdiction that the Hearing Examiner had was under the conditional use uses within the C-4 zoning district, correct? MR. BOSI: That's one of the ones that were cited, one of the findings, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: But as far as the jurisdiction it says, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear this pursuant to Section 2.03, and that's a conditional use, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a permitted use, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the Hearing Examiner was considering a conditional use on a specific piece of property on Bayshore, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- okay.. What's a conditional use? MR. BOSI: A conditional use is a use that is allowed for in a zoning district, but because of the external effects, there is concern about surrounding property owners, so an evaluation of the surrounding properties -- and I thought I had that here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is there somewhere. I'm not sure where. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I have it as part of my presentation. But is it fair to say a conditional use is a use that's allowed in a zoning district but not on every piece of property within that zoning district? MR. BOSI: It could be determined if there was incompatibility issues that have been cited. So, yes, it's not permitted per se. You have to go through a conditional -use process to evaluate the effects it Page 153 October 12, 2021 has upon the surrounding property. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's a public -hearing process, correct? MR. BOSI: Public -hearing process, absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, there's been no public -hearing process for the food truck park on Isles of Capri, correct? MR. BOSI: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you were asked to look at some language in the SIC code as it pertains to major group 58. May I come over? MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to put it on the visualizer? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. This is my underlining. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need to -be on the mic. Is there a mic behind you? Mr. Callahan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you okay with me being this close to you? MR. BOSI: Absolutely, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. Now, eating places is 5812, and it's within major group 58, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you made the determination that mobile food trucks are, in fact, eating places, correct? MR. BOSI: The Hearing Examiner did. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you're -- you're relying upon a Hearing Examiner who said eating places are, in fact -- mobile food truck parks are eating places? MR. BOSI: By code, I am the staff of the Hearing Examiner; yes, I did. Page 154 October 12, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, under 58, it says -- would you read what I underlined. MR. BOSI: Mobile food and dairy wagons are classified in Indice 5963. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, in fact, when you said that food trucks are part of 5812, the actual category says they're in a different SIC code, correct? MR. BOSI: The zoning district -- or the category, yes, and I would point out that that's a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. MR. YOVANOVICH: As a mobile food truck, correct? MR. BOSI: Well, it says "mobile," yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, what staff, in fact, approved were nine permanent food trucks, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: With two bars, correct? And outdoor seating? MR. BOSI: That's contained in the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: With a band shell dance floor area, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you're telling me that's the same as the food trucks that are out here on Friday afternoons that come and serve -- sometimes they're tacos, sometimes it's coffee. Is it your opinion that a food truck that's mobile that's temporary is the same thing as a permanent food truck establishment that is found on Bayshore? Because now we know what a food truck park is. We didn't know what a food truck park was in 2016. And you're saying what is on Bayshore that has a bar, permanent food trucks are allowed as a matter of right on every piece of C-3, C-4, and C-2 parcel of property; is that your testimony? Page 155 0 October 12, 2021 MR. BOSI: First, I would have to say I don't remember ever comparing a food truck park to the food truck parks -- or the food trucks that would come outside the government center. So that -- you may to -- you may need to retract that. I did not say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking you. You said we would not be here if these trucks were mobile. If they were mobile food trucks -- MR. BOSI: I said we would not be here if these trucks were stands. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Stands. MR. YOVANOVICH: Were stands, okay. Would we be here -- I'll take it back. I will point out where staff previously opined that mobile food trucks were considered to be what occurs at the county fair and would require a conditional -use application. I'll put that on the visualizer during my presentation. MR. BOSI: Staff s position is the determination of the Hearing Examiner in 2016 established. a new. use within the zoning district based upon the specific language that was contained within his determination that affirmed the zoning verification letter that was stated by the planning manager that determined that the requested use is comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses in the - district and is, therefore, a permitted use. The Hearing Examiner made that determination, and staff has acted upon that determination. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mike -- I'm sorry. Mr. Bosi, isn't the typical process when a new use becomes a permitted use in a zoning district to amend the Land Development Code to specifically identify where those permitted uses are to occur? MR. BOSI: No. The way that that works is contained within the comparable -use determination. This says, if you want to include a new use within your zoning district, you go through a comparable -use determination. You compare that use that's being Page 156 October 12, 2021 proposed against a use that exists, and if it's determined, then it's an allowed use in that -- in that zoning district. Anywhere in that zoning district it applies within the geographic portion of this county. That's what the comparable -use determination states that was adopted in 2020. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we haven't had a comparable -use determination on this particular piece of property, correct? MR. BOSI: On this particular property, no. We utilized the precedent of the 2016 hearing decision, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I do believe you offered that one page as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll make a copy, and I'll get it to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sherry's right here. She can make a copy of this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, be gentle with my already broken book. MR. LINCOLN: I'd like not only a copy, but a copy of the cover page and the page that -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going to need -- I'm sorry. There's no discussion from the audience, all right. If you want to request something, come up to the microphone and request it. Please don't stand up and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- if I may, let me clarify on the record for Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln, the title of the book is the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987. The specific page I was referencing, so you have no doubt that it was from this book, is Page 328, and I will ask that copies be made -- how many -- does everybody -- 10 copies, 15 copies. How many? MS. GRECO: I'll make 20. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I will do that. Page 157 October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two pages. MR. YOVANOVICH: One page. It's one page. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One page and the cover. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And the cover. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the cover. All yours. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that's two. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've never done good -- strong on math. Is it my turn to present, or are we done -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is your turn, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would it be appropriate to take Terri's break early? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you use the microphone. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you for _correcting me. Would it be appropriate to have the court reporter's break early so I don't go 11 minutes and get interrupted? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that would be very appropriate. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are we coming back? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. We'll come back at 2:29, ten minutes from now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 2:30. (A brief recess was had from 2:19 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.) MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We will continue, and now we're going to hear from Mr. Yovanovich for the neighboring property owner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Should I wait till people get seated, or Page 158 October 12, 2021 should I just get started? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please begin. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of FCC Beach and Yacht Club, LLC. With me today is the president of that organization, or entity, Joe Parisi, my co -counsel is Glen Burhans, and Wayne Arnold is our professional planner. We are here to hear two appeals, and they're both related to a food truck park that was approved on the orange piece -- orange highlighted piece of property, and FCC owns the yellow piece of property. Both parcels are zoned C-3 zoning, and we are clearly affected by the official interpretation and the approval of the Site Development Plan. There are two appeals. The first appeal is to the site plan, and that's under 250-58, which is an appeal of an administrative decision, which is the decision .issued by county staff to approve the Site Development Plan. The second appeal is the appeal of the official interpretation that Mike spent a lot of time going through and explaining his rationale for why staff is of the opinion that the Hearing Examiner's decision is now a countywide application. And I'm going to spend a little bit of time explaining why that is -- that position should not be upheld by you -all mainly because of the breadth of that application and the limited notice to the public as to what was happening in 2016 and also how food truck parks have evolved, and we now know what they are in 2021. Staff, the Hearing Examiner, and probably the general public did not truly understand what a food truck park is. First of all, I want to correct one thing. The Hearing Examiner considered uses in the C-4 zoning district. C-4 is more intense than C-3. So he was considering -- because, as you know in the overlay, Page 159 October 12, 2021 you can go under the uses that are allowed in the base zoning, C-4, or under the Bayshore Mixed -Use Overlay District, and as I'll get into in greater detail, there was very limited application of that decision. And as Mr. Bosi acknowledged, it was under the conditional uses of the C-4 zoning district, not the permitted uses. So, by definition, the Hearing Examiner was looking at a very limited application on a specific piece of property, not a countywide general application. I'm not going to bore you with the details of the code. They're already in your agenda. The way the Land Development Code is set up is if a use is not specifically allowed in a zoning district, it's a prohibited use. There is no question that food truck parks are not specifically identified in any zoning district in Collier County. Food truck parks are not. Yes, you can have a mobile food truck which is you go up and down the street or you go in a location like at the county for a day and you move on. They're mobile. They're not fixed. They're not in a location where you can have ancillary uses like bars, dance .floors, live outdoor entertainment. That is not set out anywhere in your code, and we are not here just because there are wheels on these. We are here because the concept of a food truck is not in your development order as has evolved and as we know it to be from the Bayshore application. Your current code in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts have a catch-all under the permitted uses. For uses that are not specifically identified, you have a process to go through a comparable -use process before the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission. It's a public -hearing process in both of those zoning districts. My client and all of the residents of Isles of Capri were denied that opportunity to go through a public -hearing process as required under 10.02.06.K. Now, the neighboring property owner is going to say, well, that Page 160 October 12, 2021 section didn't apply when we were asking for a zoning verification letter. It did apply when they actually submitted a Site Development Plan. But they're saying they want to go under the old rule, and they claim that the zoning verification letter process was the process that they had to follow in order to have a use that's not specifically identified in a zoning district allowed on a piece of property through the zoning verification letter process. And I will take you through what that process was, and I will show you that they didn't meet that process either. At the time they obtained their zoning verification letter, this is what the code said. It said, under the permitted -uses section of C-3, any other commercial or professional use which is comparable to C-1 uses. You can ask for that as a permitted use. Restaurants, food truck parks, eating establishments are not in your C-1 zoning district. That's offices, professional offices.. So they couldn't get a . permitted -use process through 10.08.00. 10.08.00 was the conditional -use process. The code that was in effect at the time, they got their ZVL that says you can't get a permitted use for what you want to do. What do you have to do? You have to go to the conditional -use section for C-3, and it says, for anything above C-1 you go through the conditional -use process. They didn't go through the conditional -use process. They decided to obtain a zoning verification letter. Now, Mike -- I asked Mike the question. I'm sorry. I asked Mr. Bosi.the question, what's a conditional use? This is what your code says the conditional use is. It's basically uses that are okay in C-3 but not on every piece of property. They're to be controlled by number, location, or relation to the neighborhood. That's why you go through a conditional -use process. Is it appropriate on that specific piece of property? No conditional use occurred. Page 161 October 12, 2021 f Your code says in order to assure compliance with your Growth Management Plan and the purposes of the LDC, when you have that language for rules of interpretation, if a zoning district has language that says where the list of permitted uses contains the phrase "any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses of that zoning district," today you go through the comparable -use process in 10.02.06.K. The property owner will tell you that doesn't apply to them because 10.02.06.K didn't apply when they got their zoning verification letter. It did apply when they submitted their Site Development Plan application, but it didn't apply when they obtained their zoning verification letter. Now, I think some of you are new, but some of you have been in Collier County forever. The reason this language is in here -- and I'll show you the predecessor language. The reason this language is in here, because the Board of County Commissioners didn't want the county staff to make comparable -use determinations. They wanted to -- they, the Board, wanted to be involved in that process, and that process, prior to the adoption of the comparable -use process, was that the determination as to whether or not the use is permitted in the district shall be made through the process outlined in interpretations of that LDC 1.06.00. 1.06.00 is the official interpretation process. The official interpretation process would require a property owner who says I'm comparable or I'm similar to submit for a formal interpretation of the code through your staff. Staff then notifies the property owner and lets the world know there's an official interpretation out there that you can appeal if you're an affected property owner. We went through that official interpretation process to determine whether, in C-2 and C-3 zoning districts, food truck parks are, in fact, permitted use. We didn't like the answer, and we're here appealing it. We followed the process. Page 162 October 12, 2021 (� They never went through that process for the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park. They have never complied with the code in effect either when they obtained their ZVL or when they came forward and submitted an actual Site Development Plan application. The requirements for a comparable -use determination are very much site specific. You identify the property, you go through all the operating hours. By the way, they could start live music at 7:00 a.m. and go until 10:00 p.m., according to what I reviewed on the Site Development Plan. And, specifically, it talks about the effect on the neighboring properties. That's an analysis that staff admitted they never did on this particular piece of property. Did it on the fly just now, but they never did the detailed comparable -use process. Now, the trust attorney's going to tell you, we did a ZVL. We got a verification letter. That's what we needed to do, not the comparable -use process. Well, let's look at what the ZVL process was at the time they applied for a ZVL. Under comparable use -- because everybody admits food truck parks are not in your code. You've got to do a comparable -use determination. The staff s going to tell you that the HEX decision was the comparable -use determination for the entire county back in 2016. I disagree. And I'll show you, your staff actually did do a comparable -use determination, and it says, to be -- first of all, it only applies to PUDs. We're in straight zoning. So their zoning verification letter that they obtained doesn't apply. They had to go through the conditional -use process that I showed you earlier, because that's what the code said. For straight zoning, if a use doesn't exist, you go through the conditional -use process. But if you want to say somehow they could use the PUD process or the zoning verification letter process, it says that the -- to be effective, the zoning verification letter shall be approved by the BCC by resolution at an advertised public hearing. Page 163 October 12, 2021 (� There has been no advertised public hearing of the zoning verification letter that the trust obtained from your staff. The code that was in effect at the time required one hearing in front of the BCC or Hearing Examiner to affirm a zoning verification letter for a comparable/compatible use within a PUD. But let's just say it applied to straight zoning. They never went through that process. The code was very specific and clear that the residents of Collier County were to be notified when the Land Development Code was being interpreted to apply to a use that's not in the code that was going to be a public notification so people would know that we are now going to have food truck parks throughout Collier County in C-2 and C-3 and C-4 and C-5 property. That never happened. The old comparable -use process you will see talks about -- and this was the ZVL requirements at the time and is now the comparable -use process at the time, but you will see -- you get specific on the .piece of property. I don't know if you can see the arrow, but these are application requirements that have always been in your code, even when you had the ZVL process and now the comparable -use process. They've always been specific to a specific piece of property. They've never been a general application countywide for a comparable -use process. The next slide is a little bit clearer for you to be able to see what I was highlighting. But in today's 10.02.0.K -- 06.K provisions, it's a site -specific analysis, but the trust doesn't want to go through a site -specific analysis. The trust does not want to go through a public -hearing process. Your staff originally got it right. In March 17, 2021, when the SDP was going through the process, they said, you've got to do a comparable -use determination. That's what they said you have to do. You asked a very -- I think it was Commissioner McDaniel Page 164 October 12, 2021 (r asked the question, why did they not go through that process? Because the applicant didn't want to. The applicant said, no, no, no, I'm going to fight. I'm going to give you some reasons why I shouldn't have to do a comparable -use determination. And, ultimately, they prevailed upon staff, and staff removed that comment, but not until staff told all of your executive coordinators that a comparable -use process was going to be required. Every one of your -- I keep call them aides. But every one of your executive assistants/coordinators knew that there was going to be a public -hearing process. And, in fact, one of -- Commissioner Solis' aide actually sent out a notice to an affected -- Mr. Coin -- I have the e-mail. I provided it to the Clerk -- letting him know there was going to be a public -hearing process. Don't worry, you're going to go through a comparable -use process, and you'll be able to show up and explain why you think this use should or should not be allowed on the Isles of Capri. For some reason that requirement was eliminated. I don't know why it was eliminated. I was never told it was eliminated. I had filed at that point a comparable use -- an official interpretation asking. I had inserted myself on behalf of my client about the SDP. I didn't know that that -changed. Shame on me. I guess I should have asked for follow-up review letters. But it came out. And then staff issues this letter to Mr. Davies on May 7th. Coincidentally, a letter was issued after Mr. Davies responded "we don't have to do this anymore" in response to the previous comment. But your staff acknowledges in this letter to Mr. Davies that the SIC code doesn't address your use. It says, in fact, the SIC code -- SIC has not been updated since 1987 and can, at times, be less than sufficient in identifying and categorizing new businesses in our community such as the increasingly popular food truck business. It doesn't say food truck park. It says "food truck business." Page 165 October 12, 2021 For this reason, when necessary, it is useful in our determinations to review and consider the more contemporary NAILS to identify that categorization of similar uses. Your staff determined a similar use. Now, similar is a synonym for comparable. So your staff didn't want to use the word "comparable." They used the word "similar." But they made a comparable -use determination on their own on May 7th that they don't have -- that the property owner does not have -- so your staff determined it was a similar use. Your staff does not have the authority in your code to administratively determine a use is similar or comparable. There's a process, and the process was not followed to the detriment of my client and the other residents on Isles of Capri. Now, let's talk about what did we all know when the Hearing Examiner in 2016 was considering a food truck park. This. is the notice that went out to the whole world. You read this notice, and it says it's specifically for a parcel of property on Bayshore Drive. Now, how -- if I'm reading that, how do I know to tell Mr. Parisi, guess what, there's a decision that's about to be made that's going to affect your property on Isles of Capri. No way from this notice am I notified that I'm going to have a countywide application. What did the Hearing Examiner say in the decision? First paragraph, the subject property is located approximately one -quarter mile south. How do I know, if I'm living on Isles of Capri, that I need to appeal this decision because it's now going to be a permitted use throughout Collier County? I don't know that. There's no way I could know that. I read -- you've seen this section. Staff referred to it. It says, you're going to go through this process right here, that it's a conditional use. It's a conditional use that the Hearing Examiner, candidly, should have held a conditional -use hearing on, but held Page 166 October 12, 2021 f some type of a hearing authorizing what was allowed on Bayshore, but he didn't say it was going to be applied everywhere. The decision: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves petition blah, blah, blah on the property located at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Becca Avenue. How does the public know this is now going to be a countywide application? There's the legal description of the property. If you want to see the actual -- what's legally described. The public has no idea that what just happened was the Hearing Examiner amended the Land Development Code to now say food truck parks are permitted uses throughout Collier County. The requested action was for a specific piece of property, the geographic location. This is your staff report to the HEX that he was considering at the time, the subject site. It says, staff also recognizes that the Bayshore CRA encourages pedestrian -friendly business, human -scale buildings in the neighborhood commercial subdistrict, therefore, for the compatibility analysis, which compatibility is important, according to your staff. Staff has limited the uses to the Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict. I don't know how you would determine that this is going to apply throughout Collier County. It was signed by Bosi. He understood the limited application of what was occurring when he signed this document. I'm going to have Wayne Arnold come up and go through his expert planning opinion as to why food truck parks are not permitted throughout your entire county or our entire county and not comparable to eating establishments, that they're dramatically different. And just -- and not to steal any of Mr. Arnold's comments, but you're the only jurisdiction that I know of -- I practice in the City of Naples, I practice in Bonita Springs, I practice in Estero, and I Page 167 October 12, 2021 practice in Lee County. None of them allow food truck parks as a matter of right. They all -- some of them don't allow them at all, and the others allow them through either the special exception or the conditional -use process. And with that, I'll have Mr. Arnold -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Before you step down, Commissioner Solis, your name is here. Did you have a question of Mr. Yovanovich? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I'm not sure why that's on. Sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So before Mr. Yovanovich steps aside, does anyone have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm a certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. I've been a certified planner for over 30 years now, and I've addressed this board on many occasions and been accepted as an expert in planning and zoning matters. I'm familiar with your codes and ordinances, and I also practice in multiple jurisdictions, essentially all of Lee County and all of Collier County. And the food truck park is something that's been addressed in some form or fashion by our American Planning Association Organization trying to wrestle with what that use is and how to define it. But most of the codes in this area have not defined them. Bonita is probably the most current in which last year they adopted a specific code that deals with temporary mobile food vendors, and then they also defined what a mobile vendor food park would be. And, you know, like Collier County, there was never a specific definition. They don't -- they, in that jurisdiction, don't use the SIC code that we do. But having said that, in my professional opinion, a Page 168 October 12, 2021 food truck park is not a food truck. I mean, a food truck is a licensed motor vehicle. It's not a permanent structure. As Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, you know, the C-3 zoning district has specific standards. And the way this food truck park was evaluated, it was based on cumulative impact of their nine food trucks as well as some other structures, but the minimum building size for the C-3 zoning district is 700 square feet on a ground floor. And if you accept a food truck as a temporary vehicle and not as a building, the primary use of the site as a food truck wouldn't rise to your standard, because I don't know a food truck that is 700 square feet. And it's not a building. And that's important because while we've talked about restaurant, eating places, et cetera, the definition of a restaurant, for instance, that I have on the screen -- these are from your Land Development Code -- a restaurant is a building or part of a building where food is offered for sale to the public, but it also defines building in your code, and that talk abouts a structure having a roof supported by columns or walls. So we .know a food truck cannot be a building and, in my opinion as a professional planner, it's not a restaurant and it's not like a restaurant. And then, of course, if you look to your code and try to find out what a food truck is or a mobile food vendor or some other phrase that is used around other jurisdictions, you find nothing to that effect. So, in my opinion, it is not a permitted use anywhere in your code. But having looked at your code and understanding your code and the sequential changes you've made for the comparable -use determination, you know, I certainly concur with Mr. Yovanovich that you don't transport a 2016 comparable -use determination for a specific piece of property that has not only a different zoning district designation but certainly a different set of circumstances with regard to its location. Page 169 October 12, 2021 I mean, one of the most immediate things you'd find about Bayshore Drive is it's a four -lane highway. It's not a small two-lane collector road. And staff was evaluating this as part of your redevelopment area, because one thing I will admit, the readings that I've found on food truck parks is they can be integral to a redevelopment area. They can be a catalyst because, one, they can be part of special events, they can be part of the atmosphere of creating more of an amusement entertainment district, and then the evolution of food truck parks kind of grew out of the upper Northwest Coast where it became a collection of, hey, let's put these food trucks together. But I think that the distinction of a food truck park is very different than a restaurant because, one, all the dining occurs outside. There's typically an entertainment component that all restaurants don't have. In the instance of a food truck park, they're no longer portable. They typically are there for a period of time and, of course, the only building component seems to be that there's a bar which, if you are a temporary truck parked in a parking lot after hours or during the lunch hour, you don't typically and probably would not have a bar and, in fact, many locations prohibit alcohol sales as a component of a food truck as a temporary use. So the distinction is very, very different. And, in my opinion, there's only two ways to get to a food truck park approval in Collier County, and one would be amending your Land Development Code to put in standards and definitions for what a food truck or a food truck park is, and then you amend the various zoning districts to determine where that would be either the appropriate permitted use or conditional use. And then, of course, the other avenue that we've talked about is the comparable -use determination process that was utilized for the Bayshore Food Truck Park but not utilized for the Isles of Capri Food Page 170 October 12, 2021 Truck Park or any of the other zoning verification letters that were issued that staff mentioned in their presentation. So I would argue that the comparable -use determination process that was used for the Bayshore Food Truck Park was for a specific location based on a certain set of circumstances for that particular site and was not meant to apply countywide because, if you do that, you're going to end up with this everywhere that you allow an eating place, and I don't think that was the Hearing Examiner's intent when he issued his opinion for the one single property on Bayshore Drive. What happens -- when you look, this is a zoning map from Collier County. It listed PUDs and other zoning in Collier County. So, you know, a pushpin's going to drop, and it's going to show you, so -- where I can have these commercial PUDs and C-2 through C-5 zoning. And this doesn't represent just individual pieces of property. These are sort of the areas that have that zoning. So if you make a decision that a food truck park is a comparable use to eating places and is allowed throughout the county, this is the scenario you can have. And I'm not going to tell you that every food truck park is going to locate next to another food truck park, but Bonita thought they could because Bonita has a standard to go through their special exception, which is comparable to your conditional -use process, and they even have locational criteria that limits how close they can be to one another because they recognize that there are impacts associated with having a collection of people. Is it two trucks? Is it four trucks? Is it nine trucks? Is it 20 trucks? They want to know, and they want to know what the impact may be on surrounding property owners. So they established a public -hearing process to do that, and that's what I'm suggesting that you need to do since you don't have a defined term "food truck park" in your code. So that's what I have in terms of my analysis, and just to build Page 171 October 12, 2021 on what Mr. Yovanovich did say, for instance, Bonita Springs took the step to initiate food truck park changes to their code. Lee County just, as a matter of fact, last week directed their staff to go and start looking at this issue of food truck parks and food trucks because all they allow are for the very temporary event related things right now. They would not allow a permanent food truck park. The Village of Estero would not allow a permanent food truck. City of Naples does not allow permanent food truck parks. So with that, I'll conclude. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Arnold from the Board? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Before I continue on for our wrap-up, I have to correct something I said on the record. I should -- I misspoke. Food is offered from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but the music is from noon till 10:00. I earlier said 7:00, but that was incorrect, and I wanted to clarify that for the record. I know that when you -- we need to look specifically -- if you were to further drop pins, Mr. Bosi pointed out that Isles of Capri is all zoned C-3. Isles of Capri has 122 platted C-3 lots. Isles of Capri, if Mr. Bosi's interpretation or the county staff s interpretation is correct, could have many food truck parks located on that. And, in fact, you're probably going to see a plan that they could do three restaurants on the existing property they have, and we're all for it. Do three indoor restaurants. But those three restaurants could be three food truck parks under their interpretation. There could be multiple food truck parks just on the Isles of Capri. It's waterfront. It would be a great entertainment area to attract people from all over Collier County to come and enjoy an entertainment district that is not what I believe the Hearing Examiner intended when he issued his opinion, nor do I think it's Page 172 October 12, 2021 what staff intended when they wrote their staff report, and nor do I think it was what was intended when the applicant for that particular case was asking for a food truck park on that specific piece of property. In summary, your staff doesn't have the authority to amend the Land Development Code through their zoning verification letter process. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to amend the Land Development Code through the zoning verification letter or the comparables process. Only the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to amend the Land Development Code. Only you have the ability to amend the Land Development Code to identify where food truck parks will be allowed either as permitted or conditional uses. That's your legislative prerogative. The Hearing Examiner didn't have that prerogative, and neither does staff. ( There's no question that the Land Development Code does not specifically identify food truck parks as a permitted use or a conditional use in any zoning district. It -allows food trucks to drive through Collier County and serve food, but it doesn't allow them to assemble in one area and have a bar. It doesn't allow that. That's not what your C-3 zoning district allows. I showed you Section 2.02.03. I've hated this provision in your code since the day I went in the private sector and started working for property owners, but it's there. If the use is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited. You either do a PUD or you amend the code to allow the use to be there. But the code has always said, if it's not specifically there, it's prohibited. The HEX decision clearly was only intended to apply to the Bayshore property. There was no way the general public would have known that that decision was going to be a countywide application. There was no notice to the public that that's what was Page 173 October 12, 2021 t'^ going to happen. There was no opportunity for the public to speak. Frankly, there was no opportunity for the Board to say, I think you've gone too far in approving these countywide. My client has been denied the due process it is entitled to under the Land Development Code. Either they should have gotten a conditional use through the then existing zoning at the time they applied for their zoning verification letter, or they should have gotten a comparable -use determination as required under the current code that was in effect when they applied -- actually applied for their Site Development Plan. We're asking you to grant our appeals. Grant our appeal on the official determination and determine that food trucks are not permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning district and grant our appeal that the Site Development Plan was improperly approved; direct your staff to rescind the approval of the Site Development Plan, and ( reinstate the condition they originally had on March 17, 2021; that they go through a comparable -use determination process in front of the Hearing Examiner; give my client, give the residents of Isles of Capri the opportunity to appear in front of the Hearing Examiner; and let the Hearing Examiner decide were the comparable -use criteria satisfied or not. That's our request. We think that's what should have happened all along. And with that, that's our presentation. I think we're well under the hour we were allocated. I'll reserve that time possibly for rebuttal when we get to that stage, and with that, we thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I see no questions from the Board. So I'd like the zoning director to see if -- Mr. Bosi, if you have any questions of Mr. Yovanovich. You may want to take this podium over here. MR. BOSI: I actually wanted to use the other podium because I Page 174 October 12, 2021 was going to use some of the exhibits, but I can probably do it from memory. That's okay. I remember -- during the questioning of myself, I believe Mr. Yovanovich pointed out the SIC code which helps determine, by our Land Development Code, uses in zoning districts -- designates mobile food vendors as 5963. And, Rich, are you aware that 5963 is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am aware that mobile food trucks -- mobile food trucks are, in fact, allowed in C-3. MR. BOSI: Are you aware that the approved SDP only has pad locations for food trucks to be able to be driven to and removed from those locations? And I think -- would you agree that that would be a mobile food truck? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. BOSI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer -- let me explain my answer -- MR. BOSI: That -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if I can. What you -- what you have described is a permanent park that also includes the bar, the two bars, and that it is a permanent location for mobile food trucks. Food trucks are allowed in the C-3 zoning district. They are not allowed to be accumulated in one area and have a bar supporting those activities. That's the question I thought I was hearing. That's the question I answered. MR. BOSI: Are you citing a code reference that would prohibit that arrangement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, actually, I'm citing a zoning verification letter issued by your staff, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bellows, in 2016 related to the original food truck park discussion for the Bayshore parcel where they specifically said SIC Code 5963 applies Page 175 October 12, 2021 to the direct selling of food and does not apply to the circumstances that was being considered for the food truck park at Bayshore. And if you would like me, I will put that in the record. It's a letter dated April 6th, 2006, where it specifically said 5963 does not apply to the use that was -- MR. BOSI: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that was being sought. MR. BOSI: Please. Were you at the public hearing that affirmed that letter? MR. YOVANOVICH: This letter is a different letter, Mike. MR. BOSI: Were you at the public hearing that affirmed that letter? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only an attached to the zoning verification hearing. MR. BOSI: The question was, was there a public hearing that affirmed that letter? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. BOSI: You have mentioned that a zoning verification letter needs affirmation by the Hearing Examiner or the BZA. So if that hasn't been verified by the zoning director, by the BZA, or the HEX, that letter that letter is nonbinding. So when you made the description that a mobile food truck -- a mobile food truck is comparable to 596 [sic], a permitted use in the very zoning district we're dealing with, it seems like that is an inconsistency within your objection. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mike, all I can say is the letter was signed by Ray Bellows, John Kelly, and you were copied as the zoning director where your staff determined that what -- 5963 is not a permitted use in the C-4 zoning district in the configuration of a park. MR. BOSI: Could we confirm for the record that there was no (.-- public hearing associated with affirming that letter? Page 176 October 12, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll confirm that there was no public hearing on any of the zoning verification letters that you've issued related to the Isles of Capri, sure, I'll confirm it as well. MR. BOSI: There was no zoning verification letter that was affirmed by a hearing for the Isles of Capri, I agree with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And I guess I'll agree that nobody brought this forward. But it wasn't your staff s opinion. MR. BOSI: No further questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sherry will make some copies for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you done with me? MR. BOSI: I've got nothing else. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do -- I guess I've got to stay here and see if -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR:- Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Mr. Lincoln has questions for me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Lincoln has any questions? MR. LINCOLN: We do not. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing no -- oh, Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Bosi? Mr. Bosi, I just have a question for you. So it was brought up in Mr. Yovanovich's statements about the March 17th letter which basically disapproved, you know, for lack of a better term, or gave more detail as to -- for the food truck park to be approved. I'm just wondering what changed between the March 17th letter and then May 7th. Because I got those letters as well. And when I saw the March 17th letter, it seemed pretty clear. What were the big changes that all of a sudden just instant -- I say instantaneously, it took a couple months -- but Page 177 October 12, 2021 reversed the entire, you know, county position? MR. BOSI: I have to -- I was a professional planner for Johnson Engineering at the time. I was not employed with the county during the March 17th letter exchange. I cannot personally speak to it with any certainty as to what the conditions were other than assuming that a review of the full actions of this -- of Growth Management, how we've treated food truck parks in the past were reviewed, and a determination was made to head in a different direction. That's the only thing I could attest to. I have no specific information that I feel comfortable being able to share, because I wasn't there. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you weren't in the position on May 7th either, right, when that letter came out? MR. BOSI: June 7th was my first day. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So we're going to hear from Mr. Lincoln who's representing the property owner of the properties, or Mr. Davies? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask Mr. Bosi one question before they start? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm terribly sorry. I see your -- Mr. Bosi, we need you again. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, a couple questions. So I think we all are in agreement that a food truck park is not specifically referenced in the Land Development Code. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the rule has been that if something isn't specifically allowed as a permitted use, it's not permitted. Page 178 October 12, 2021 (� MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Without going through a conditional -use process or some other process. MR. BOSI: Or a comparable -use determination -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or a comparable use. MR. BOSI: -- provided for within the zoning district or the PUD. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. So the comparable -use determination is confirmed by the Hearing Examiner or who else? There's two options. MR. BOSI: The BZA or the Hearing Examiner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: BZA or the Hearing Examiner. And in this instance, we're relying upon a comparable -use determination from 2016 that essentially added food truck park to a permitted use under C-3; that's kind of what we're doing in a nutshell? MR. BOSI: The Bayshore neighborhood commercial zoning district -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- as well as the C-4 district. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: C-4 zoning, okay. MR. BOSI: But specifically in the staff report the focus was on the Bayshore neighborhood commercial. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. In order to amend the LDC to include a permitted use, what's required? I mean -- MR. BOSI: Either a rezoning or -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, a Land Development Code amendment? MR. BOSI: A Land Development Code amendment -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct. MR. BOSI: -- or -- Page 179 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or rezoning, okay. MR. BOSI: Or a comparable -use determination. A comparable -use determination -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. BOSI: -- is a process to add a use to a zoning district or a PUD. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So if we're going to rely upon prior comparable -use determinations to, essentially, amend what is allowed under a current zoning district, how would anyone that's applying for an SDP figure that out? Where would that be contained that that now is a permitted use under a zoning classification? MR. BOSI: It would have to be prior knowledge of the comparable -use determination happening. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So nobody would be able to just, like you can with the zoning code, C-4 permitted uses, here's the list? MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Are there any.other provisions that you're aware of where a permitted use under the Land Development Code can change or be added to a zoning classification with just the approval of the Hearing Examiner? Is there anything else like this comparable -use determination? MR. BOSI: No. This is a unique process within the LDC. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. If we wanted to add food truck parks as a permitted use under C-3 or C-4 or any zoning classification, that would come back as a Land Development Code amendment, and it would require public hearings and how many votes of the Commission? MR. BOSI: Adding the use would be a supermajority. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Page 180 October 12, 2021 f Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Davies, the floor is yours. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could have a moment just to switch over the PowerPoints. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, again. Madam Chair, Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, Noel Davies with the law firm of Davies Duke. Our argument is simple: If a food truck park isn't an eating place, what is it? It's a place where you go to eat. This whole thing doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The other side, respectfully, is trying to overcomplicate this because simplicity and common sense are bad for their case. Rich, respectfully, is trying to manufacture these appeal applications and these unnecessary legal complexities to confuse and distract you from that very basic premise that a food truck park is an eating place. It's a place where you go to eat. Your staff has done an excellent job here and, appropriately, they've categorized food truck park many times before as an eating place, as they should. It's what it is. What staff did was proper, it was correct, and it's something they have done and do on a regular basis. Most importantly, what staff did is not contrary to your code. And that is the applicable legal standard for this hearing, which you haven't heard about yet. It is appellant's burden, Mr. Yovanovich's client, their burden to prove that what staff did is contrary to code not whether or not an amendment should have occurred, but that what staff did was against your code. It's my position that they cannot prove that and they have not proved that by the evidence and testimony they've shared with you today. What your staff does all the time is look at a proposed use, Page 181 October 12, 2021 f determine if it fits into any of the use categories of the subject zoning district, like eating place. Once that's confirmed, they then proceed with the processing of an SDP application. That's exactly what happened here. It's routine. It's consistent with your codes and the county's regular practice for many years. And the only reason this one is being questioned is because the developer next door doesn't like my client and tried, unsuccessfully, to purchase my client's property. That's what's really going on today. That's why we're here in front of you today, and that's why you've never heard a matter like this before. My client did everything by the letter of the code since day one, and staff did everything right by the letter of the code as well. We went to a pre -application meeting, just like usual. Staff determined that food truck park was permitted as an eating place. We got a zoning verification letter. Staff determined that food truck park was permitted as an eating place. We applied for our Site Development Plan, and staff issued their first comment letter, food truck park was permitted as an eating place. Mr. Yovanovich then intervened, without my knowledge, tried to confuse staff. That confusion was corrected, and staff issued Comment Letter No. 3. Food truck park was permitted as an eating place. Staff then issued a separate letter specifically clarifying food truck park is permitted as an eating place. Long after my client applied for its SDP, Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold then try to confuse staff again by attempting to manufacture appellate rights through the official interpretation process. Their request sought to retroactively change -- retroactively change the long-standing precedent, not just the 2016 Hearing Examiner decision, that food truck park is permitted as an eating place. Page 182 October 12, 2021 Staff appropriately rejected that request for official interpretation, yet we're here today with their one final attempt to try, yet again, to confuse you, to confuse staff, and, respectfully, Commissioners, to put this board in the middle of all of that confusion as well. With all due respect, Commissioners, don't take the bait. Staff also based their characterization of food truck park as an eating place based on a series of other consistent decisions, not a single decision -- you heard about these from Mr. Bosi -- as well as a series of consistent determinations throughout the process within my client's SDP application and zoning verification letter, all of which were relied upon by my client in proceeding forward at each and every juncture that I just walked you through. The essence of these decisions is that food truck park is permitted as an eating place. This is not a matter of improperly extending the Celebration Park decision countywide. That is the trickery. That is Rich misframing the issue to confuse you for the benefit of his client. The issue is very simple: Is a food truck park an eating place? It's a place where you go to eat. You've got on your slide now the permitted -use list for the C-3 zoning district. What's listed here are really use categories rather than specific singular uses with the SIC codes in parentheticals, and you heard a little bit of testimony from staff about this. Some examples: Business associations is a use category; it's here on the slide. Essential services is a use category; it's here on the slide. Eating places is a use category. So when staff gets a new application in or a request for a zoning verification letter, it's their job and regular practice to look through this list, the C-3 permitted -use list, and see if the proposed use fits within one of these categories. That's what they did here. They said, okay, food truck park, what is that? Do we have a Page 183 October 12, 2021 f permitted -use category within the C-3 list that covers that? Yes, eating place. Because it's a place where you go to eat. Importantly, the C-3 permitted -use list doesn't specifically list every single type of use that falls within the umbrella of eating places. For example, restaurant is not listed verbatim in your C-3 permitted -use list or in any of your zoning category permitted -use lists. It's often thought of as an eating place because a restaurant is a place where you go to eat, just like any number of the examples that you saw earlier from Mr. Bosi are all places where you go to eat. But that example list is not exhaustive. As you heard, that list was written in 1987. Food truck park didn't exist in 1987, and that's a living, breathing example list that's not exhaustive, that you can also plug in your common sense to as staff did, could and should, to figure out if the proposed use is a place where you go to eat. Just because a use is not listed verbatim in your permitted -use list does not mean that every single one of those uses requires a comparable -use determination, but that's exactly what they're arguing. They're arguing that because you don't see the words "food truck park" listed verbatim, just like you don't see the word "restaurant" listed verbatim, that means it's not an eating place; you've got to go to get a comparable -use determination. I agree that the words "food truck park" are not listed in the C-3 permitted -use list. They don't need to be because they fall within that umbrella category of eating places, just like restaurant, just like bistro, cafe, a pizzeria, any number of eating places, places where you go to eat that are not listed verbatim in the C-3 permitted -use list. If you allow Mr. Yovanovich's argument to overrule decades of the county's process on how to determine if a use is permitted at the staff level, including staff s very competent ability to use their common sense to figure out if the proposed use fits within one of the Page 184 October 12, 2021 use categories, you're going to be seeing a whole lot more comparable -use determinations in front of this board even because every single use that is not listed verbatim is going to have to have a comparable -use determination. Every new restaurant in town, for example, would have to go through a full public hearing to get a comparable -use determination because the word "restaurant" isn't listed in your code. That's how absurd the argument is that the appellant is trying to trick you on, and that is the trap that I don't want you to fall into, Commissioners. Before we move on, I want to show you, again, this description that I think Mr. Bosi hit on, but it's important to this idea of common sense. So you've got a permitted -use list in C-3. It says eating places. Then you've got in parentheses, 5812. You heard from Mr. Bosi that's a reference to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, which -is a planning tool. We call them SIC codes, S-I-C codes, right? And you go there, and each of them has these examples, but they also have a description. I want to unpack this description for you. It's pretty simple, and it requires a little common sense. Establishments, food truck park, not a single food truck, is an establishment. It's a place primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on -premise or immediate consumption. It's a place where you go to eat. And this description, just like the example, the non -exhaustive example list, can and is used by staff on a regular basis to determine whether or not the proposed use fits within one of the use categories within the subject zoning district. The other point appellant is trying to argue, which they haven't gotten into much on the record here at the podium but it's within all of their documents, and that's this improper sense that somehow a food truck park is not regulated; that somehow there are no county codes that govern what a food truck park is and can do. You heard a Page 185 October 12, 2021 f little bit about -- you heard a little bit from Ms. Cook, excuse me, about that. For the record, my client went through a 10-month SDP process where over 100 documents were submitted, reviewed by staff in detail, modified in accordance with staff s comments and the governing code regulations, and then finally approved. On that point, you're going to hear from our expert professional engineer, Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering, who is going to share with you just how extensive your SDP process is and the number of governing regulations applicable to this project. Before Mr. Rath you'll hear briefly from my co -counsel, Robert Lincoln, who you've heard from earlier today. As I think you're all aware, based on appellant's pending lawsuit on this matter against the county and against my client, irrespective of what happens today, I expect everyone's next stop, unfortunately, is going to be the courthouse. For those reasons, it is critically important that the record and my client's appellate rights be preserved and protected. And Mr. Lincoln is going to address you for a few moments about that. So Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Rath, and then you're going to hear from our expert certified planner, Charles Thomas. Mr. Thomas has been practicing planning in Collier County for over four decades here in town, and he has specific experience with food truck parks. He's going to show you in detail that a food truck park is exactly what it sounds like, which is an eating place. Following Mr. Thomas, I will return briefly to conclude our presentation. And with that, Madam Chair, I'd like to invite Mr. Lincoln to address you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Davies, I don't see any questions for you from my board, but I believe Mr. Yovanovich has a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just two, I think. Page 186 October 12, 2021 MR. DAVIES: If I may, Madam Chair, I wasn't allowed to ask questions in the middle of Mr. Yovanovich's presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I didn't know you asked. I'm sorry. I didn't know you requested that. I do apologize. MR. DAVIES: Well, with all due respect, I'd like to finish my presentation, including the experts, pursuant to your County Attorney's memo, and then anyone -- certainly the commissioners can ask questions at any time. But to allow him to intervene in the middle of my presentation where I've got experts -- I mean, I didn't intervene when -- before Mr. Arnold came up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Fine. MR. DAVIES: And, yes, to correct the record, no, I did not request that, Madam Chair, but I would have certainly loved the opportunity to correct a number of his statements, which is what I expect he's going to try to do right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine, sir. I will grant that. Mr. Yovanovich, you need to wait till the end. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just say one thing? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to ask any questions. I want to correct the record. MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lincoln. MR. LINCOLN: Thank you. And, again, for the record, I'm Robert Lincoln. I'm here for the property owner, the trust, and I just need to address some of the legal issues, because while you accepted the notions, you didn't address them. But this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. There's law that governs this. And the motions were an attempt to help the Board understand and come to grips with certain legal issues that are here and, if you don't get them right, will have to be flushed out by the Court later. And I'll just restate that I think jurisdiction is actually a problem. Page 187 October 12, 2021 f In fact, you accepted the motion on -- that question you decided to proceed with the hearing, but even Mr. Yovanovich did not put up any argument as to why the SDP appeal actually should be before the BZA instead of the Hearing Examiner and, frankly, your ordinance specifically placed that appeal there. You shouldn't be hearing it. And I will just respectfully disagree with the analysis that was put forward on the jurisdiction that -- the jurisdiction in the Chapter 250 for the BZA somehow trumps all the other ordinances and everything else that you've adopted after those things that places the jurisdiction in the BZA -- I mean in the Hearing Examiner. That's where this should have been, and I don't believe you actually have jurisdiction to proceed, and I'm just restating that for the record. The second issue I want to address is FCC's standing to bring the SDP appeal. They've now put on their case. They have not put forward a single shred of evidence that they are an. aggrieved party as that's defined and provided for in your code and that's been applied to other appeals. That means they have to have an interest created by the code that's going to be affected adversely greater than the public at large. They haven't put forward any evidence that they're going to be harmed by the traffic that -- in fact, that's actually not a legitimate basis for claiming standing unless you are actually having your own driveway interfered with. There's no evidence about that. The only thing that they've really asserted is somehow they were deprived of due process because the SDP didn't go through the process that they believe it should have gone through. Well, I'll demonstrate in a moment that that's not right. But they have not produced evidence to support standing. You cannot find that they met the standard for standing, and that means you're committing error if you rule on their appeal. And, again, I have to put this out there in the record. I want to finally address this retroactivity issue, and I want to October 12, 2021 put to bed in that context the entire argument Mr. Yovanovich has put forward that somehow says that the food truck park did not go through the required process. His entire analysis of -- that it should have gone through a conditional use before the comparable -use decision was adopted or a comparable use after it was adopted because everybody agrees that it had to have a comparable -use determination, it's just not the case. We don't agree with it. And, in fact, the record that you have in front of you refutes it. The zoning verification letter that they obtained asked, is the described food truck park permitted on the subject property with or without a bar? And the answer was, the district permits restaurants/food truck park establishments SIC Code 5812 by right but requires conditional use for a bar or drinking establishment. Flat out, they found it is an eating establishment. There's no reference at all in that zoning verification letter to the earlier HEX to the fact that it had been determined to be a comparable use. This is the determination of the permitted uses that's provided by the zoning verification .letter as provided for in your LDC. It's a binding determination; it wasn't appealed. The same, by the way, was true of the -- and that's in your record, by the way, at 338, 339. There's a letter -- another zoning verification letter for the Elsa Street project, which was an "I" subdistrict. Is a food truck park permitted under eating establishments in their district? Food truck -- and staff is of the opinion that 5812 SIC code is the most applicable to this use and thus would consider this a permitted use in the industrial district where the subject site is located. They didn't find it was a comparable use in those zoning verification letters. They found it was a permitted use, just as Mr. Bosi said they would find a TCBY is a permitted use as an eating place even though frozen yogurt stands or stores are not specifically Page 189 October 12, 2021 f enumerated on that giant list, just like they would find that somebody who came in for a bistro was asking for a permitted use. The label that you put on is it not the issue to determine whether you meet that SIC code. The question is, does it meet the definition. And the food truck park, as Mr. Bosi testified, meets the definition of an eating establishment under 5812. There are multiple zoning verification letters that hold that that do not reference the HEX in 2016 at all as the basis of their logic. They basically say, interpreting the definition, interpreting the SIC code, it's an eating establishment and therefore -- and to go for that -- away from that, you'd have to retroactively apply this other logic, these other decisions to say that that zoning verification letter's no good when you got it based on some other later -adopted rationale. That's not what happened there, and you're basically saying that nobody who gets a zoning verification letter can rely on it, and you're basically saying, yes, somebody comes into a bistro, they've got to go through a comparable use. Every yogurt shop that comes --in would have to go through a comparable -use determination because that -- you're elevating that list of examples to something level -- something higher. That's a retroactive application to the code to this application. You shouldn't do it under these circumstances. And, again, you'll be creating legal error if you do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time I'd like to introduce as our expert professional engineer Mr. Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. -- Commissioner Solis, did you have a question for Mr. Lincoln? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll wait to the end. I'll wait to the end. Page 190 r October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Rath. MR. RATH: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon. MR. RATH: Allow me one moment to change over the presentation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to call the IT expert, gentlemen? MR. RATH: We've got it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. RATH: Good afternoon. Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering. I'm a Florida licensed professional engineer. Been practicing in Southwest Florida for roughly 15 years now. I've provided expert witness testimony before the Board of County Commissioners as well as Naples City Council many times. We're here today to discuss a lot of the regulations and permitting agencies that we went through in order to get this SDP approved. There was some notion that there were -- no regulations applied or code applied, so I'm here to refute that. I guess to start off, I have some notable dates here as well as I'd like to mention this is a first time for me giving testimony on an already -approved administrative approval of an SDP. So this is a new process for myself as well as I've had discussion with my coworkers and colleagues, and none of them have ever experienced this before. So I would like to start here. We had a Collier County pre -application meeting back in October of 2020, received a zoning verification letter shortly after that. We made our first county SDP submittal the end of January of '21. Going through a fairly long and arduous review process, we went through four reviews with Collier Page 191 October 12, 2021 (� County. In addition to review with City of Marco Island for satisfactory wastewater as well as the FDEP with regard to sanitary water in conjunction with the City of Marco Island. The regulatory agencies that we dealt with were Collier County with the Site Development Plan where they reviewed all site design parameters, as well as the potable water aspect, stormwater management. We went through FDEP review and approval for the sewer mains and sanitary lift station. The same with City of Marco Island. We're subject to the NFPA 1 fire code regulations. We dealt with Conservation Collier in providing a small off -site preserve to account for the minor amount of native vegetation, which we were not proposing to impact. We just chose not to put it in a conservation easement. Very small amount of land. Anyhow, the Collier County SDP review process, we were just showing here an outline. We went through four submittals. You can see the first submittal included about 26 documents, 230 pages, you know, getting less as we go along in time here. I won't bore you with all of the details. We went through 85 pages of documents with FDEP applications, plan review, a few hundred pages submitted to City of Marco Island, another handful to Conservation Collier. But all in, we're talking about 1,100 pages of documents that were submitted to regulatory agencies and ultimately approved by all of the agencies listed here. I won't bore you with all of these sections of your LDC which were applied to this SDP, where it was reviewed by staff and found to be that our plan set and package was satisfactory and met all the requirements that were listed here in the LDC. These are just the various chapters. I will get into specifics here. These were some design considerations that were subject to Page 192 October 12, 2021 the applicable regulations. Our SDP specifically delineated the location and the number of food trucks that would -- food truck pads that would be allowed within this SDP. We showed nine food truck pads. Should there -- in the future Code Enforcement would be able to refer back to the SDP. If there's more food trucks showing up there than what was allowed, it's enforceable. The number of pads were considered in the parking and the trip -generation analysis as well as the spatial separation per an FPA. We had to make sure that the trucks were all a minimum of 10 feet apart. As far as water, wastewater, electrical noise, each truck pad was to have potable water and sanitary sewer service lines with grease interceptors for connection to the trucks. Electrical power supplies available on site with service that will be extended to the food truck pads, so we have no need for generators there. I know there was some concern with noise. That can be avoided. There was limitations put on the square footage for the overall restaurant. Staff determined that the food truck pads and outdoor seating would count towards the 6,000-square-foot restaurant limitation, as well as the back -of -house supporting areas within the existing building. The ground floor of the existing building, I believe, is approximately 1,100 square feet or so. There's a gift shop proposed in there, the restrooms, some janitory [sic] and storage areas. The seating areas are delineated and defined on the civil and architectural SDP plan sets. The specific areas are called out and hatched. They're located. So having any additional seats outside of those areas will show that the operation was in violation of the SDP. Again, enforceable by Code Enforcement. The required parking, Collier County staff and Davidson Engineering determined the parking standards for walk-up window Page 193 October 12, 2021 restaurant with outdoor seating would apply. It seemed to be a good match to how one would obtain food from a food truck. That was parked at one space per 80 square feet for public use area or one space per two seats and one space per 200 square feet for back -of -house area. The food truck pad area, seating areas, restaurant support areas, the number of seats were all considered in the required parking calculation. Roughly 20 percent additional parking was provided, in addition to golf cart parking and bicycle parking areas provided on the site. Outdoor seating, serving, and music, staff determined outdoor serving area regulations would apply to the outdoor seating areas. Thereby, the SDP was required to illustrate specific designation of seating areas, configuration number of seats, hours of operation, distance from outdoor seating areas to residential uses, buffering from residential sites. Staff retains rights to require alteration or additional buffering if issues appear down the road. Landscaping perimeter buffering, we went through extensive review, comment revision on the landscape buffering, specifically in relation to the property boundaries that abut the residential uses, both when the property is immediately adjacent to the multifamily as well as across the local Kon Tiki Drive from the multifamily residential use. There was a six -foot -high solid wall or fence employed on the SDP as well as a Type B buffer, one immediately adjacent to the residential use. A Type D buffer was applied when adjacent to Kon _ Tiki Drive. A Type B landscape buffer was employed along the entire waterfront where staff determined this to be adjacent to residential uses even if across the water and regardless of distance. As far as traffic review, a TIS methodology was agreed upon by Collier County staff and DE to include Land -Use Category 926, food Page 194 October 12, 2021 truck pods, and Land -Use Category 930, fast casual restaurant. Traffic circulation and safety was considered with the proposed vehicular access locations. Design was modified in working with Collier County staff to be in compliance with the Collier County access management policy, including separation from intersection and on -site throat length. Both of these had impact to the initial site design. Pedestrian safety was considered with the proposed construction of roughly 1,200 linear feet of sidewalks surrounding the subject site's street frontage designed to meet current code. This gets folks off the street. It's a -- will be brand-new concrete sidewalk meeting all of ADA requirements. The crosswalk location was situated safely at the intersection to avoid the addition of a mid -block crosswalk. This was worked out through review -with staff. The stop sign was added to Capri Boulevard southeast bound to create a safer three -way -stop condition. Solid waste was considered. A screened dumpster enclosure has been provided on the approved SDP, and the location is accessible to Collier County's solid waste provider, Waste Management, per Collier County regulations. Commercial collection contracts will be required with Waste Management for refuse, recycle collection. Dumpster collection frequency can be adjusted as needed. Separate use cooking oil containers will be provided on site within the screened areas. Alcohol. Alcohol will be regulated, limited per LDC 5001. The sales can be accessory, not requiring conditional use, only if all food sales trucks are under common ownership of management, which is what is presently proposed on the approved SDP, if food and nonalcoholic beverage sales will exceed 51 percent of total sales, making the sale of alcohol accessory to the principal use of the common ownership restaurant. Page 195 October 12, 2021 Outdoor amplified music requires a separate permit that is subject to specific hours and other limitations. If conditions are violated, the permit can be revoked. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you going to read this line by line? MR. RATH: No, I'm going to zoom through this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. RATH: To show you, here's Collier County Public Utilities standards that we abided by. These are DEP regulations we abided by. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And can you just hold on just for one second. We do have a question of Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Can you go back to the last one you read, the alcohol. Sales can be accessory not requiring a conditional use only if all food sales are under common management. MR. RATH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So. how is that going to work? MR. RATH: The food trucks themselves will be under common management. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Meaning -- MR. RATH: By the operator. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- they're all going to be owned by the same person or entity? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Managed by them, not owned. MR. RATH: Managed by. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Common management. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Define "managed" for me. MR. RATH: I'll defer to the attorney on that one. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. DAVIES: Commissioner Solis, as part of the process, we Page 196 October 12, 2021 did agree that all of the food trucks would be owned and operated by a single entity, the applicant. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. MR. RATH: I think I'm fairly well wrapped up here. I'm not going to read the rest of these code references for you. Just some other agencies that we dealt with and to show you that we went through quite a good deal of regulation here. I think that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Davies, is there another -- do you have another speaker? Okay. We're moving to the court reporter's break. So with your permission, I think this is a good time to take that break now. We'll come back at five after 4:00. It's a I0-minute break. (A brief recess was had from 3:55 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.) ( MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Davies, as we spoke before our break, you have 22 more minutes left in your presentation; that's not including any questions but certainly your presentation, just to bring you up to date. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair, and we will respect that timing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. DAVIES: Shall we proceed or wait for Commissioner Saunders? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we need to proceed, unless you have an objection to that. MR. DAVIES: Whatever the pleasure of the Chair is. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm quite comfortable. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm sure he can hear it. Page 197 October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, he can hear in the back. MR. DAVIES: Right. So at this time I would like to invite Mr. Charles Thomas who I'm proffering as an expert in planning as a certified planner. Mr. Thomas. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. THOMAS: Well, you know I'm Charles Thomas. I've been a planner in one form or another for probably 60 years, which sounds a little extreme, but I grew up in the field with a mother who had a planning firm when I was 10 years old, and I worked for her when I was in high school and as a slave laborer. But technically I think I began practicing professionally in 1968. So that's about 53 -- 53 years, I think. And have -- I don't think I've appeared before the County Commission before, but I've appeared before city councils, planning advisory boards here, Naples, Everglades City, Bonita, and elsewhere in the country, before I started practicing down here probably 35 years ago, mostly in New England and Massachusetts and Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, a little bit in Maine, and have some -- spent some period of time in Arkansas and practiced there in small-town planning, small -city planning in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Also consulted on -a couple projects in China. So somewhat a broad experience, mixed experience and has been primarily in Southwest Florida in the last 20, 25 years. For a while it was split between Massachusetts and Florida. And also some other small assignments in, well, different communities in different states throughout the country, primarily dealing with zoning and zoning codes. So that's -- if anybody has any questions about my background, I'm happy to answer them. I think in approaching this subject today, my -- I introduce it by saying I have an approach to looking at zoning codes, land development codes. They come in many different forms. This is Page 198 October 12, 2021 r somewhat a traditional form of a -- for example, in the cumulative section that Mike Bosi discussed, a more Euclidian traditional zoning type code as opposed to some of the more modern form -based codes and things like that. But in any event, and no matter how the code's structured, I start with the definitions so I know what the ground rules are in terms of terminology, and then I look at use and I look at development standards. Then I look at what we'll call here supplementary standards, but particular standards that apply to particular uses. And then you look more holistically at things like environmental controls and architectural controls and other things that may be applied over the code as a whole. Form -based codes, it's a little different because some of those architectural standards come to bear sooner in that process. But that's sort of my process. And the reason I say that is I wanted to ( start by saying how I look at a code and give an example of that which is pertinent. And as I said, I first look at definitions. That's my first look at the code is to see what the definitions and the structure of the definitions are. And when I do that in this case, I find four definitions of the term "restaurant." And I know there are some statements that have been made that there's nothing to regulate restaurants in the code. Well, that's not true, and I think Andrew Rath gave a very detailed explanation of the extent to which that is not true. But in any event, there are, essentially, four definitions of restaurant. There are two that become most pertinent to this subject. One is restaurant/fast food, which is -- then says an establishment, and it goes on to establish it, and a restaurant walkup, which is a fast-food facility, and then it goes on one or more; walkup windows, and continues from there. So that gives me a definitional base of the Page 199 October 12, 2021 (r subject that I'm exploring at this point in time. I then look at uses. So I go to the section of the code that deals with land use, with the use definitions or permitted uses, conditional uses. And what I find are two things: One, I find eating places as a permitted use, 5812, which you've had some discussion on before, and I don't find restaurants. It's not a term that I find if I'm going through the C-1 through C-4 set of cumulative -- yeah, cumulative districts. So having done that, my next exploration is 5812, eating places. So I look to the SIC codes, and the more detailed SIC codes as Mr. Mike Bosi put up on the visualizer for you, and I actually find and highlight, as I'm looking at this, some different terms in that list of permitted uses or more defined uses. First, I find drive-in restaurants, fast-food restaurants, restaurants, restaurants carryout, and restaurants fast food. So at that point, I circle back to the beginning, and I see that a restaurant fast food, which is a permitted use under 5812, and if we look at uses that are permitted in 5812 are therefore permitted in the district, restaurant fast food is permitted in the -- in this case the C-3 district. Then I look at restaurant walkup, 'a fast-food facility. So my conclusion when I go through that process is a restaurant walkup, fast-food facility with one or more walkup windows, and I look at a food truck and I see a fast-food facility with a walkup window, I conclude that's a permitted use in the C-3 district because it falls within 5812, eating places. And at that point, I don't need to go further to conclude it's a permitted use. I don't need a comparable -use determination because, in the code, within the boundary of the code, I come to that conclusion. So that's the first step in my analysis. I think the next step was to look at the conditional -use determination. And I'm going to try to keep this brief. We have to Page 200 October 12, 2021 first focus on the fact that this is a use determination. We're not talking about places, spaces, locations. We're talking about use. And the question is comparable use. The code says we look to the list of comparable uses and the purposes in the district. So then I go and I look at the list of comparable uses, and I know there's been -- and, again, I come back and I see eating places. But more than that, the comparable -use process looks at is the use comparable to the scope of uses that are permitted in the district, and that's been the subject we've been discussing most today, which is the comparable -use determination part of the process or the puzzle. And what I find is first very little guidance in the overall list of uses. It's lots of specific uses, very few that relate to a use that's an eating place, but there are some. I also find that there are provisions in the uses that regulate other things that have been alluded to might happen. For example, akin to an amusement park. Well, if I look at the C-3 district and I look at the other uses that are permitted in the C-3 district, I don't find that. I look at amusement and recreation services indoor so -- and several other selected what you could call entertainment -type uses that are permitted in the C-3 district basically indoor. We look at the comparable -- the cumulative -use context. We find that, for example, C-3 and C-4 are different in their other uses that they allow. And one could argue, I think successfully, that entertainment uses would be -- more entertainment uses would be permitted in the C-4 district than are permitted in the C-3 district. So having done that, look at the rest of the uses -- and there are 50 more uses permitted in C-4 than C-3, that if we look at the uses within the sphere of what we're talking about, which is eating places outdoor, some aspect of entertainment -type character, the C-3 and the C-4 districts are very similar in that regard. So if you find that a use is a compatible use in one of those districts, it would follow that it's Page 201 October 12, 2021 (� compatible in the other districts. I don't need to go there in my analysis, because I've already determined that the use is a permitted use in C-3. But if I were to do that, I would reach the same conclusion that has been reached, that it's a comparable use with the spectrum of uses that are permitted in the district. And if anybody's interested, I'd be happy to respond further on that. I think the next sort of sphere that you get into then becomes the development controls, the development standards. And this is a place where, again, you have to sort of look at one section and circle back and look at another section. The structure of the C-1, C-29 C-39 C-4 districts, and C-5, actually, is that they become more intense as that number goes up. So C-5 has a much broader range of uses than C-4 than C-3 than C-2 than C-1. The other aspect of that, particularly in the spectrum of C-1 through C-4, is that the size, intensity, magnitude of use is more. ( tightly restricted in C-3 than it is in C-4. So, for example, if you take a particular use of an eating place, we have no size limit in C-4, we have a 6,000-square-foot limit in C-3, a 2,800-square-foot limit in C-2, and we don't find it in C-1. If we were to look in the other direction moving up, we'd see a number of uses -- not -just eating places, but other uses that create the character of C-3 that have size limits that, again, you go to C-4 and they no longer have those size limits. Not just eating places, but the overall intensity. So first we find that the use itself is a permitted use, and then we find that the code, by its structure, creates a less intense application of that use in the C-3 district than it would in the C-4 district and similarly C-2 to the C-3. So there's a hierarchy of intensity of use. Start with the first -- as I said, well, the first thing, definition. Second thing, use. Cross the threshold of the use that's permitted. Then we have to look Page 202 October 12, 2021 at how intense a use is permitted. In the structure of Collier County's code, that's expressed frequently by a limitation found in the use section but is also expressed by dimensional and other controls that are found, and that's going to be at Chapter 4. So that becomes the sequence of the analysis in the conclusion that, yes, there are a number of regulations and restrictions that apply to the exercise of a use in C-3 and to eating places in specific in C-3, which is contrary to the impression that has been given that you don't know what -- you know, there's no control, there's no limitation, there are no parameters for what happens with a food truck or a food truck park. I think an additional aspect of going through the code that way is when you look at the definitions first and then you go to the development controls, you find parking requirements in the development controls that are specific to a walkup restaurant, ( fast-food facility, both as to indoor and out -- well, particularly outdoor parking. But at least the space -- size of the facility and the amount of seating. I think that becomes significant. Just as a note on that, there's been some discussion, and I certainly can understand it, that Celebration maybe has not been what people might have the expected it to be. It may have had impacts that people didn't expect it to have. That very well may be true, and I might share some of that sentiment. But there's a very significant difference in the conditions that apply within the C-3 district and within the Bayshore Overlay District, that being, in the overlay district, which was thoughtful and intentional, that we wanted to encourage a certain -- of activity and intensity. There is no parking requirement applied to outdoor seating within the overlay district. So the amount of building that you can have, if you meet all the dimension, all the other controls I've already talked about versus the amount of parking you have to provide, the Page 203 October 12, 2021 building is much larger relative to the parking, or the parking is much smaller relative to the building; whereas, in the C-3 district, the parking requirements apply. Without taking up too much time and being redundant, which I hope not to do, I think the last -- not a conclusion, but the other thing I would say is much has been said about we don't really have a handle on the food trucks or food truck parks, how they should be regulated, should they be regulated, and I think as Wayne Arnold has said, an amendment to the code would be an appropriate thing to do if it's determined that a food truck park, for example, the Isles of Capri as permitted in C-3 and meeting all the requirements of C-3 and being a permitted use, has an impact that is not what this county would like to see, or if they would like to limit them so they are not repeated in numbers and proximity, an LDC amendment is the way to go, and the precedent for that is well established in the code for ( supplemental standards like those for fueling facilities and things of that sort. So that would be a valid action to take should it be found that there's discomfort with the particular use, but that doesn't go back in the loop to say, well, it's not a permitted use because now we've decided we'd like to define it and/or regulate it in a different way. If you have any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't know if it's a question for you or Mr. Davies. We keep talking about Celebration Park, and I'm getting mixed messages, I think. Is there going to be a bar or two bars in this, or are there no bars in this? What's being proposed? MR. THOMAS: I don't think I'm the one who can answer that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. I think he's behind you. Oh, I'm sorry. The question was, I've heard references to one bar, two bars, and I've also heard that there are -- that the bars have been Page 204 October 12, 2021 1` withdrawn from what's being proposed. What's -- what's being proposed in terms of the alcohol? MR. DAVIES: I think I missed the second part, Commissioner. So the first part, as to the bar -- so the distinction is a separate -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Does it have a bar or not? MR. DAVIES: Yes, it does, two. And they're part of the analysis on owner -- owner operator is what applies with respect to sales of alcohol on the premises with respect to the 51 percent rule that it is an accessory use. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. No, no. I just -- I had heard that -- MR. DAVIES: Sorry. I thought that's where you were going, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- whether or not -- that the bars had been withdrawn. But I guess you're telling me they haven't been ( withdrawn. So there still are proposed two bars? MR. DAVIES: Yes, that went through the SDP process, and that's on the approval. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then another question is -- because I know this has been an issue at Celebration Park, and that is -food trucks that are supposed to be mobile and temporary in nature become permanent in nature, and I'm just curious, if they're all going to be owned by one entity, how are they going to be -- how are they going to be temporary and being moved to in and out? Or do you plan on buying new food trucks and -- MR. DAVIES: It's really intended to be this sort of hybrid of semi permanence. So these are not structures that are going to be built, but they are food trucks that are capable to be removed from the site. And Mr. Rath, I think, can tell you how they're physically affixed to the pads. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not really my issue. Page 205 October 12, 2021 My issue is -- I know Celebration there was -- there were issues, because our understanding, there was going to be a rotation, right? They were food trucks. They come and go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's a different menu, and that became an issue, because that wasn't what was happening. So I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is that you're proposing. So these will be food trucks -- the same food trucks are going to be there because they're going to be owned by the same entity, and maybe the food that's offered is different or something? MR. DAVIES: Yeah, that's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But, I mean, the trucks will be static. They won't move. I mean, the menu could change over time, but the trucks .aren't meant to leave the premises overnight or ( once a week or anything. They're going to be static and in place, really, permanently. I mean, they could be moved for an emergency but, I mean, the plan is that they stay, correct? MR. DAVIES: Well, I'm no expert, Commissioner, on the construction specifics of how they're affixed. The best I can come up with is they're semipermanent. The idea is that. they are to be affixed to the pads that are there, not coming out with a whole new set every day. So there's some permanency, that's the "semi" part, to them being affixed to the pads, but at the same time, it's not the same thing as a physical structure. It's not a structure that looks like a food truck park, if that clarifies. It's -- this hybrid semi permanence of the trucks being located on the site. Mr. Rath, do you have anything to add about that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's not -- I don't think for us -- for me, it's not the -- how it's affixed to the site. It's that normally food Page 206 October 12, 2021 trucks are sole proprietors. They're independently owned. The beauty of food trucks is you get a variety of food in a small area, a food truck park. And if it's under one ownership, what do they own? They own the trucks, and then the chefs come in? Or how's that going to work? MR. DAVIES: The whole food truck park is owned by a single entity including all activities that would occur thereon, including the food trucks. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. ROGERS : I'm John Rogers, one of the owners of the project, and I was not sworn when I was here earlier today because I wasn't going to speak, according to my attorney. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ROGERS: I do. Madam Chair and Commissioner Solis, I traveled around to 12 ( different food truck parks throughout the United States before we ever embarked on this process, and a lot of the problems that were arising was with the individual independent operators. Were they changing? Were they keeping the standards up? And that seemed to be the most common theme of the problems of the owners of the park. In fact, I think- you probably know, to mention Celebration Park, which I probably shouldn't, she's on a very short-term lease. Just in case she has that problem, she can say goodbye. We are absolutely committed to the variety that you're speaking about, but in order to control it, to make it proper -- as good as we thought we could. We were -- because I've been in the restaurant business for almost 40 years, 40-plus years. We're having the trucks, and we have individual operators who I can assure you are very, very different. None of our trucks will sell the same items. And the person operating the truck will be the chef. They'll be part of our .r- team, but they'll be operating the trucks. Page 207 k- October 12, 2021 The trucks cannot leave during season, but if the operator can get a side gig in the off-season, we will allow the trucks to go. And, of course, the trucks will leave for any hurricane conditions or anything like that. If it -- and if I may just have one more minute. In -- February 27th I had a meeting with the people on Isles of Capri, and I very clearly explained this, that it was our intent to control this at first, and if it was going the way we wanted and there was an opportunity to bring in even a larger variety or diversity of operators, we would be willing to go back through the conditional -use process for the bar, because I understood right now we can do it as an accessory, if that's the proper word, as an accessory use. But if we needed to expand the variety or to bring in people from elsewhere, you know, once we were up and running and it was working, we may go back through the conditional -use process and bring in others. . It's going to look just like an independent food truck park, but it's under one ownership. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a question for Noel. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I wanted to clarify something that you said earlier on, and I want to preface it by saying that it's my understanding that we interpreted our LDC cumulatively, so that that's allowed in C-1 is -- those permitted uses defined in C-1 are allowed in 2, and 2 has its own -- MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and those up in 3. C-3 does not have the definition or the allowable use of a restaurant defined within it, but C-2 does. In fact, it says -- I mean, our Land Page 208 October 12, 2021 Development Code actually says restaurants are allowed in C-2. And I thought I heard you say that our code does not have that allowance within our LDC. MR. DAVIES: No, I appreciate that, and perhaps I misspoke on -- so the intent of my comments there, Commissioner, was that with respect to the C-3 zoning district, which is the subject zoning district for this property, there is not listed in the permitted -use list the word "restaurant." What's listed is "eating places," which is this broader category that includes restaurant and a number of other things. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. And, there again, it was more for edification as much as anything. I heard you say that, but I also know about the cumulative interpretation of our staff. Mike -- or Mr. Bosi spoke about it while we were going through. It is defined as an allowable use in C-2 and then, therefore, then would be allowed in C-3 and so on up the ladder. So just -- I just -- I heard you say that out loud, and I was like, I thought -- I thought it was actually delineated as an allowable use. MR. DAVIES: Understood. And thank you, Commissioner. And, again, the point of my comments was really designed towards eating places. MR. THOMAS: Actually, I'm the one who made the statement you may be thinking of. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He said it first, then you repeated it, and I figured he got it from you. MR. THOMAS: I said it was not allowed in C. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Get on the microphone. MR. THOMAS: I said it was not allowed in C-1. It's not listed in C-1. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, it is listed in C-2, though. MR. THOMAS: Yes. Page 209 a October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. MR. THOMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this subject property is C-3, and our staff s cumulative interpretation, then, would allow for that use in C-3 in the C-3 district. MR. THOMAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. How much time do we have left? MR. MILLER: It's expired. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's expired, sir. That didn't include the questions. That just included Mr. Thomas' -- MR. MILLER: When you were questioning there at the end, no, I did not stop the timer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So please wrap up. Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. Based on the evidence and testimony that we have provided, we do believe we have demonstrated that staff s decision that a food truck park is permitted as an eating place was the correct decision. The type of gamesmanship, Commissioners, you're seeing from appellant today has to be shut down. It's okay to trust your staff and to reject their arguments. Staff did their job right. They did their job in accordance with your code. It certainly wasn't contrary to the code which, remember, is the applicable legal standard today. Appellant has not met and cannot meet its legal burden to prove to you that what staff did was contrary to your codes. In fact, it was and is totally proper under your code and appropriately part of staff s regular practice. Respectfully, Commissioners, please do not let appellant's trickery and unnecessary legal complexities fool you. This is Page 210 October 12, 2021 nothing more than manufactured confusion to try to get you to second guess staff s very common-sensical and correct approach that a food truck park is an eating place. Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davies. So now we're going to have the zoning director first. Can -- have any questions of the property owner? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. No, Chair. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So then we're going to have Mr. Yovanovich, the neighboring property owner. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it would be okay, can I use this podium and ask -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess I'm going to bring up Mr. Rath, because I think he's. the right person to ask some of these questions. If not, it will be Mr. Thomas, but I'm going to start with Mr. Rath. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think we've got the copies made for you. You've got them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. So, Mr. Rath, if you can go over... Can you put up the -- can I use the visualizer, please. No, I don't want that yet. I'm not ready for that. Mr. Rath, you were responsible for processing the Site Development Plan; is that correct? MR. RATH: Correct. I was the engineer of record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Does that include identifying where all buildings would be located? MR. RATH: Yes, that in conjunction with the architect. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can you -- can you tell me what the definition of a building is. MR. RATH: I believe when the building was brought up Page 211 October 12, 2021 earlier it was a structure with a roof overhead, I believe, when Mr. Arnold showed the definition earlier. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you agree that that's the correct definition in the Land Development Code for building? MR. RATH: I would defer to that exact definition. You could bring it up again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can you help me find that in your presentation while -- I'll ask a couple of other questions in the meantime. Mr. Rath, what is a structure? MR. RATH: A structure could be a pretty wide range. Maybe it depends on the context of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is a food truck a structure? MR. RATH: I would say that a food truck is a semipermanent vehicle. MR. YOVANOVICH: That wasn't my question. My question was, is a food truck a structure? MR. RATH: I don't know that it meets the definition of a structure; I'd say probably not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, there was a focus -- I will represent to you that this is from the C-3 zoning district. It was Item No. 31 that counsel for the trust pointed out early in their presentation, and it refers to eating places, correct? MR. RATH: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it says an eating place with 6,000 square feet or less in gross floor area in the principal structure, correct? MR. RATH: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: What are the principal structures within the food truck park? MR. RATH: We have an existing building where the ground Page 212 October 12, 2021 floor of that existing building is being utilized for the restaurant use with restrooms, a gift shop, there's storage areas, there's janitorial areas, as well as attached to that structure proposed elevated deck area as well as on -grade seating all below roof. Roughly speaking, those areas total up to around 3,400 square feet. So I would say that that meets the definition in the eating places with 6,000 square feet or less in gross floor area. MR. YOVANOVICH: What part of that structure actually contains the cooking facilities? MR. RATH: The cooking facilities? There's no cooking facilities identified on the architectural plans. There are, however, restaurant -related equipment in there as well as including three compartment sinks where we had to add grease traps to the sanitary collection of the water in there. I believe that there's dishwashing facilities, things along those lines.. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're -- the cooking where you would actually -- if you're the restaurant, it's the cooking that prepares and serves the food. That does not occur in any of the permanent structures, correct? MR. RATH: I think that the eating could occur there as well. If you had -- if you had a walkup restaurant with no indoor seating, you had all outdoor seating, that would be a permissible use, and you weren't necessarily sitting in the restaurant. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- now restaurant, what is a restaurant defined as in the Land Development Code? I'll help you. MR. RATH: A building or a part of a building where food is offered for sale or sold to the public primarily for immediate consumption. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is a food truck a building? MR. RATH: I think a food truck is not necessarily considered a structure or a building. Page 213 October 12, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we can agree food trucks are not structures or buildings, correct? MR. LINCOLN: I'm going to object to this. Mr. Rath is the engineer who testified to -- regarding the application of the code and the process that it went through. He's being asked now about the interpretation of the code, you know, outside the bounds of what happened and not without any context. This is an issue where the staff would have interpreted this in going through the site plan and asking them. It's not an issue for the engineer to interpret these terms as they apply in the zoning code. And I think that he's being asked to do something that's improper. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll bring Mr. Thomas up instead if he's the professional planner. If he's not the right person to answer the questions, just say -- Andrew, just tell me, hey, I don't know. Ask Charlie. MR. LINCOLN: Well, I think the problem is that the right person to ask would have been the staff members who reviewed the plan and who work and interpret the code every day. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, Mr. Lincoln, with all due respect, you've been spending the last hour, you and your team, accusing me of trickery and misrepresenting the issues and having - some malice in what we were proposing to do. You -all put up the -- you put this up in your presentation, not me. You put it up, and I've got questions about whether or not an eating place that you spent quite a bit of time with your planner and your engineer talking about being met [sic]. I have some basic questions about what an eating place is, and you said staff got it right. I think staff got it wrong, and I'm going to ask questions of your experts, because I believe I'm entitled to do that. If Mr. Rath is not the right person to ask these questions, I'll be happy to ask those questions of Mr. -- I'm pulling up an e-mail. And Page 214 October 12, 2021 I don't know how to do this in a way you'll be able to see it, but I want to get to the bar as an accessory -use question. And I will read to you an e-mail from Ray Bellows to Jessica Harrelson. Mr. Rath, who is Jessica Harrelson? MR. RATH: Jessica Harrelson was a planner working with Davidson Engineering earlier on this in project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And was she involved in the analysis of whether a bar was an accessory or a use that would require a conditional use? MR. RATH: I believe so. It's hard to tell the exact timing as to when she left Davidson Engineering in relation to discussions with staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have an e-mail to Jessica Harrelson dated January 29, 2021. Was she still at Davidson Engineering at that time? MR. RATH: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to read their e-mail into the record. It says, the sale and on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages is subject to the provision of Section 5.05.01 of the LDC. A drinking establishment, SIC Code 5 8 13, as the primary use requires a conditional use, while any restaurant deriving at least 51 percent of gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages can also offer the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption as an accessory use. I'll show you the e-mail if you want me to read that back to you. MR. RATH: That sounds familiar. I recall the e-mail. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you recall the determination that you have to have a restaurant on the property that serves 51 -- less than 51 percent of the alcohol? MR. LINCOLN: Okay. I'm going to object to this now because there is no appeal of the SDP for violating any provision of Page 215 October 12, 2021 the code other than the question of whether it's a food truck park or not. The issue if there's bars, it's not in the appeal. The issue of any other compliance with the Land Development Code, it's not in the appeal, and so this is irrelevant and improper. But if you have -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow, if you can -- MR. KLATZKOW: All right. The core issue, according to you guys, is whether or not this is a permitted use, and I think that's what he's getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: My entire argument has been that food truck parks are not identified in the Land Development Code. So, Charlie, where would I find in C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 or anywhere in the Land Development Code a reference to a food truck park as a permitted use explicitly? MR. THOMAS: You would not. We've all agreed on that. Could we go back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I'm all good with the questions that .I've intended to ask. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's about 10 minutes, but also, sir, you read a letter to the record. I'd like you to sent it to any staff member -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I will forward it to -- I will, if you will bear with me. I will get that to you. It's kind of -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just so the court reporter has it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, absolutely. And it was documentation that was provided, I believe, by the trust in their background documents, but I will go ahead and send the e-mail, because it's pertaining to the question that was asked about the bars. And they represented -- and I guess I should ask Mr. Davies that, because he -- actually, I'll ask Mr. Rogers. May I ask Mr. Rogers a couple quick -- I mean, I lost a little bit of time by the objection to my questioning. Page 216 October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a little bit. Mr. Davies would like to take that question. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I would like to ask Mr. Rogers that question, since he owns it. He owns it. He got up and testified. I'd like to ask Mr. Rogers. MR. DAVIES: I represent Mr. Rogers, and I can speak on his behalf. MR. YOVANOVICH: You cannot. I can ask him. He was a witness and this -- in here, and he got up here, and I want to ask him. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Attorneys do not testify. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Attorneys argue. I mean, if you have a fact witness here, he's already appeared, then that's appropriate that he be cross-examined since he already appeared voluntarily. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, the food trucks that you represented, are they permanent structures? MR. ROGERS: On the property? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are they permanent structures on the property? MR. ROGERS: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do they -- are they a building? MR. ROGERS: They're built -- we're out of time, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, is a food truck a building? MR. ROGERS: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, do any of these food trucks meet the minimum floor elevation for structures within -- on the property for Isles of Capri? MR. ROGERS: Out of my expertise, but my memory is from when we were designing the project the answer is yes, but out of Page 217 October 12, 2021 ( my -- I think because of the wheels, the tires, the answer was yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are these chefs employees? MR. ROGERS: They will be. MR. YOVANOVICH: They will be employees? MR. ROGERS: I've got a lot of people waiting for me to get this done, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe you said that if the chef gets another gig, he can relocate the food truck; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: In the offseason we'll do catering, and they could -- they'll be allowed to supplement their income or our income, however we resolve that, with catering, only in the offseason and only four gone at any one time so that we always have five open on the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. -- you know, can you tell me where the menu and the commitment to a varied menu is set forth ( anywhere in the Site Development Plan? MR. ROGERS: It's my operational information. Why would that be in the Site Development Plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you -- anyway. MR. ROGERS: I don't think -- I've had several restaurants here. They've never asked me for my menu. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on one second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich, your time is almost up, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree that if all of the food trucks are not owned and operated by you or your partners, a conditional use would be required? MR. ROGERS: For the bar, for the bar. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the bar? MR. ROGERS: Is that your question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my question was, was the Page 218 October 12, 2021 conditional use required. MR. ROGERS: No, I would not agree with that at all. The letters we received from the county were very clear as we began planning this project, and they told us a conditional -use permit for the bar would be required if we did not own and operate the trucks. MR. YOVANOVICH: And is that when you made the operational decision to own and operate the food trucks yourself? MR. ROGERS: No, I made it prior to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't think I have anything further. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's the public, right -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if I remember, correctly? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now we have public comment. And how many speakers do we have, sir? MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we have 11 speakers here in the room and three additional speakers on Zoom. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would ask -- I understand this is a very personal issue for many of you, but if you agree with the speaker in front of you that has spoken, I would ask you to maybe say that. If you're bringing any new information into what that previous speaker has said, please say it. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, can I ask a question of our staff, or is that inappropriate at this time? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course you can. . COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can wait to the end, too, if you wish. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear -- if it's all right, let's hear from the -- unless it's something that you need to think time -- you know, take some time to think about, let's hear from our public, our Page 219 October 12, 2021 very patient public in this room. MR. WALLIN: Madam Speaker, I didn't quite understand the admonition you gave us speakers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The admission is that -- MR. WALLIN: Admonition. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: but that's all. Admonition is not to be repetitive, MR. WALLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because of -- obviously, we're trying to get through this, but at the same time we need to hear from everyone, and we want to hear from everyone. And were you able to adjust your -- MR. WALLIN: Yes. We have that substitution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good, thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your first speaker is Lynette Lenard. She's been ceded three additional minutes from Jan Castle. Could you raise your hand to indicate you're present. (Raises hand.) MR. MILLER: Thank you. You will have six minutes, Ms. Lenard, if you'll come to one of the podiums. And Ms. Lenard will be followed by Susan Crum, who will -- if she could queue up at the other podium, that would be good. Just a reminder, public speakers, you will hear a beep at 30 seconds to let you know you have 30 seconds remaining. M S . LENARD : Thank you. MR. MILLER: Please. MS. LENARD: Hi. My name is Lynette Lenard. I am an attorney by background but am not allowed to practice in Florida without taking all the bar exams and spending $10,000 on all the applications. So I confined this only to my views and have some legal background. Page 220 October 12, 2021 ('r I currently live in the -- on Kon Tiki Drive, the property most adjacent to this proposed food truck park. I live in the A building, which is the one that is also closest to the food truck park. And I just wanted to say for much of the stuff we've heard here today, that site is nothing like the Bayshore site in any way, shape, fashion, and form. It is a two-lane road. As a matter of fact, our road in is one way. We have a very narrow road that we have to come out of that abuts that property. We have trouble with the garbage trucks and everything being able to transverse right there. But we also do not have any cultural art district. We do not have any artists studios. We do have any real pedestrian traffic for activities that are there, but we do have a 57-unit, 55-plus community that is totally adjacent to this property, and it is called Tarpon Village, and that is where I live currently. Most of the people who live in this facility have owned their properties for at least 20, 25 years, and this building could also be considered historic because it was built 50 years ago. It was built in the early '70s. And so it's been there for a very long time. Many of us moved there because it is so peaceful and quiet there. We're right on the water. It is one of those lovely spaces that still remains in Collier County. And I sure as heck, after just finishing a year of renovating the entire condo and loving the place that I live, hate to have to move from it because of the anticipated noise and everything that is associated with this project. I would like to say there are many residents in this community who are elderly. I don't speak on behalf of them because I don't have permission to speak on behalf of them. And from what I understand, I think our homeowner president is going to speak by Zoom or something. But these people, and certainly not myself, did not move here for anything but the peace and tranquility. We did not -- and this is Page 221 October 12, 2021 not just a place to eat or a restaurant or a place you get food or a place you sit down because, as I understand it, unless something has changed, this is more like an entertainment center. Because we are going to have a stage. We are going to have music potentially from 12:00 noon till 10:00 at night. We are right on the water so, of course, there is a big issue with the transfer of sound and everything on the water. I believe at one point we were told that they were going to have a little water park or fountain or something for children there. And Mr. Rogers did come to Tarpon Village in early February to tell us all about his project. And one of the things that he stated -- there seems to have been some dispute today about whether conditional use was required and not required, but what he told us -- and because I am a lawyer and because I wrote it down because it surprised me very much -- is he said, basically, from what I recall, I can do whatever I want because I have a C-3 property, but as long as I own all of the food truck parks -- you know, it's a fait accompli. However, in order to give us the biggest variety of food and things that are available there, then I'm planning to let these people have their own -- you know, it will be owned by them. They will have their own meter -- electric meter. They will have their own water meter. They will decide what foods they do or whatever. And if that occurs and you do not like my project, then you will be allowed to speak at a public hearing, because we will have to go for a conditional use, and that will be sometime in May of 2021. And so I believe that at least at some point he was aware that there was a possibility that what he was planning to do would require a conditional use. I'm not an expert on planning and zoning or anything. I was actually a corporate tax international trade lawyer. But I know what he said that day, and I know he made the same statement when he had the meeting with the Island on the 27th of Page 222 October 12, 2021 February, because I was there, too, and I wanted to hear if there were differences, and there were some differences. No longer were we talking about from 10:00 in the morning. The next thing he was talking about opening early because some people wanted him to be available to sell coffee and doughnuts and stuff. So we're looking at a situation that keeps changing as we go along. And today -- I found out all kinds of things today that I didn't know before as in terms of what the plans are or the plans aren't. I'm sorry. I'm trying -- I'm trying to get through this as fast as I can. But the only thing I want to say is the biggest issue here is the traffic, and that's what I wanted to focus on. Because if you haven't been there, we have this S turn right around that whole area. I can barely make a left turn into my drive as it is. I have a difficult time getting out of there because there's a stop sign there that no one ever stops at. If I'm incoming and I have my signal on, often I almost have to do this (indicating) to get there. If any of these people are coming into any of those parking lots, that's going to be a problem. And since I'm running out of time, I'm going to say the one thing that I think that is required here before anything else is a new traffic study because the one that was done here, to me, in my opinion, is a joke. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Crum. She'll be followed by Gayle Latreille. I hope I'm saying that correctly. MS. CRUM: Hello. I'm speaking on behalf of my husband. He had to leave. I was not sworn in. Can you swear me in, please. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRUM: I do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Ms. Crum. MS. CRUM: So my husband wrote this, and I'm reading it for him. Page 223 October 12, 2021 I, Allen Crum, I reside at 2663 Becca Ave, and I have lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. I am speaking today from experience to let the residents of Isles of Capri know what they will be up against if they allow a food truck business into their neighborhood. First, property values will suffer being adjacent to a year-round carnival that will be able to amplified sounds 10 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. The next is safety. Celebration Park had 19 fire code violations, three times the amount of propane on site. Propane trucks deliver propane to the site. The trucks do not move. The next is traffic. Parking and speeding and litter. They will park on your grass, in your driveway, on the sidewalks, in the right-of-way. Nothing you can do until the county installs "no parking" signs every 30 feet up and down both sides of your street. It all .starts out innocent enough. You're told how great this will be for the neighborhood. They will plant pretty flowers and bushes and .work with the neighbors to make sure needs are met, but as soon as they get permits in hand and open for business, they will completely disconnect from the neighborhood with no more common courtesy, no more neighborly respect, and just as soon as you voice concerns, you'll be accused of harassment. They are no longer your good neighborhood. They only are looking at the dollar signs. - Make no -- let me see. And make no mistake, you will be on your own from here on out. Send a -mails to everyone you can think of. They will be ignored. Actually, Isles of Capri's commissioner was the only one to respond to any of our a -mails that were sent to all the commissioners. Numerous a -mails sent to our District 4 commissioner concerning Celebration Park have not been responded to. The biggest problem is noise. No one wants to admit that this is the biggest problem. I don't have the time to go into what we have Page 224 October 12, 2021 (` been through with the noise issues. Simply put, when you can hear the amplified music in your house a quarter of a mile away, it's too loud. Celebration Park has been an absolute disaster for our neighbor. Do not un -- do not, under any circumstances, allow this to happen to your beautiful island. Do not let a food truck park with amplified sound deprive your residents of peace of mind in your own home. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gayle Latreille. She'll be followed by Rand Whitson. MS. LATREILLE: Hi. I'm Gayle Latreille. I live on Isles of Capri at 120 Capri Boulevard. I've owned a home there for over 20 years. I actually moved there four years ago, so I'm a full-time .resident. I'm very concerned about the impact of transient people coming in, transient vehicles going beyond the commercial part of the island. And just to explain a little bit about what Isles of Capri is, I don't know how many -- I know Rick has been there, but I don't know how many commissioners have been there.' We have a two-lane road with water on both sides that comes in, and then we make a 90-degree turn. We need a 180-turn, then that's where the park is going to be. It's very congested already. I did hear there was going to be a stop sign where there's a yield sign now, so, you know, that's good. But I'm concerned.about our getting off the island, getting on the isles. And our emergency vehicle right now services Naples and services the rest of the island on the other side. How are they going to get through the traffic? So that's a concern. The other concern I have is they're -- in the project I understand �• there's 96,000 gallons of water for irrigation and drainage, so where Page 225 October 12, 2021 does that water go? And now I'm kind of hearing maybe it's actually for the food trucks. I'm not sure that they're hooked up, but I read that in your original -- your original plan. And so where does all that water go? We have a very unique ecosystem there. We have water and marine life every 200 feet. And so the lights, the sewage, the water, the drainage, all of that is a major concern of mine. The other think I wanted to say is that, you know, I know there was a lot of talk about eating places and what that was. Mobile trucks do have an SIC code, and it is actually not the one that they're saying. The NAICS code is 722330. The SIC code is 5963, which you stated correctly. It's called a mobile food truck. So it's not in the 5128 or whatever that was. So those are mine. We actually are very quiet there. We don't have streetlights. We don't have a traffic light. We don't turn our f lights on because of the marine life. The parking lot is going to have huge lights, many of them that are right by the water. So for all that, I'm very concerned for our environment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Randy Whitson. He'll be followed by Bob Messmer. MR. WHITSON: Hi. I'm Randy Whitson. I've been on Isles of Capri for 11 years now. I'm a full-time resident. I find it very entertaining today that you guys have had the TV attorneys here to represent this whole situation. It's a whole lot of code references. But it's pretty plain to see what's happening here. The adjacent neighbor to the property is trying to stifle this whole situation. They've made two offers to purchase the property, and they were denied. The owner didn't want to sell it. The developer of the food truck did not want to sell it. It seems pretty clear. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, Page 226 October 12, 2021 (` it's a duck. They're the only people that have put any type of appeal in front of the county for this. It seems like the county staff spent a lot of time, over a thousand pages of documents, to make sure the water, the traffic, all that stuff was done correctly. And at some point you have to trust your staff. If you don't, what's the point? In reference to Tarpon Village, that property's been zoned C-3 since Isles of Capri was developed, 1960s. It's kind of like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about airport noise. If you don't know where you're living, and you don't know who your neighbors are, you really ought to check, because just because it's always been empty -- which it hasn't, by the way -- before the proposed food trucks, it was Truluck's Fisheries. They had loud boats going out at 4:00 in the morning every morning; diesel smells. Every year they would pull out the crab traps, and they would sit there for months and stink to high heaven. And you can ask anybody that lived at Tarpon Village. That's the truth. As far as the other part about Fiddlers Creek, who's being represented here today, I don't know how many people know, but they've actually applied to rezone their portion of the property to something completely different. So people need to be aware of what's really happening here. And you guys are all really intelligent. I know you're smart enough to figure it out. So that's all I have. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Messner, and he will be followed by Jeff Davidson. MR. MESSMER: Commissioners, staff, and especially the Isles of Capri people, I was asked to come here by an organizer of the Isles of Capri people because I live about 700 feet directly west of Celebration Park. And I was asked by this gentleman to inform especially the Isles of Capri people what I've experienced in the three years of Celebration Park. There are some good things. I could Page 227 October 12, 2021 (` walk out my door, around the corner, have a snack, sit at the bar, have a drink, and maybe if I got too many drinks, I wouldn't illegally drive home. I would stumble on home. That's a plus. The traffic hasn't been that bad, but there is one big, big negative thing. It didn't start off that way at Celebration Park, but now it is six nights a week, and that is ear -drumming noise. Broke my eardrums, broke my windows, shake the walls of my house, it is so intense. And on Thursday they're going to ask to be open on Monday night. We had one day of the week of peace and quiet in my neighborhood. Now I firmly believe that the permit is going to be approved, and we won't even have that one there. You're going to -- you better buy your earplugs, because you're going to need them. The noise generated by Celebration Park is numbing whether your operator at your proposed place knows how to turn that volume down, I hope so. But Celebration Park does not turn the volume down ever. I've concluded my remarks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Messner. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Davidson. He'll be followed by Tad Wallin. MR. DAVIDSON: Good afternoon, or even good evening. I'm Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering. Our company did the Site Development Plan for this project. I've been doing Site Development Plans for 33 years here in Collier County. I know what goes into a Site Development Plan approval, and it's not an easy process to get through. This has taken 10 months. I don't know how much we charged to do this work, but it's probably somewhere between 50- and $100,000, and it got approved by county staff. It's totally unfair to get to this point to have an approved Site Development Plan and then Page 228 3 October 12, 2021 appeal it. It's just not the way things have ever worked before. I've never seen it done in 33 years, and I don't know anybody that has. So I would like for you -all to consider that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tad Wallin. He'll be followed online by Mike Lots. Mr. Wallin has been ceded additional time -- and I would ask these people to raise your hand to indicate you're here. Gladys Fitzsimmons. (Raises hand.) MR. MILLER: Jean Cogne. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. (Raises hand.) MR. MILLER: Yes. And George Merkling. (Raises hand.) MR. MILLER: So Mr. Wallin will have a total of 12 minutes. MR. WALLIN: Thank you, Chair lady, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Chairman is fine. MR. WALLIN: Chairman, my name's Tad Wallin. I live at 418 Panay in Isles of Capri. MR. MILLER: Mr. Wallin, could you pull that microphone closer to you, please. Thank you. MR. WALLIN: I knew I bought a fee interest on Panay Avenue about 700 -- 600 feet from the proposed project in December of 2020. I live right across the water from that. In my submissions, my many submissions, basically three that certainly are part of the letter at this point in time, letter of May 19th, June 9th, and a cover letter of September 20th, show that we've got a problem here. But one thing can be agreed upon. I think everybody in this room would agree that the government here, your board, just like all other boards in the country of this nature, owe a duty to Page 229 October 12, 2021 protect the citizens, its citizens, protect them from harm. What has happened here is there is a pattern which is seen in Celebration Park and in the chronology of this park where the public hears to begin with that it's just a food park, and we're going to sell maybe a beer, and we're going to have, like in our case, an ice cream social so the grandkids can come and they can go on Sunday and have ice cream with grandpa, and that's -- that's the extent of it. So what happens -- this was, say, like, in February or January that this -- that we were told this. Mr. Rogers appeared on February 26th and said, well, we're going to have -- we're going to have some inside drinking maybe, maybe a little bit outside, but this is not a bar. Nothing about a band. Nothing about amplified sound. Nothing about a -- are you ready for this? You probably are -- 3,000 -- 3,068 square feet dance floor with a band shell with .150 people to sit around as spectators. Now, what could possibly go wrong with that? My point is, this started out, but it's morphed, just like Centennial has, into something that wasn't planned, wasn't foreseen, and can take us by surprise. And what and who are going to stand between that and us? And that's your body. Most of the time when there's a problem comes up in our society, many times you go to the police, we'll say, this guy's drunk or this guy's crazy. He's going to try to kill me, and let's try to stop him. And they say to you, well, that's a civil matter, but he hasn't done it yet, so we can't help you. Many times a body like this will say, well, gee, how do we know there's going to be problems with this? Why would that happen? We don't know yet. In this case, because of what has happened with a guy named Tad Wallin, he went ahead on May 1 st of 2021, helped set up, like I wanted to do, the party, the mayday party for all the �. residents of Isles of Capri. It happened that there was a band, a local Page 230 October 12, 2021 band, which still plays around here, called the Iconics, that was playing there for entertainment that day. So I all of a sudden think, I better go back to my place and hope the heck that I can't hear that band, because if I can, then that says something. That says that there's going to be noise like this on and on and on, and you folks won't be there except on what you've done before, that is to protect us. Then the noise could be gone. We wouldn't be here today if -- I'll bet we wouldn't be here if there wasn't going to be a bar and there wasn't going to be a band. How's that? Ice cream parlor food truck, easy. All these things morph. Enterprising capitalists know this. It's happening around the country, and we've got to act. Now you're thinking, well, Wallin, tell us how we can act now. I'll tell you exactly how. When I went back that day, and the iconic band, I noticed how. they were playing and how loud they were. You know, loud, soft, whatever. They just -- it was what it was. I went back to my house, 7- -- 600 feet, about, from that noisemaker, and what happened was I was appalled. I went out on my dock. I could hear that -at nuisance levels over the water and/or over through the canyons of the condominium whose president will be speaking right after this. Then I thought, well, here's what I have to do. I went inside -- and, remember, I'm under oath now, and I know that. I went inside my house. Half the windows on the side facing the noise, facing the proposed project, are double pane, half of them are single pane. I could hear that noise, that music. It invaded my private property that day through both of them. I could hear it inside my house when it's closed. First of all, why should we have to live with our house closed during the evening? How about that? If we don't want to, we shouldn't have to. And -- but you go ahead and close it, and you still Page 231 October 12, 2021 hear it. And we've heard testimony from these nice folks that took all their time to come out from Centennial [sic], and what did we get? We heard that the noise vibrations at times breaks a window. This gentleman said that right over there. And what did we hear? That the vibrations at times can be felt through the walls. That's the magic of this amplified -- artificial amplification. So bottom line, because I did that and now we've got proof that these noises invade a legally protected interest that all of us know in our own mind what that is, maybe the sovereign can't come into my house, well, private property -- private ownership can't either. Because we have that information now, and you have it through competent testimony under oath, you can act. You can take this and create your own jurisdiction in a modification for the LDC, or you can go ahead and also say -- you've got the option -- you ask this, gentleman over here. He'll tell you what the options you have -- can go ahead and just overturn Mr. Bosi's ruling; send it back down to have them fix it. But my point is, this will be back to be litigated in either -- to be talked about in this forum or up in the Circuit Court. 'And the reason -- let me -- the reason that there's no 100 other people appealing this, as this one other gentleman here, this gentleman said, is because in order to do that you had to hire an attorney because you had to have a legal argument and, two, you had to pay a thousand -dollar filing fee. How's that sound? Not too fair. So in other words, in other words, we're all here today, and so many more of us know what's going to happen on this because we know what's -- how Stan's works. The people that like this type of place, which is all sorts of people, know -- and especially the ones that want to drink and carry and carry on -- can you imagine that? -- are going to know that they can stop off at Capri, and they'll Page 232 October 12, 2021 be safer from police because they don't have to run through the Marco Island going out, which is fine because they've not been drinking, or coming back, they've been drinking. So this is going to be a destination. I have a quote that's part of the record in Page 3 of my communication to this tribunal on June 9th. This is from a lady on Weeks Avenue, who runs parallel to Becca, just a little bit to -- I forget the directions. It's skewed out there. So here's what she says reference the Celebrity or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Celebration. MR. WALLIN: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Celebration Park. MR. WALLIN: At times the music goes on 11:00 p.m., late into the night. Even with the windows shut, the bands are heard disturbing sleep and other residents quoted as saying their windows rattle because of the seats -- the beats of the band shook our closed windows. This resident reports that neighborhood folks substantially north of the noise generation report comes up surprisingly clear on the canal they live on, which goes to the known -- mariners know this, physicists know this,'sound transfers more efficiently, twice as efficiently over water as ground, and that's a reason that I feel I have to be here today to protect what I bought and paid for. When I was trying to prepare for this case, I tried to resist for years and years, but I finally got onto Google and started going into their word finder. I used to say, well, here, get the dictionary. Well, we don't do that anymore, Tad. We go on Google. So I went ahead and went on Google. Lost the window, but it came back so here's somebody, somebody, I don't know where, here's what that person said, about a concept like this. So the peace and quiet -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Talk into the mic, sir. MR. WALLIN: So the peace and quiet that they have been used to and spent a significant amount of money to enjoy has Page 233 October 12, 2021 disappeared, and that person goes on, we've got so much growth going on, and this is something that needs to be -- talked, tackled soon. No truer words were ever spoken. Who knows where they happened. We have a chance right here right now through you to protect us to get ahead of the curve on this menace. You do not want to be servient in your house to a society -- to a business that is driving you, like what these folks said, just a little bit or a lot crazy and, by the way, I know as a fact. I called them. Celebration is just chomping at the bit to go seven days a week live music. They're just waiting for Thursday. Live music till, what, 9:00. Thank you. Thank you for listening. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is our first speaker online, Mike Lotz. Mr. Lotz will be followed by David .Rippe. Mike Lotz, you should be receiving a prompt to unmute yourself, if you'll do so at this time. You have three minutes, sir. There you are, Mr. Lotz. You have three minutes, sir. MR. LOTZ: Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes. You have three minutes, sir. MR. LOTZ: All right. Thank you. I'm the president of Tarpon Village, which is a 55-year-old community. We have 55 units, and we have some of our residents that have successfully reached the age of 90 years plus. They worked to retire peaceably on the Isles of Capri. They're very concerned about their property values and the adjacent development. Some have asked me to speak on their behalf. They are not happy of this prospect of having this project so close, and they're all Page 234 October 12, 2021 agreeable in the concerns of all the problems cited previously: The noise, the visiting traffic, the odor, loud music, alcohol and its effects, and the main problem is they're concerned for the property value. We are in total agreement with Rich Yovanovich's effort to rescind this approval based on that we didn't get our due process on a public comment, and some of these things weren't followed that we were originally promised in the process. This seems to be, like, a rush to approve this project, and some of these things have been left out or not addressed. And one of the concerns we have are the quoted similarities to approve the project on a C-3 basis when the two arterial local streets don't come into play. Kon Tiki can never be considered an arterial level street. In fact, it's been cited by Thomas Mastroburdo (phonetic) that it's narrower than the required fire code for a fire access road. He cited that in some areas it's as narrow as 14 feet. The comment that Stephanie Neracki (phonetic) had made that she was concerned when the project was going to have its dumpster off of Kon Tiki Drive, that she wanted us -- or wanted the project to verify the vehicular turnaround radius in that area. This would create a dead-end. Well, the dumpster's been removed and reorientated to have access from the driveways on the project, but it still leaves the open concern that Kon Tiki will be inviting to new people, new traffic in the area, people that are curious, people that are lost to go down Kon Tiki only to find the entrance to Tarpon Village driveway, which is our exit point. So without any area to turn around and to get out of that situation and this bottleneck, that's going to force these drivers through our area against our established traffic pattern and put in very much concern for our older residents who might not be aware of this, �- and these people could be speeding through there. And we're Page 235 October 12, 2021 (� concerned about injury or worse, harming our older residents. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry, sir. I just need you to wrap up, sir. Your time is up, please. MR. LOTZ: Wow. Okay. So anyways, what I did is -- I think a solution to this is put Kon Tiki to be a one-way westbound. I wrote to Mr. LoCastro. He said there was a new review letter they were waiting for on this, but I don't think there was any indication that this was going to be brought UP. I wrote Ray Bellows; there was no response. I wrote to Mike Sawyer, who said that there would be -- there was a rumor -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, sir. I'm sorry, sir. Your time is up, and I gave you a little extra time. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is David Rippe. I hope I'm pronouncing that right, sir. And to be followed by Pat Schultz. David, you're unmuted. You have three minutes. MR. RIPPE: Yes. I just wanted to thank everyone for allowing me to speak. I am a resident of the Isles of Capri. I'm articulating my opinion by speaking against the established plan of a mobile food vending court primarily for all of the reasons that have already been discussed. Traffic, we have a narrow, two-lane access to areas beyond the proposed site. Even without much traffic, there can be -- you know, there can be some difficulty. Remember, we've got a fire station with emergency vehicles. That's an issue. The proximity to existing residential condominium community is a problem. The likelihood of disruptive activities with public congestion, loud music, open alcohol consumption, all of those we know that are going to happen, and because there's limited geography there, the Page 236 October 12, 2021 possibility of street parking, again, interfering with the entry and the egress from the island. You know, across the state, mobile food vending operations have been subject to specific zoning restrictions. For example, St. Petersburg, elsewhere around the country, also, you know, these limitations include frequency of food truck operations. For example, no -- located on site no more than twice a week, as well as other limitations. For example, the number of food trucks at a site. Perhaps no more than one or two, and other restrictions as well. The point is, is that these communities have recognized that these are not -- this is not simply an eating place, okay. Perhaps it's related to the carnival -like atmosphere that can go with them. You know, a carnival is not simply an eating place, and neither is your home, okay, despite the fact that there's eating that goes on in both of those locations. As such, these entities are appropriately Q treated differently in zoning requirements. And for all of those reasons, I really don't believe that .this is the type of business that is a good fit for Isles of Capri and, in particular, in this location, and that I think that this -- that this -- that these things really need to be considered further before progressing forward. Thank you very much-. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker on this item is Pat Schultz. Pat, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself, if you'll do so at this time. Pat Schultz, you should be getting prompted to unmute yourself. Final call. Pat Schultz, if you'll please unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I'll keep you posted, but Pat Schultz does not seem to be unmuting, and that is our final speaker. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I think it's time for a Page 237 October 12, 2021 f court reporter break. We'll come back here at 5:45. (A brief recess was had from 5:31 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.) MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We have now closed the -- we didn't hear from the person that was on, correct? MR. MILLER: She was unable to mute [sic] herself, so we suggested she e-mail her comments to you, and then you could share them with the other board members. I hope that was a -- she was having computer problems. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Then I'll double-check here. So let me do that right now and see if I've got them. No, I don't. So at this point -- was she yea or nay? Do we know? We don't know. MR. MILLER: I don't know that, but I will effort that right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine. You're going to ask? MR. MILLER: Yeah. .Offline, not over the speakers. I'll communicate with her off-line here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So at this point the public speaking comment part of this hearing is finished, and we are now moving to the closing arguments for the zoning director, the neighboring property owner, and property owner. And you have 10 minutes each. Part of that 10 minutes can be a rebuttal, and I'll start with Mr. Bosi. MR. BOAZ: Good evening, Commissioner. Mike Bosi, Zoning director, and I'll be short. I'm not going to get into a long discussion. I think there has been a lot of factors that have been put out there. I'm not sure if they were all clear and unambiguous. I think there has been some interpretations that are being asked of the Board to make. What staff has reacted to, as I indicated within my opening Page 238 October 12, 2021 (� remarks, were -- that 2016 determination, the guidance that was provided for that, and then deliberations as to how this use fit within the SIC code of 5 812 of eating places. Ultimately, I think the Board of County Commissioners makes the decision, is the food truck park qualifying as an eating place and base your decision. But staff recognizes that the position that we had, although consistent, might not be the right decision if the Board finds that the factors that were presented today would invalidate that type of a determination. We have tried to be consistent. We've tried to treat every question related to the food truck parks in the same manner. That's the one thing we have tried to pride ourselves is on that consistency. But if the Board defers in a different direction, we understand, and we'll take that direction as appropriate. ( I do have Mr. French and Ms. Cook available if the Board would have any questions, but that wraps up the staff s position. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do see that we have a question from Commissioner McDaniel and then Commissioner Solis. And this is for Mr. Bosi? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to ask, because you've referred multiple times to the staffs utilization of the HEX's decision from ' 16. Is it your interpretation, or was it staff s, not yours particularly, .but it was staff s interpretation that the Bayshore overlay is less intense than C-4, the underlying zoning that permeates through that particular area? MR. BOSI: I don't think there's any doubt that it is less intense than a C-4 or C-3 zoning district. Page 239 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then that determination, then, allowed for C-2, which does, in fact, have the restaurants and, C-3, the eating places and such to carry through for you to come back to -- MR. BOSI: As we said, that's how we interpret that cumulative effect within our zoning district. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So I've got a couple of quick questions. And just so that I'm clear, so we've -- have we ever made a determination that a food truck park is an eating place? I mean, other than the one we're talking about today? MR. BOSI: Yes, in the 2006 [sic] determination. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And other than the 2016 .determination made by the HEX. MR. BOSI: There was three zoning verification -- or the zoning verification letter, an SDP, and SIP that have made that determination. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. So we've done that in the past. And based upon your interpretation of what's allowed under C-3 and what's -- and C-4 and what's being proposed, would we -- would you have approved this SDP without the reference or the need to rely on the 2016 HEX decision? MR. BOSI: Without the 2016 HEX decision, I believe -- and without the other determinations that were made, based off of that comparable -use determination, I believe we would have requested the applicant to go through a comparable -use determination so we could understand how we, as a body, the Growth Management Department, would treat and should treat eating places -- or food truck parks. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have. Page 240 r 0 A October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will be brief. I think what it all comes down to is what was intended by the HEX decision when it was issued in 2016. Was it intended to be a countywide determination, or was it intended to be a local determination on a specific piece of property? Because at the time all you could do was a local determination on a specific piece of property under the underlying zoning district that was in effect at the time. Staff has elected to make it a countywide application. They've done it on a couple of other occasions. Staff doesn't have that authority, and neither did the Hearing Examiner. If a code -- and there's no question that food truck parks are not listed anywhere in the Land Development Code. Everybody acknowledges that, and it was determined to be okay for Celebration Park through a. public -hearing process. That public -hearing process was never intended to be an amendment to the Land Development Code. Essentially, what staff is doing, by themselves, is amending the Land Development Code through applying an interpretation of the Hearing Examiner. I think Commissioner Solis hit it on the head when he asked the question, what's the process in place to amend the Land Development Code? Staff drafts language. It goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on what should we do about food truck parks? Where should they be in Collier County? And then it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and it takes four out of five of you to amend the Land Development Code to determine where food truck parks should go in Collier County. That process was not followed. Page 241 October 12, 2021 A hearing examiner heard a specific application on Bayshore under a Bayshore overlay that was intending to bring people back to Bayshore, drive them to Bayshore. We don't agree that it's less intense than C-4, but the overlay was intended to revitalize the area by bringing people to that area. For better or for worse, I think it's worked. There's a lot of people now going to Bayshore, and a lot of other businesses have spurred off from people coming to Bayshore. It was intended to bring people there. Isles of Capri is a different place. There are other different places. We're not telling you food truck parks should never be anywhere in Collier County. We're just asking you to put it through the process that was always intended to be, and we're asking you to grant our appeal of the OI. Food trucks -- determine food truck parks are not permitted uses in C-2 and C-3, and grant our appeal on the Site Development Plan and just simply ask the applicant for that Site Development Plan to do a comparable -use determination. We can have a specific hearing on that, and we can talk about the issues that may concern the neighbors. And if they could get over that hurdle and assure the neighbors, maybe a food truck park is appropriate; maybe it's not. We want the process. That's why we appealed it. And just -- I know it's unusual for Site Development Plans to get appealed. I've defended people attacking a Site Development Plan in the past. It happened in Pelican Bay. There was a Site Development Plan approved for Cap d'Antibes, and the residents of Pelican Bay attacked that Site Development Plan, and we defended it. It's rare. But there's a process when staff may have gotten it wrong. We've been involved in this since March when we heard of this. We didn't surprise anybody. We got involved early on in the process. And with that, we request that you grant both of our appeals and Page 242 October 12, 2021 you let the petitioner decide whether or not they want to pursue the Site Development Plan through the comparable -use determination process. And we thank you for your time. It's been a long day. And if you have any questions, we're available to answer them, but I think probably all the questions have been asked and hopefully satisfactorily answered. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Seeing none. Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, a quick reminder, this is not your traditional rezoning hearing. This is an appeal hearing that the other side has tried to turn into that traditional zoning hearing, but that's not what you're here hearing today as the Board of Zoning Appeals.. You are bound by the relevant items at issue in the appeal documents, and there's only one primary issue, and that's use. Some quick rebuttal, Madam Chair. There was mention of SIC Code 5963 which governs something called direct selling establishments. It doesn't govern food truck parks. It's more confusion, candidly, and it also happens to be permitted in the C-3 zoning district. So that's a complete red herring, but I wanted to address it. With all due respect to the history of Celebration Park, Commissioners, my client shouldn't have to pay for their sins. My client went through the process. He went through and reached compliance with a number of different regulatory controls that you heard from -- you heard about today that you heard from your staff on. We did go through your process in detail, and we are in compliance with every single one of those requirements after the 10 Page 243 October 12, 2021 months in going through that. Respectfully, Commissioners, don't overcomplicate this. Do not fall for this trickery, this confusion. Staff did everything correct here. It's okay to support your staff. It's okay to affirm them. They determined that food truck park is an eating place. It's a place where you go to eat. That's not contrary to your code, and that's what we respectfully ask that you affirm. I'm going to offer you a potential compromise as you go into your deliberations. If you would like, you could overturn the official interpretation. Note that doing so would clarify some of this ambiguity. It would apply to food truck parks going forward; it would not apply to my client. And then you can also affirm your staff s approval of my client's SDP. With that, that concludes my remarks. Thank you all, and thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Davies. I see no questions up here. Before I close the public hearing, I'd like to put on the record that Pat Schultz, who was on the phone to speak to us, has given this information to Mr. Miller. Ms. Schultz is against the development for environmental reasons. Thank you. And the public hearing part of this hearing is closed. And now we are open for deliberation. So do I have any -- Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I appreciate the opportunity to speak first. I'm the commissioner for District 1. I've spent more hours with citizens, business owners, people for and against, so this hasn't been lost on me, as well as spending time with the staff. I represent both residents and business owners. But my focus today is on safety, noise, traffic, lighting, cohesion with the Page 244 October 12, 2021 surrounding area, precedent, and most of all the citizens of Isles of Capri. I believe we need to use common sense and get this right. We need to be careful what we wish for. I don't think your client is paying for the sins of the past with Celebration Park. I think we up here need to learn the lessons of the past to improve the future. I believe the staff did do their job right in 2016 for -- with Celebration Park with what they knew. There was no precedent. There was very few details about food parks, yet now there are a lot of details, and there are some, including me, who think that the 2016 decision begs more questions; and that we certainly do get some complaints, as you heard today, and we've all gotten a -mails from people in Celebration Park. I believe our staff did get it right on March 17th when they drafted a letter saying that there were issues with this particular park on Isles of Capri, and I believe they got it wrong when they reversed their decision on May 7th. I don't believe a food truck park is an eating place, per se, the same as a restaurant is. If you look at the standards of a restaurant with a roof, doors, walls, a lot of the noise is controlled because the customers go inside, and the doors get closed. You also can control the numbers because when every seat is full and every table is full, then people get turned away. I'm sorry, there's no room at the inn. A food truck park is much different. You're serving food from a window, but the eating area's all exclusively outside, plus the bar, plus the dance floor. I don't believe safety is the same. We have to be dynamic enough to admit when we got something less than correct. This is going to be a set footprint of nine permanent trucks. Yes, in time of hurricane and catering and all those other unique, you know, once -in -a -lifetime type things, anything can be moved. But I Page 245 I October 12, 2021 think we all know that these are going to be trucks used as set permanent structures, plus two bars, outdoor seating, and a dance area. Our knowledge of food trucks has evolved. The initial decision of the HEX for Bayshore, I don't believe, had the intent for mass approval of food truck parks across the entire county. And I'd make a motion to grant the two appeals that are being requested today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. Commissioner McDaniel -- oh, Commissioner Saunders. It disappeared, so I wasn't -- forgive me. I thought you deliberately did that. COMMISSIONER SALJNDERS: No, no. I was waiting for Commissioner LoCastro to finish. And I agree with what Commissioner LoCastro has said and, quite frankly, I would have seconded the motion had not Commissioner McDaniel done so. And I want to spend a few minutes explaining why. We're going to -- this issue's going to wind up in court most likely, and I don't have any issues with that. I think that's just part of the process. But I want to at least state some of my reasoning for this. We have a noise problem throughout the county, and I'd mentioned this to the County Commission about a month ago, and we're looking at noise issues that are really negatively impacting the quality of life of our residents. And so now we look at Isles of Capri. And I go out there quite a bit. It's a nice residential community. Nice little cafes and Page 246 October 12, 2021 f restaurants there that are generally very quiet. We're going to have -- I appreciate the gentleman laughing. MR. ROGERS: It's not true. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I appreciate your comments. I can assure you, the gentleman laughing, that that certainly didn't help your case at all. So I would ask the audience not to laugh at the comments that the commissioners are making. We have a quiet residential community. I think that there were 55 units in a facility next door to this facility, and I can assure you that I would not want to live anywhere near this type of a facility. And so I think that staff, quite frankly, I think, got it wrong on this one. I agree with Commissioner LoCastro that there could not have been the intent to permit this type of activity throughout the county; that the approval for the Celebration Park was limited to the Celebration Park. And so I just think that it's critical that we keep in mind the quality of life of our residents. This would destroy their quality of life, and I just don't want to be one of the commissioners that would permit that to happen. And so, when we conclude this, I want to ask the staff and the Commission to, number one, go with another moratorium. Now, I don't usually -- I'm a pro -development type of a person. Now, this will be the second time in this meeting -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're changing you, sir. It's a good thing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS:. This is -- will be the second time in this meeting that I'll be asking for a moratorium -- on food truck parks until we get an ordinance from our county attorney to deal with this issue. And I'm also going to ask the County Commission to direct staff to take a look at Celebration Park. We do have a noise ordinance. Page 247 October 12, 2021 f They can't exceed certain decibel limits beyond their property line. And so I think we just need to make sure that they're in compliance with our ordinance. But I support the motion from Commissioner LoCastro on this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just a -- I, as well -- I seconded the motion. I was -- I concur 100 percent with what Commissioner LoCastro said. There's certainly an enormous amount of logic that was brought forth for the staff to be making the determination. My friend, Jeff Davidson, came up and made the comment that this really hasn't ever happened before. I don't really recall it ever happening. So I guess we won't be able to say that twice. The reach to allege that the approval should go forward based upon a decision from back in 2016 was just too much for me, personally. There are -- there are so many circumstances that are unique to every specific request that comes along, especially when it regards an undefined business that we've yet to define in our Land Development Code. It's going to be my thoughts -- and, again, I'm not sure about the moratorium thought processes just yet, but I would like to suggest that the applicant for this food truck park go back to the HEX for a comparable use. I want to also remind the residents that this property is zoned C-3, and if the developer and the owner of the property comes in with uses that are allowed within that without our staff making subjective decisions with regard to comparable uses, those are going to come, and you have to sometimes be careful about what you wish for. But going forward, we should direct staff to develop an ordinance of a provision for a conditional use for food truck parks simply because, as I said at the beginning, we might have gotten Page 248 October 12, 2021 f lucky on the other ones that have already been approved simply because of where they were in relationship to surrounding neighbors, arterial highways, so ons and so forth. So having said all that, I'm in support of the motion. And there you go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. The only thing I'm going to add is my concern is mainly the legal issue that -- you know, we have this comparable -use process. I mean, I don't know that any of those comparable -use determinations, regardless of whether they were intended to be or not, can be, in fact, something that essentially amends the Land Development Code without four votes from the Commission. I just think that -- I mean, we might have wanted that to happen, and maybe it would streamline things, but I just -- I don't know. how we can possibly do that because it, in effect, amends the Land Development Code, and there's no way to know what's out there, right? You'd have to know that this happens somewhere else. I mean, it would be great for, you know, Mr. Davies and Mr. Yovanovich, probably, but, you know, a landowner that's trying to figure out what they can and can't do with their property would have no way of knowing what the Land Development Code is today. So, you know, I'm going to support Commissioner LoCastro's motion. I don't know that I'm going to support a moratorium, because I think deciding that the 2016 HEX decision is not something that is applicable other than to that specific property, I think, takes care of the issue and, moving forward, anybody that wanted to do this would have to go through a comparable -use process with a public hearing and all that that involves. But I do think we need to look at that process and make sure that it's going to come back -- I think it's an amendment to the Land Development Code if that happens, and it has to come back to us. Page 249 October 12, 2021 f And I'll -- you know, I'll defer to the County Attorney if he disagrees with me, but I think we have to look at that whole process and how comparable uses and conditional uses work together so that we're not kind of amending the Land Development Code on the fly and creating all sorts of uncertainty. And I -- you know, I feel for the property owner because they went through the process. They got their zoning verification letter, but the reality of it is, from a legal standpoint, I think that we would be violating our own code of ordinances by not -- by treating this as an amendment, essentially, that happened to the Land Development Code. And I just -- I don't think we can do that, so -- and I'm -- I will now take my local government attorney hat off before Mr. Klatzkow throws something at me. But, yeah, I just -- you know, it's a tough situation, but I think that it's the only thing that we can do from the legal basis. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I -- I just want to comment -- respond to something that Commissioner Solis had said. I want to explain why a moratorium, I think, would be important. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we discuss that after we -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We certainly can. I just want to make sure that it's fresh in everybody's mind. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point the moratorium is not part of the motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. I also feel that the zoning of the Celebration Park, food truck park, is only applicable to the Bayshore/Gateway District. I was intimately involved in this process. There is absolutely -- we didn't know what a food truck park Page 250 R I October 12, 2021 was. We didn't know. We never had that experience. The idea that we could take something that we didn't know what it was and move it throughout the county as a permitted use flies in the face of logic. So I support Commissioner LoCastro's motion. Now, we have a motion on the floor, which is a two-part motion, I'm understanding, isn't that correct? First of all, we determined that it is not a permitted use as -- based on this motion before us, and then we have a second motion to deny the Site Development Plan. So we have a first motion, and there's a second on that motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's granting the appeals for the A and B. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That the food truck park is not a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district and upholding the appeals of the property owner. Am I incorrect, or can .you phrase it? MR. KLATZKOW: One way to approach it would be a finding it is not a permitted use; therefore, the first appeal, which is the Site Development Plan, you would affirm that appeal or grant that appeal, and the second appeal you would also grant. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That was the spirit of my motion, that it be both. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we can do it all in one? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Because once -- you're either going to find it's a permitted use or not a permitted use, and that dictates the appeals determinations. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That was the intention. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was his motion was to grant the appeals for A and B. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a Page 251 October 12, 2021 second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. BURHANS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Excuse me. We still have a little bit of our meeting, so certainly you can leave if you so choose. We're not stopping you, but please do it quietly, and thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We still have 8C. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Commissioner Solis, the reason I used the M word there is this is all most likely going to court, and a judge may very well rule that we were wrong in our motions. It's appealable by the other side at this point. And so I want to make sure that over the next couple months while we are -- and we may not need a moratorium. This is a question for the County Attorney. But over the next couple, three months or so we're going to be developing some ordinances to deal with this issue, and I want to make sure we're not stuck in this type of dialogue in the interim. And that's the only reason. If we don't need to do it, that's fine. But that's my thinking. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How do we direct the staff to at least start to begin discussions on LDC amendments and then bring us -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to get three in a second. Page 252 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We'll get to that, okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest, then, if that's where you want to go with this, you would direct staff to develop an LDC amendment with respect to this issue, food trucks. If you wanted to make it a conditional use, you should have staff go in that direction so we're not going back and forth. While that's going on, I would strongly suggest you put a moratorium on this and to tell staff not to accept any applications, because if this turns out to be a permitted use at this point in time, you may have several other applications pending at that point in time that you might be unhappy with. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if I make a motion to do what the County Attorney just said, both the moratorium aspect and to come back with an ordinance and to tell us -- I think a conditional use is probably the way to go, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: Is it the will of the Board that this be a conditional use? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And I spoke with Mr. Bosi, and I think we both agree that a conditional use is the way to go because, quite frankly, there are some neighborhoods that this would be a good idea in a C-3 and some neighborhoods that this would be a terrible idea in C-3. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just -- because I think there -- the issue that's troubling for me is that we're not talking about a food truck park. We're talking about food truck park with a bar. I mean, the bar and the outdoor amplified music and all that is the part that I think -- Page 253 October 12, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- is problematic for the neighbors. You know, if we're just talking about a food truck park where, you know, a landowner has some stalls for food trucks, that's one thing. But it's -- it's tying an outdoor bar, an outdoor amplified music venue to that, I think, is the problem. And so I don't know that there aren't some different, like, degrees of what we're talking about that we need to look at. You know, if there's going to be a bar, then maybe it should be a conditional use. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, Commissioner, the -- what people are finding to be offensive is the noise -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is the noise, right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and I think Mr. Bosi and I could craft something that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- as part of that to address the concern. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what I'm saying. I mean, if it's just going to be a food truck park where there's just food trucks, that's a little different than what we're saying -- what we've seen Celebration Park to be. MR. KLATZKOW: But we know what the business model is now, and the business model is to put a bunch of food trucks apparently owned by the same guy and attract that to a bar with music and a dance stage, and that appears to be the current business model, which I don't think was ever contemplated in the LDC when we were talking about eating establishments. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I still think we've got to take into consideration, though, then, where that location would be, because there are some locations that even a bunch of food trucks with no music and no nothing and just a whole bunch of people going Page 254 October 12, 2021 up to get food could not -- could still be a bad idea. I mean, it's pretty wide open. MR. KLATZKOW: That's why the conditional -use process works -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's why we make it conditional. MR. KLATZKOW: -- which requires four votes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Conditional use. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm lit up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: LDC amendment for food truck parks, moratorium. MR. KLATZKOW: And we'll expedite this since there's a moratorium. We're not going to sit on our hands on this one. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We've got to make a motion -- I have a comment, if I can. I'm lit up there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're done. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Am I done? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm serious. No. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was one of the reasons similar to what Commissioner Solis was talking about that I suggested the applicant consider going back for a comparable -use determination by the HEX, because there may be adjustments to what their propositions are for that development that could be found to be conducive by the neighborhood, and it's not loud and noisy and all of the other things. And if they were to remove -- and that was why I made that suggestion. . I have concerns about moratoriums, largely. I don't think we actually need a moratorium, candidly, because we have just determined for now -- until the Court decides that we were wrong, Commissioner Saunders, but we have just determined that staff can't amend our LDC without it coming through us. So the moratorium Page 255 October 12, 2021 really is duplicitous. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we have several lawyers in the room right now that are talking about how they're going to appeal or what the next process is, so we know that that's going to happen, and a court may very well rule that we were -- we were wrong, and that's why I just suggest that we have a short-term moratorium on food trucks, which I don't even think a food truck park is even defined yet. But we have a short-term moratorium, and maybe we don't need to do that today, but at least I would want the Board to think about it. So if you want to do this in the form of two motions where one motion is direct staff to come back with the LDC amendments -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- utilizing a conditional -use process for these types of activities, then I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The motion on the floor and a second: Direct staff to come back with LDC amendments as discussed. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then let me try to fashion a more narrow moratorium, because I'm just concerned that Page 256 October 12, 2021 we may be seeing this issue come up from some other property owner between now and the next three or four months that it takes to do the LDC amendment. I'm not trying to stop a property owner from having a food truck on their property, a true food truck, not a permanent emplacement with a bar and dance facilities and that sort of thing. So if I can -- perhaps the County Attorney can assist me in this. But I would like to see the Board prohibit applications for those types of facilities that involve food trucks that are somewhat permanently located along with other entertainment activities that go along with it, such as a bar and a dance pavilion -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Amplified music. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and amplified music pending development of an ordinance to regulate those. So that would be my motion. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. So staff would process a pure food truck, just food trucks, but anything that had these accessory uses with alcohol and dancing and music would not be processed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm trying to get to. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. Do you understand, Michael? MR. BOSI: Yes, I believe I do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. BOSI: We have -- I mean, the first motion was make food truck parks a conditional use. Bring back an LDC amendment to make food truck parks a conditional use. The second motion was -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Until you come back to us, there is a moratorium on -- MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- food truck parks that have Page 257 A I October 12, 2021 amplified music, that have alcohol served, and what I heard was semipermanent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Okay. I'll work with the County Attorney, and we will bring something back that meets that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think Commissioner Solis is chomping at the bit over here. I can feel it. I can feel the heat, I think. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I think you had something you wanted to say, and I'm pointing at Mr. Bosi, that -- I mean, as it stands right now, if somebody wants to do a food truck park, they have to go through a comparable -use determination. MR. BOSI: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the applicant here could do that and, frankly, you know, you might win that -- you might get that. . So, you know, my -- because -- I think a moratorium is taking it a little too far, because if the applicant would have gone through the comparable -use determination process and there was a public hearing and it came to the BZA, there might be changes to hours of operation or things that they would have gotten the approval, and we might agree with. So I just think that -- I don't know. I think it's going a little too far. And I don't know, Mike -- and I will say this, if there's litigation pending and we're wrong on the decision we made today, we're wrong on a moratorium, right? I mean, you would agree with that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But we're not -- we're not talking about months. We're talking about until the LDC amendment comes back. MR. KLATZKOW: I can come back at the next meeting with an executive summary that fully flushes this out, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll withdraw the Page 258 October 12, 2021 motion. We'll come back in a couple weeks with some -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'll work with Mr. Bosi, and we'll come back with a motion for the Board to consider. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't think we're going to get caught in the next couple of weeks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, there is a zoning in progress. That's always a nice flag to wave. Thank you. Okay. So are we finished with this item? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did we have 8C? We haven't voted on 8C yet. There was an appeal by the applicant to overturn the other appeals. We have to actually deny that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I make a motion to reject that appeal. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Deny that appeal, and I'll second that. C COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To deny that one, yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just wanted to say something to Mr. Bosi, and I said it in private, but I think it's worth repeating here in public. You weren't the defendant here. We're all on the same team, I mean, your team did -- and even before you, you know, rejoined the county team. Page 259 October 12, 2021 Our county does great work. And this is a very difficult case. There's not a lot of precedent. You know, like I said, if you look at the county ordinances, when it comes to building a house, we've built hundreds and hundreds of thousands of houses, so there's not a lot of question or wiggle room. This one's a lot different. But I think just on behalf of all of us, the work that you and your team have done is commendable. I know at times you probably felt like you were sitting at that podium and you were the defendant, and you weren't. You know, you weren't. So thank you for the work that you all have done to bring this case to the table. You've spent a lot of time with all of us privately to educate us on the process and the decision and so, you know, we thank you for that. MR. BOSI: And I appreciate the comments. And, you know, from myself and Jamie's leadership, we work hard. to try to attend to the needs of the community. We understand not all issues are as black and white. There's a lot of gray in what we do, and we always defer to the wisdom of the Board. But when we hear that you guys appreciate and you support what we do, it does mean a lot to us. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: * I wasn't including Jaime in this, actually. MS. COOK: Wait, wait. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That Jaime. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, that Jaime. Not him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Spoken like a true professional. I find it absolutely remarkable that you were able to deliver what you did today given the fact that you weren't present in the decision -making. MR. BOSI: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it speaks volumes of the caliber of who you are. Thank you. Page 260 October 12, 2021 MR. KLATZKOW: You have a last issue hanging, and Commissioner Solis brought it up. Do you want a clarification that comparable -use determinations are PUD specific rather than countywide? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, the motion was to deny the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes. But what I'm saying is that, do you want -- because I think this really needs to get clarified in your LDC -- that comparable use would be limited to PUDs, which would eliminate your concern that comparable uses might be unknown to other people or what have you. So in other words, it would be like shopping center specific. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think that needs to come back in whatever the LDC amendments are going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what I'm getting at. Would you like to see that come back? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I mean, that should be part of that analysis, I think, yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because this was a straight zoning issue. This wasn't a PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but if you're going to deny that this has countywide implications, what you're saying is that you want comparable use limited to PUDs. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or conditional use. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Limited to PUDs? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or conditional use in PUDs. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. I think the -- when we granted the appeal on 8A and B, we granted -- we agreed with the argument that it had no countywide application. It was property specific, not just limited to PUDs. Page 261 October 12, 2021 MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't think you need to, that's fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, do you think we need it? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We need something that says that it's not just limited to PUDs? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need a clarification on your entire comparable process. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, that will come back in the LDC amendment? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we need to make a motion or just it's enough? Do you have -- do you understand that we are going to -- MR. BOSI: Oh, I understand, because one of the points that I was going to point out is our current comparable -use determination allows for a use to be -- to be broadcast over the entire zoning district, so it would be countywide. So you want that limitation or -- what I also heard was rather than the limitation of -- if it's site specific, because then that's just a conditional use. Instead of the HEX hearing, the comparable -use determination, the BZA would be the body that would review it, which would require a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Put it another way. Mike isn't being crucified today. If we have that rule rather than current rule, it takes pressure off of staff, I would think. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't we take care of it by the direction for conditional use? Don't we pick up -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We make the conditions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but that's for the food truck park. What I'm getting at is relook at the entire comparable -use determination so we don't go through this again. Page 262 3 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On something else. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, that's -- oh, I see what you're saying. Just not -- we're broader now than just food trucks. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I think that's a -- I think that's a good point, yeah. MR. BOSI: And I would suggest that the -- the proposed amendments related to the conditional use for food trucks, we separate that out from the comparable -use action because that's going to take a little bit longer to sort and work with the County Attorney's Office. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they're two separate issues. MR. BOSI: Two separate issues, but I'm hearing -- and that's what I wanted the clarification on. I was impolitely pointing to you, Commissioner. Sorry. .COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yep, I agree. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep, agreed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Do you need a motion to that effect? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think we have got enough support on the Board for that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, do you understand? Are you comfortable with what we just did? MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Item # 15 So let's move on to — STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 263 October 12, 2021 MR. CALLAHAN: That will take us to Item 15 on your agenda, which is staff and commission general communications. Nothing from staff at this time, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The only thing I'd like to say is to congratulate a couple of staff people. I got a letter from a constituent who had asked for some help on a couple of issues, so I just bring to management's attention Camila Perez. And this related to some help they had asked for with their HOA, who was described as an ideal employee, resourceful, helpful, knowledgeable, and kind, and Jack McKenna, who also helped with the lakes and the drainage. So I just wanted to -- a shout -out to them, and also last, but by no means least, Angela Goodner, who's highly commended for being responsive to folks. C So that's all I have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have two quick things. On Saturday I have the honor, for the fourth year in the row, to chair Senator Scott's Air Force Academy selection panel, so I'll go up to USF in Tampa, and myself and four of my board members will interview his 50 finalists for four slots to the Air Force Academy. So I just say that, because if anybody's listening and needs any help with academy selection applications or processes, I'm a little bit of a subject -matter expert. I've helped quite a few Collier County students already. We have a sophomore at the Air Force Academy now who's a Collier County resident, Walker Brunner, and a few others at some other service academies as well, so honored to do that this Saturday. It will be an all -day event. And then, secondly, I chair the Affordable Housing Committee, every one of the chairs in our team, actually, as part of the discussion, Page 264 October 12, 2021 f we had them put together a spreadsheet that I think you -all will find helpful. And I have printouts here, but I think I'm just going to have Iexa send your assistants an electronic version. But it lists all the rental properties in Collier County, how much they cost, the ones that have affordable units. So you'll see there's a bunch in bold, and I'll make sure you get a key with this. But this is a great document to just keep on your desktop or whatnot. And there's lots of other things on here, so I won't belabor it. But a lot of effort was put into this by the staff on the Affordable Housing Committee to give you a good one stop -- you know, one snapshot in case a question comes up, you wonder how many properties actually have affordable units and about what the cost figures are. You can see the ones that are in your district. So if you want a paper copy, it's obviously an eye chart, but I have the electronic version, and I'll make sure that you all get it. It's a C valuable document to have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I wanted to ask you-all's opinion -- and it's just -- it's in the media a lot. The security of our elections. We've people come before us and speak on topics not on this agenda or future and such. I was wondering if we as a board wanted to invite our Supervisor of Elections in to get a brief report on how secure we are or not and just, in fact, what's going on in Collier County just to have a discussion about it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One of the things that -- I think there was a letter written by Dr. Joseph -- and I don't remember. Page 265 October 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Doyle. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Doyle. And I asked the Supervisor of Elections to answer that, and you were all copied on that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I called her as well, because there's more than Dr. Doyle that's made allegations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But there's a process that shows the lack of knowledge of how our elections work. And if we discussed anything, it would be the process. MR. KLATZKOW: I could give you that process because we've got a canvassing board. I know that Commissioner Saunders has recently been on it and -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So have I. MR. KLATZKOW: -- Commissioner Solis has been on it. And that's the entire point of the Canvassing Board is to ensure that the process is fair. And, you know, the entire statutory process you have in Florida, you do have an audit right afterwards. But I can give that to you, or Ms. Edwards can come. Pleasure of the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think I'd like to see -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Generally, I certainly support transparency at all levels and public input on all of those things, but Jennifer Edwards, as we know, does an incredibly good job. She has answered all of those questions concerning audits and all of the issues that could possibly be brought up at a meeting here. So I -- I really don't want to bring her in here, because I can envision this becoming just kind of a nightmare in the sense of people coming in and talking about conspiracy theories and things like that. I just don't think we need to do that. So, obviously, it's the will of the Board, but I just think that that's getting into an area where we just really don't need to. I think she's answered all those questions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have spoken with her myself personally and served on the Canvassing Board and am Page 266 October 12, 2021 satisfied. I just -- I wanted to -- I wanted to have a discussion about it, maybe set aside some of those misinformation pieces and misnomers and the like, and not have a public hearing on it where we're crossing -- you know, allowing or we're crossing -- you know, asking questions, other than us asking questions. It's not -- it's not a place for the -- for an actual vote by the public but just receive a presentation from her about the process and maybe set aside physically some of the misnomers. That was my thought. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it would be helpful, perhaps, if we as a board would ask Supervisor Edwards about the process and about the safeguards for the problems that have been alleged and that we make that written documents available to anybody who is concerned about it. That's what I'd like to do, because I think that bringing Ms. Edwards into this room, we would have a public hearing, and she would -- we would -- ( COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: Not a hearing. A presentation by her. I was fairly clear about that. I don't want it to be pep rally. I would like just to have from her, publicly, talk about the safeguards that we have in place and the protection and the integrity of our elections. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would allow me to, I will contact her office and see what her wish is, either in writing -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I would leave it up to her. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I like the idea of inviting her but not summoning her here. And if she feels like, wow -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to invite. There wasn't a summons in that at all. It was more -- more of, this is how we do -- we all know -- we all know. It's not for us. It's not for us. It's just more of an informational. That was my thought. It was -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll see how she wants to deliver Page 267 October 12, 2021 that information. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's a good approach, if she would like to come. But I will tell you, she's got quite an outreach program herself. So it's not like the public doesn't have access to all the information. It's not like she's not reaching out to the public. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She's been answering these questions nonstop. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She has. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I've spoken with her. And I was actually on the last Canvassing Board. And, you know, she's, my understanding is, spending an inordinate amount of time addressing these issues over and over and over and over again. But if she wants to -- if she's inclined to come and do it again, I'd leave it up to her. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With your permission, I will reach out to her and certainly report _back at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Great. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was all I had. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right, good. Well, three small things. First of all, I'm turning to Commissioner McDaniel who was absolutely stalwart and courageous and stayed with the RPC until it became apparent that they weren't even notifying you of the meetings, but it does seem that the compact that may be formed may need a viable RPC. So if you say -- if you are still concerned about it, I think we have found something for them to do. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I would concur. And, you know, I think -- and thank you for bringing that up, because I was there on Friday for the -- for the compact, the resiliency compact, Page 268 October 12, 2021 and it was quite evident from what I saw that the RPC is a place for that compact to utilize to accomplish the things that could be done for a benefit of everyone. I have concerns with regard -- I've expressed them regularly. I mean, we've stopped our funding to the RPC. The current RPC's not functioning. It's been a long time since we've actually had a meeting where we've been able to attain a quorum let alone conduct any kind of business. So there are some housekeeping issues that I still have on the radar with regard to the RPC. But you're spot on. I spoke to one of my friends today -- today about that, and the RPC can be a mechanism for that compact as it moves through its organization on governance processes to utilize the RPC to effectuate the receipt of the grants and the projects and so on and have a responsible person to take care of the compliance. That's exactly where we're going. We just have to push the buttons on the RPC. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. All right. Very good. Well, I think we're really close to hearing the finalists, correct, or your choice on the sports operators, is that correct, at our next meeting? MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, ma'am. The goal it to get that on the next agenda. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what if we all here -- I mean, it's a $100 million stadium. I think we could hear at least maybe a 10- or 15-minute presentation from the final three; is that an agreement? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Who's picking the final three? Is there a -- do we have -- is it County Manager's staff? MR. CALLAHAN: There was a selection committee that Page 269 October 12, 2021 ranked the seven that came in. There were seven qualified proposals. The decision was made from that selection committee to rank the top three and negotiate best and final offers to bring to the Board. So you'll get those with a staff recommendation, and I think our intent has always been to have all three operators available to discuss their proposals. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'd like a -- I'd like a presentation. It's not unusual. Okay. And then Florida Association of Counties has a 67-county initiative to appoint a commissioner from each county to serve as the county champion for broadband. So don't everybody stand up here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, Commissioner Saunders is our liaison for the Florida Association of Counties. I think he's a viable choice. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just have to get somebody to tell me what broadband is, and I'll be happy to serve in that capacity. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'm going to give you these papers. Thank you very much. You need to register. I've been -- you know, I have not brought that out to anybody, so here you are. Advocacy Access 67. Now the only thing -- my only caveat is please don't suggest we create a road in order to build the broadband. I would appreciate that. Because that was the main thrust of M-CORES. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, it wasn't. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it was. Oh, yes, it was. We spent many meetings on that. But -- is that all I have to say? It is all I have to say. Everyone have a lovely -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's not even 7:00 yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I could talk a little bit more. Thank you very much, everyone, and thank you, Terri. Thank you very Page 270 October 12, 2021 (- much. Meeting's adjourned. ""Commissioner * *Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted**** Item # 16A 1 AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER COUNTY PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND PAINTED LEAF LANE Item # 16A2 RESOLUTION 2021-208: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS, FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VINCENT ACRES REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20190001665 (F/K/A VINCENT ACRES, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150002012), AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item # 16A3 RESOLUTION 2021-209: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF PALAZZO AT NAPLES, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20130002119, ACCEPTANCE OF COUNTY MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL SIDEWALK EASEMENTS (SW.E.) OF PALAZZO AT NAPLES, AND Page 271 October 12, 2021 AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item # 16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ROOKERY BAY — GOODLAND FIELD STATION REPLACEMENT, PL20210002089 Item # 16A5 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF EUCLID ESTATES (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200002589) APPROVAL OF THE C STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY I R i .3[T:T'! RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF SKYSAIL - PHASE ONE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20210000065) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A7 THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB), A PART OF THE SOUTH Page 272 October 12, 2021 FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) Item # 16A8 RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $379562.03 FOR PAYMENT OF $29512.03 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. PETER A. HELFF, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. CEV20120016482 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2080 21 ST ST SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item # 16A9 TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE AGREEMENT NO..17-7200S WITH ETITLE AGENCY, INC. FOR REAL ESTATE TITLE & CLOSING SERVICES Item # 16A 10 SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("RPS") NO. 21-7900, "DESIGN SERVICES FOR STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BCG&CC/CCN AREAS", PROJECT NUMBER 60102 AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP -RANKED FIRM, HOLE MONTES, INC., SO THAT A PROPOSED AGREEMENT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING Item # 16A 11 Page 273 October 12, 2021 AFTER -THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT 1 TO THE TIGER IX — IMMOKALEE COMPLETE STREETS GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONXEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION GRANT AWARD #693JJ32040007 Item # 16A 12 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $290,000 FROM FUND (313) PROJECT 60172 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO FUND (313) PROJECT 60252 — VBR AT LOGAN BLVD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Item # 16A 13 RESOLUTION 2021-210: AN AMENDMENT TO DEPARTMENT FUNDED AGREEMENT (DFA) FM# 437103-1-88-01, WHICH WAS RENEWED BY THE BOARD ON JUKE 225 20215 BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY; TO UNENCUMBER REMAINING UNUSED FUNDS INITIALLY ALLOCATED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,375; TO EXECUTE A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD'S ACTION Item# 16B 1 TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE CONTRACT NO. 17-7208 WITH GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING SERVICES, INC. k Item# 16B2 Page 274 October 12, 2021 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO.2006-60, AS AMENDED, TO EXPAND THE HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BOUNDARIES OF THE UNIT TO INCLUDE TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Item # 16C 1 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH 23-81 LNT, LLC, FOR WAREHOUSE STORAGE SPACE TO BE USED BY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ( Item # 16C2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-7416 FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES LIME SLUDGE POND CLEANING TO ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE RATE DURING THE REMAINING THREE-YEAR RENEWAL TERM OF THE AGREEMENT Item # 16C3 AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN L3 HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES (ASSIGNOR) AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (ASSIGNEE) �- Item #16C4 Page 275 October 12, 2021 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("RPS") NO.21-7904, "CEI SERVICES FOR HAMILTON AVENUE AND DANFORD STREET," TO BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING Item # 16C5 AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX FUND (318) TO FUND THE JAIL BUILDINGS J 1 /J2/J3 & PARKING GARAGE 1 (PG 1) FIRE ALARM REPLACEMENT PROJECT Item # 16C6 REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("RPS") NO.20- 7749, "DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FACILITY DESIGN SERVICES," TO ADG ARCHITECTURE, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $578,508, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO THE SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item # 16D 1 CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN TWO (2) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND (A) DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $261,466.60 AND (B) COLLIER COUNTY Page 276 October 12, 2021 SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $845,2809 FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE GRANT PROGRAM Item # 16D2 THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,315,066 AND NAMI COLLIER COUNTY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1465700 PURSUANT TO THE STATE -MANDATED LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Item #16D3 C THE FY21-22 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,495,900 Item # 16D4 "AFTER -THE -FACT" CONTRACT AMENDMENT, ATTESTATION STATEMENT, AND BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., ALZHEIMER' S DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION, REVISE ATTACHMENT II EXHIBIT 2 FUNDING SUMMARY AND ATTACHMENT IX BUDGET AND RATE SUMMARY AND THE SUPPORTING BUDGET AMENDMENT Page 277 October 12, 2021 Item # 16D TWO (2) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,250 AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET_ AMENDMENT Item #16D6 RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FULL PAYMENT OF $27,907.45 ($22,325.96 PLUS INTEREST), PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLINGS Item # 16D7 CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SUBAWARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH FOR THE BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN JAILS AND COMMUNITY -BASED TREATMENT FOR OPIOID USE DISORDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Item # 16D8 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE RESTORATION OF SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK DOCK #4 AND RECOGNIZE INSURANCE PROCEEDS Page 278 October 12, 2021 Item # 16E 1 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL Item # 16F 1 RECOGNIZING LUCIA MARTIN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION AS THE SEPTEMBER 2021 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH Item # 16F2 FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBAWARD AND GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,650 UNDER THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FIRE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN THE RESPONSE TO THE 36TH AVENUE FIRE IN MAY 2020 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS Item # 16F3 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $17,100 FROM FUND (178) RESERVES TO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S FUND (178) TO COVER PURCHASE ORDERS FOR LAPTOPS AND DESKTOPS THAT DID NOT MAKE IT ON TO PURCHASING' S REQUEST TO CARRY FORWARD LIST Page 279 October 12, 2021 Item # 16F4 RESOLUTION 2021-211: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY21-22 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F5 A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LONG-TERM LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE GOLF AND ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN CCBSG NAPLES, LLC ("BIGSHOTS") AND COLLIER COUNTY TO INCLUDE AN UPDATED EXHIBIT OF THE LEASED AREA FOR THE BIGSHOTS FACILITY, AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT .PROJECT Item # 16F6 — Continued to the October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLIER'S FUTURE ECONOMY, INC. ("PARTNERSHIP") IN CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHED PUBLIC -PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DESIGNED TO ADVANCE THE COUNTY' S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS Item # 16G 1 Page 280 October 12, 2021 ( AWARDING INVITATION TO BID ("ITB") NO. 21-7907, "MARCO TERMINAL PUNCH LIST -GRANT FUNDED," TO O-A-K/FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A OWEN-AMES-KIMBALL COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,885.00, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT Item # 16G2 THE DOCUMENT NECESSARY TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (FP&L) COMPANY OVER PROPERTY OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT Item # 16H 1 C ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1192079629.60 FOR APPROVED OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS INTO FISCAL YEAR 2022 Item # 16H2 RESOLUTION 2021-212: PETITION VAC-PL20210001116, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4523, PAGE 3037 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA �-- Item # 1611 Page 281 I MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Page 282 October 12, 2021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE October 12, 2021 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. DISTRICTS: 1) Immokalee Fire Control District: Fiscal Resolutions, Board Mwting Schedule. District Map, Agent of Record Z) Naples Heritage Community Development District: Meeting Agenda 04/06/2021 Meeting Minutes 04/06/2021 $) North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District: Resolutions 21-017 thru 21-023: Adopting the Final Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes FY21122 for certain service delivery areas in Collier County; District Map; Registered Agent List; Board Meetings Schedule & 5-Year Plan Facilities Report B. OTHER: 0 October 12, 2021 Item # 16J 1 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 AND SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item # 16J2 THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS. OF OCTOBER 6, 2021 Item # 16K 1 RESOLUTION 2021-213 : REAPPOINTING JEFFREY CURL TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE Item # 16K2 RESOLUTION 2021-214: REAPPOINTING PATRICIA SPENCER AND FLORENCE (DUSTY) HOLMES TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item # 16K3 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED PAULA YOANYS ALPIZAR GOMEZ Page 283 October 12, 2021 (V. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, (CASE NO. 19-CA-3709), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $65,000 Item # 16K4 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $330,000 PLUS $55,358.75 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND EXPERT FEES AND COSTS, FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 215FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT, PROJECT NO., 60168, AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO PROCESS PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATUTORY ATTORNEY' S FEES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, AS AUTHORIZED BY CH. 73, FLA. STAT. . Item # 16K5 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 PLUS $15,820 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND EXPERTS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 239FEE9 REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168 Item # 16K6 OVERVIEW OF AGENDA ITEM 7, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA Page 284 Exhibit F 55 `pXpER CpUNT} � O e 0 O A/ ); Connect &'Dtirorer Section 2 Parks & Recreation Inventory The residents of and visitors to Collier County are afforded a significant selection of recreation facilities and amenities through parks, water access points, and conservation land owned and maintained by various public agencies. This section summarizes the inventory of County -owned and maintained parks and recreation facilities and conservation sites and others within the county that are owned or maintained by other agencies. Regional and Community Parks The Collier County Parks & Recreation Division oversees 69 neighborhood, community, and regional parks serving active and passive recreation needs totaling 1,772 acres, as summarized in Table 2-1. Collier County also has interlocal agreements with the Collier County School Board to allow for public use of facilities at several schools for recreational purposes during non -school hours. Table 2-1: Parks Inventory Summary by Park Type Park Type Neighborhood No. 15 Acreage 29.35 Community 26 594.74 Regional 28 1,148.28 Total 69 1,772.37 Note: Inventoryshown does not include 50-acre Naples Zoo or park acreage associated with City of Naples or City of Marco Island parks. Source: Collier County Parks & Recreation Division Table 2-2 documents the type and location of each park and the various active and passive amenities and facilities located at each. Through its parks system, Collier County provides: • 26 community/recreation centers, fitness centers/gyms, older adult centers, and other facilities • 50 water access points, including fishing piers/docks, boat ramps, etc. • 69 sports fields for baseball, softball, soccer, football, and other sports • 167 sports courts for pickleball, basketball, racquetball, tennis, and other sports • 6 aquatic facilities (splash parks, swimming pools, Sun N Fun Lagoon water park), including new East Naples swimming pool opening summer 2018 • Other various facilities such as a rink, a BMX track, two skate facilities, trails, picnic pavilions, playgrounds, etc. Collier County I Parks & Recreation Master Plan 4 U w ��S \ 1. b\, 0 c O V o •� �' fY W J � � O 4 O 2: Y Y O O Y O aT+ +T+ - - +T+ aT+ aA _ aT' C C m C m L C m C m C m (a c C m C m C m C m C O L m O C L C m C m L C C C E E E E E °� E E E E E 'pn E E O o 'CO w E E L E E E w E E E E E a L w 9 L E E �° L w w w Cr O O o O O LL' O O O O O bD 0 dD O o ar of cr U u w U U U u U u u U w CL w u u w Z Z N z Z C O O O t LL v =� C V Y Y m T VwNI V Z ° a w w° u ` LLmYvw 'E o E o ai m O C X fn N Ln _0 -0 U d V J "' E E Eofo E wa Co wv3Ta �° w v ° ai oo cry m w ° O u O a o ° ai o f6 a ;�w 0 LL u o -O v O > C o u E U C w -o a > w ti fD M O .ti N M V N 1` co O) O '-1 N M V fn to ti co Ol V N Ln LO N fn N N N Ln N fD lD W LO lD lD O LO LO LO 0 0 Y_ Y Y_ Y_ Y_ Y O O 'C +T+ :t t C C C C C f0 C C m C C C m C m C m C m C m c m C m L c m c c C O O 'W O •b O 'W ) 'W O 'b O 'bD E O O '� E E E E E E E O O O O o O W a) ai w a) w w a) E b w ai E E E E E E E L atiDi a°Di a°Ai aDD) L LL' Cr of d' M M cr o cr d' O O O O O O O 'a) K of of M O.0 'N U u U U U U u u z Z Y Y n fa a � N Y w N d Y f0 i w O >+ = d 00 u al Y V Y fa U d fa LL O '-' LL T L u E f6 L U Q f6 Y LL aT+ p (a C w Y L V C m -° C �' C O L m LL' a- Y U d Y C w L 16 U Y bD CCfa fa da_ LLwC a) m L O > mw a '—O' y d L EE X v L.of m Yw o) mm 3 ai Un �°E 'O a) m w U w LwL o .D C m X ° dE M m a+ a U OU .n+ w > bLO 0 Q LLfa UO 0NU m H O u C w a Z °Cj N "O -0 �0 Dj C7 O N E O z o o LD a o F Q) t6 o _ z N N N N N N M M M M M M M M MM M V U 'O 'O _0 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O y YO O O O O O O o o O O _ +> O O O O O O O o O O _0 _0 R CC L L O E E E E E E E E 0 0 •m w E E E E E E E E L L L L L L L L L L w L w w cr O O O O O O o O LIDM 'w � ' 'tip 110 ' 'a) ' .Op 0p ' ar by ' war U u u u u u u U N w a) N a) a) w w a) z Z z Z Z Z Z z z z z Y Y >� Y Y fa Y aiY Y Y N °O m O Y Y C Y n. a- To. m o- f0 fa _0 O fa d Y _O L LL Y .1 O N a T°-0 , °o o ao w ut _ Cm Cm E _ Cm u C -E L o O -E Lap o -E L Vo'EC- 16 Y M -E 0 .O w O u N L ° E E o E o E E E t z y a° m s z m s f°n a fua a00i o o � o fl o E E O ,aw w a L w ,no o Q w v (u fa c0 a) mw N v LL o L w m Of U U L u N u O LL hD 'a) N n. fa LL z w m 3 a - fn fn w w T u N Z U Z U z O 0 h Do — > m ,C a p w 00 w 'o Y N d N N N m C t6 U yJ C f Y ° C fa C ° O m Co M J m Z Y O Y C Y f0 w J 7 w L E fA E C E E +-' o @ En E U w c C o O 0 m C E V) u W u m a w a w X E — E — v LL > j° u a v z E o— Y Q o as a° E m N 1 M -4 V' H N 1-1 fD e-1 N .-1 fX) .-1 fT .-i O N -4 N N N M N 0 Exhibit G 55 2022 Collier County Park Land Inventory Commissioner District District Location Type Acreage Community Park Acres Neighborhood Park Acres Regional Park Acres Regional Park Pathway Acres Concervation Preserve Acres 1 Central Naples Rock Harbor Parcels Neighborhood 0.10 0.10 4 Central Naples Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park Preserve 11.60 11.60 4 Central Naples Gordon River Greenway Preserve 50.51 50.51 4 Central Naples Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park Regional 25.16 25.16 4 Central Naples Gordon River Greenway Park Regional 79.00 79.00 4 Central Naples Naples Zoo Regional 50.00 50.00 1 East Naples Cindy Mysels CP Community 5.00 5.00 4 East Naples East Naples CP Community 47.00 47.00 1 East Naples Naples Manor NP Neighborhood 0.30 0.30 1 East Naples Shell Island Preserve Preserve 111.88 111.88 4 East Naples Bay Street Land Parcels Regional 1.34 1.34 4 East Naples Bayview Park Regional 6.27 6.27 4 East Naples Sugden RP Regional 120.00 120.00 3 Golden Gate Golden Gate Community Center Community 21.00 21.00 3 Golden Gate Golden Gate CP Community 35.00 35.00 3 Golden Gate Golden Gate Greenway / Pathway Community 3.00 3.00 3 Golden Gate Aaron Lutz NP Neighborhood 3.20 3.20 3 Golden Gate Palm Springs NP Neighborhood 6.70 6.70 3 Golden Gate Rita Eaton NP Neighborhood 4.80 4.80 4 Golden Gate Coconut Circle NP Neighborhood 1.20 1.20 3 Golden Gate Paradise Coast Sports Park Regional 195.98 195.98 3 Golden Gate Golden Gate Golf Course Regional 167.00 167.00 5 Immokalee Airport Park Community 19.00 19.00 5 Immokalee Eden Park Elementary Community 2.80 2.80 5 Immokalee Immokalee CP Community 23.00 23.00 5 Immokalee Immokalee High School Community 1.00 1.00 5 Immokalee Immokalee South Park Community 3.45 3.45 5 Immokalee Immokalee Sports Complex Community 14.00 14.00 5 Immokalee Tony Rosbou h CP Community 7.00 7.00 5 Immokalee Dreamland NP - *school fenced in area Neighborhood 0.50 0.50 5 Immokalee Oil Well Park Neighborhood 5.50 5.50 5 Immokalee Caracara Prairie Preserve Preserve 367.70 367.70 5 Immokalee Panther Walk Preserve Preserve 10.69 10.69 5 Immokalee Pepper Ranch Preserve Preserve 2,511.90 2,511.90 5 Immokalee Ann Oleski Park Regional 2.30 2.30 5 Immokalee Pepper Ranch Regional 50.00 50.00 1 Marco Isle of Capri Land Parcel Neighborhood 0.11 0.11 1 Marco Isles of Capri NP Neighborhood 0.35 0.35 1 Marco Mcllvane Marsh Preserve 380.89 380.89 1 Marco Otter Mound Preserve Preserve 2.45 2.45 1 Marco 951 Boat Ramp Regional 0.50 0.50 1 Marco Caxambas Park Regional 4.20 4.20 1 Marco Goodland Boating Park Regional 5.00 5.00 1 Marco Isles of Capri Paddlecraft Park Regional 9.00 9.00 1 Marco Mar Good Harbor Park Regional 2.50 2.50 1 Marco South Marco Beach Access Regional 5.00 5.00 1 Marco Ti ertail Beach Park Regional 31.60 31.60 2 North Naples Naples Park Elementary Community 5.00 5.00 2 North Naples Osceola Elementary Community 3.20 3.20 2 North Naples Pelican Bay CP Community 15.00 15.00 2 North Naples Veterans CP Community 43.64 43.64 2 North Naples Veterans Memorial Elementary Community 4.00 4.00 3 North Naples Vineyards CP Community 35.50 35.50 2 North Naples North Naples NP (Best Friends --surplus) Neighborhood 0.36 0.36 2 North Naples Palm River NP Neighborhood 3.00 3.00 2 1 North Naples Willoughby Park Neighborhood 1.20 1.20 3 North Naples Oakes NP Neighborhood 2.00 2.00 4 North Naples jPoinciana NP lNeighborhood 1 0.30 1 1 0.30 2022 Collier County Park Land Inventory Commissioner District District Location Type Acreage Community Park Acres Neighborhood Park Acres Regional Park Acres Regional Park Pathway Acres Concervation Preserve Acres 2 North Naples Cochatchee Creek Preserve Preserve 3.64 3.64 2 North Naples Railhead Scrub Preserve Preserve 135.36 135.36 2 North Naples Wet Woods Preserve Preserve 26.77 26.77 3 North Naples Alli ator Flaci Preserve Preserve 18.46 18.46 3 North Naples Logan Woods Preserve Preserve 6.78 6.78 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach Access Regional 5.00 5.00 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach Preserve Regional 159.60 159.60 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach State Land Regional 186.00 186.00 2 North Naples Clam Pass Park Regional 35.00 35.00 2 North Naples Cocohatchee River Park Regional 7.56 7.56 2 North Naples Conner Park Regional 5.00 5.00 2 North Naples North Collier RP Regional 207.70 207.70 2 North Naples Vanderbilt Beach Regional 5.00 5.00 2 North Naples Vanderbilt Beach Access 7 locations Regional 0.45 0.45 4 North Naples North Gulfshore Beach Access Regional 0.50 0.50 1 South Naples Eagle Lakes CP Community 32.00 32.00 1 South Naples Manatee CP Community 60.00 60.00 1 South Naples Panther NP Neighborhood 0.50 0.50 1 South Naples Port of The Islands Regional 5.55 5.55 5 Urban Estates Corkscrew Elementary/Middle Community 16.90 16.90 5 Urban Estates Max A Hasse CP Community 20.00 20.00 5 Urban Estates Palmetto Elementary Community 2.00 2.00 5 Urban Estates Sabal Palm Elementary Community 9.50 9.50 5 Urban Estates Vanderbilt Extension CP Community 125.10 125.10 5 Urban Estates Livingston Woods NP (surplus) Neighborhood 2.73 2.73 5 Urban Estates Camp Keais Strand Preserve 32.50 32.50 5 Urban Estates Dr Robert H. Gore III Preserve 171.21 171.21 5 Urban Estates Nancy Payton Preserve Preserve 71.00 71.00 5 Urban Estates Red Maple Swamp Preserve Preserve 216.38 216.38 5 Urban Estates Redroot Preserve Preserve 9.26 9.26 5 Urban Estates Rivers Road Preserve Preserve 76.74 76.74 5 Urban Estates Winchester Head Preserve Preserve 93.56 93.56 1 Urban Estates Rich King Greenway - (FPL) Regional 37.50 37.50 5 Urban Estates Big Corkscrew Island RP Regional 62.00 62.00 5 Urban Estates Big Corkscrew Island RP - Lake Regional 90.00 90.00 Total Collier Units 6,456.93 553.09 1 32.85 1,524.21 37.50 4,309.28 Regional Parks and Pathways i 1,561.71 Totals Community Park Acres NeighborhoodPark Acres Regional ar Acres Value per Unit $119,947 $504,450 Total Value $66,341,486 $787,804,610 Concervation Preserve Acres 112 Exhibit it H 55 BOGGS Plant S. Alexander Street Plant City, FL 33563 (813)747-9100 ENGINEERING, LLC boggseng.com ANALYSIS & PROFESSIONAL PLANNING OPINION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION # INTP-PL 2023-0010644 LAKEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. Collier County, FL This report is a professional planning analysis and opinion in support of the Appeal by Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. of the Official Interpretation INTP-PL 2023-0010644. The Appeal respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in its capacity as Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), set aside the Official Interpretation by the Planning Director. The Request for Official Interpretation (ROI) sought clarification of "what type of facility qualifies as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. That is, what use or uses constitute a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" ("NFCC"). Said use is regulated as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course, Recreation, and Open Space (GC) zoning district per the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The Official Interpretation by Mike Bosi, AICP, Collier County Planning and Zoning Director states: In conclusion, I find that Conditional Use No. 7 in the Golf Course Zoning District, "neighborhood fitness and community center," is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community." This report provides substantial and competent evidence that refutes the Official Interpretation and supports the request for Appeal. In particular, I find that: ■ The staff's conclusion merely rearranges the words in the question asked in the ROI ■ The staff conjectures that because some of the other GC District uses may be national and/or regional attractors, therefore the Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center can be a regional attractor ■ The Official Interpretation does not provide any definitions, features, facilities, characteristics of use or relevant examples of types of activities that comprise a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center use, as requested in the ROI ■ A review of the other Conditional Uses in the GC district is irrelevant and does not shed any light what constitutes a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center ■ The Official Interpretation misconstrues the questions about "neighborhood" which are intended to identify the appropriate location of a NFCC use rather than its Market Area. ■ The staff's reliance on Market Area is faulty and irrelevant for non-commercial uses such as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; the CG District does not list commercial uses except for a "snack shop" which is only a support use within Accessory Use #2. • The Golden Gate Community Center is not a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. The staff's example is irrelevant to Conditional Use #7 for two reasons: 1) Golden Gate is a County public park and facility and 2) would be classified as Conditional Use #8, Parks and playgrounds, in the GC district. BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. September 18, 2023 Page 2 of 6 • Mr. Bosi's reference to "various neighborhoods" implies that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center could serve any neighborhood in the County, even if it does not serve the neighborhood in which it is located. This is not supported bythe Growth Management Plan, professional planning standards or definitions. Additional analysis and findings to support my opinion are provided on the following pages. ANALYSIS As noted, the Request for Official Interpretation (ROI) asks "what type of facility qualifies as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" and focused on three issues. This report is formatted to follow those three issues. 1. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area i.e. the term "neighborhood" in the context of the CU of a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. Neighborhood and Community Definitions As noted elsewhere in the Appeal documents, both The Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus (2d ed 2009) and Black's Law Dictionary, 10t" Edition, define neighborhood as geographic areas. Oxford contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city; the area surrounding a particular place, person or object. Black's defines "neighborhood" as "the immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place." This is the most relevant definition to the proper interpretation of the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" use that appears as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course zoning district. In addition, there are numerous nationally -recognized publications that provide definitions for neighborhoods and community -level areas or services. These support the concept that neighborhoods are geographically limited and identifiable. NEIGHBORHOOD. An area of a community with characteristics that distinguish it from other areas and that may include distinct ethnic or economic characteristics, housing types, schools or boundaries defined by physical barriers, such as major highways and railroads, or natural features, such as water bodies or topography. (Source: The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, New Expanded Edition; Harvey S. Moskowitz & Carl G. Lindbloom; Routledge Publications; 2017) BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. September 18, 2023 Page 3 of 6 NEIGHBORHOOD. A neighborhood is an area where people live and interact with one another. (Source: National Geographic Education) COMMUNITY CENTER. A facility used for recreational, social, educational and cultural activities. (Source: The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions) COMMUNITY FACILITY. A building or structure owned and operated by a governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public. (Source: The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions). COMMUNITY. A community is defined as, "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." (Neighborhood Units Matter, Howard Blackson, 2013). NEIGHBORHOOD. The neighborhood is a physical place — varied in intensity from more rural to more urban — that many different communities inhabit (Neighborhood Units Matter, Howard Blackson, 2013). In his publication, "The 5 Cs of Neighborhood Planning," Howard Blackson observes that "The source of most conflicts and confusion I see occurring during these [comprehensive plan or code] updates is due to the confusion over the scale and size difference of a 'Community' versus a 'Neighborhood' unit." In my analysis of the body of definitions from this variety of resources, a "neighborhood" is tied to an area or geography where the word "community" is not necessarily defined in geographic terms. A neighborhood is a subset of a community. As applied to the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" use, the word "neighborhood" modifies and limits the term "community center." To that end in the Lakewood context, a development project is a Neighborhood Fitness or Community Center use only if it serves the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. Consistent with the above, per the Black's Law Dictionary definition of neighborhood to mean "the immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place." , in the Lakewood context an NFCC may only serve the vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place, i.e. Lakewood. SIC and ITE Definitions As noted above, the Official Interpretation and the Land Development Code itself confuse the term Community Center— referring to it as a use rather than a building. A Community Center is a building housing a variety of uses — and therefore, the breadth of activities within a Community Center informs the definition of that particular use at that location. "Neighborhood" is the modifier that should be used to adjust the scale for locations surrounding residential areas. BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. September 18, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Growth Management Plan Support Despite the fact that neither the Growth Management Plan (GMP) nor the Land Development Code (LDC) contain definitions for neighborhood or community scale facilities or services, there are several indications of intent in those adopted documents. For example, the LDC indicates that a neighborhood park should serve "the population of a neighborhood and is generally accessible by bicycle or pedestrian ways." This is further supported by Goal 2 of the Recreation & Open Space Element which differentiates neighborhood parks "with pedestrian pathways and bike lanes" from community and regional parks that are "larger parks and recreational facilities as well as passive open space within a 15-20-minute drive..." The Growth Management Plan contains additional information to support the concept that neighborhoods are geographic in nature: ■ Based upon Table 2.2 in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, the County's neighborhood parks do not include fitness centers ■ The term "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" conflates the zoning use (fitness) with a generic building term (community center) These GMP policies further support the assertion of the Appeal that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is intended to serve a narrow geographic area such as the Lakewood neighborhoods, and is contrary to the Official Interpretation. 2. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 ft of the property lines of the subject property where the NFCC is located. The staff's interpretation that a limited geographic area does not apply to a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center is faulty because of the plain English and professional definitions shown above. My analysis shows that the term neighborhood refers to the location of the use — in a neighborhood, meaning in the midst of residential uses. Although the "Neighborhood" Information Meeting notice area of 500 ft or 1,000 ft may be too small, the point is that the location of any Conditional Use in a residential area has direct impacts on those residents. The County acknowledges that those within a 500 ft or 1,000 ft distance are the immediate neighborhood in which the use/project/development is located. Mr. Bosi asserts that the NFCC use doesn't have to serve the Lakewood neighborhood but can serve "various neighborhoods" within the region. If that statement were true, then all uses in GC District would contain the word "regional" and the use at issue should really be called a BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. September 18, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Regional Neighborhood and Community Center. Acknowledging that a 500 ft or 1,000 ft area may be too small — the Official Interpretation is not consistent with the plain English of the terms "neighborhood" or "community." 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood" such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. The staff's interpretation implies that a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" does not have to serve the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the larger Lakewood community. The Official Interpretation conclusion states the NFCC "serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community." This implies that such a project can serve other areas of the County — but not serve Lakewood residents. On the contrary, I conclude a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is intended to serve the neighborhood in which it is located. A development project is a "Neighborhood Fitness or Community Center" use only if it serves the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. That does not necessarily mean its service area must be exclusive to Lakewood but it must primarily serve the Lakewood neighborhoods. Market Area The staff has misunderstood the ROI question and the relevance of the word "neighborhood" in this case. The term "neighborhood" identifies the location in a neighborhood, a key fact that is ignored in the Official Interpretation. The term "neighborhood" does not refer to the market area of a fitness and community center and we agree with Mr. Bosi's conclusion that "market area is not a factor within the intent of the Golf Course Zoning District" In the Official Interpretation, however, he focuses most of the discussion on the market areas of various Permitted, Conditional and one Accessory Use. No other analysis is conducted. A Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is not generally considered a commercial use and therefore, the focus on Market Area, is not relevant. Further, the staff's analysis of market area for other Permitted or Conditional Uses is irrelevant; it is true that some uses such as golf courses and museums may be regional attractors, however, that has no bearing on the interpretation of the NFCC use. Finally, there is nothing in the Growth Management Plan nor the GC District Intent Statement that suggest or dictate a market area for the GC uses. BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. September 18, 2023 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION After analysis of the County's documents and other professional planning, recreation and traffic resources, it is my opinion that a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" must be focused on the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods, which in the context of Lakewood would be the Lakewood neighborhoods. If a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center is proposed for development within a residential neighborhood, it must be limited to primarily or exclusively serving that neighborhood. When reviewed in context of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Land Development Code (LDC), I would interpret the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" similar to the former Lakewood Clubhouse. Many planned communities have community centers within their boundaries. They typically have a swimming pool, card rooms, art rooms, meeting rooms and the like. They may or may not include a fitness center, pro shop or cafe'. They may or may not be open to non-residents. They may or may not be zoned PUD. What they do have in common, however, is that those uses are located in and for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhoods with which they were planned. In my professional opinion, a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" which is listed as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code, is comprised of what is generically termed a "community center," and includes a combination of the uses listed in the paragraph above, and primarily or exclusively serves its surrounding neighborhoods. PREPARED BY: Susan Swift, AICP September 18, 2023 23108_SS_9.18.23 REV BBE — Boggs Engineering, LLC Providing Civil and Site Engineering Services Since 2004 Consulting Services Zoning & Planning Services Permitting Services Stormwater Design Utility Systems Design Roadway Design Exhibit "I " DBOGGSEIN SUSAN SWIFT, AICP Director of Planning PROFILE Susan Swift has more than four decades of experience in planning, zoning, transportation, and site development in Florida, Virginia, and Maryland. She has public and private sector experience and has won several awards for innovative projects. Ms. Swift served as Planning Director for the municipalities of Tampa and Pinellas Park, FL, Rockville, MD, and Leesburg, VA, all of which benefitted from her focus on transforming the development review and permitting procedures and updating their plans and codes. In addition, she has represented developers of commercial and residential projects in land use and zoning entitlement applications, due diligence and development potential analyses. Ms. Swift is known as a change agent and innovator. She has testified before and collaborated with policymakers in three states to improve transportation, affordable housing ordinances, comprehensive planning, and growth management tools. Her public speaking experience is extensive, including national and state conferences, university guest lecturer and facilitator. As an expert planner, she has represented numerous public sector clients in eminent domain activities including land planning reports and analyses, and expert testimony in mediations and litigation support phases. These include the Florida Department of Transportation, Tampa Bay Water and several cities and counties. As a public sector Planning Director, she has testified in numerous court cases involving illegal zoning uses, setback violations, sign code violations, adult uses and historic buildings. QUALIFICATIONS Bachelor of Arts in Geography, University of Florida. Masters of Science in Urban & Regional Planning, Florida State University AICP # 12548, July 1996 WORK EXPERIENCE BBE-Boggs Engineering LLC Director of Planning, April 2022 to present • Land Planning, appraisal support and litigation support for FDOT Districts 1 & 7, Manatee County, Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Boggs Engineering, LLC 607 S. Alexander St., Plant City, FL 33563 www.boggseng.com DBOGGSEzN Rezoning, land use plan amendments, due diligence and development potential reports for real estate transactions and commercial and residential development in numerous west coast jurisdictions Colliers Engineering & Design (formerly Maser Consulting P.A.) Geographic Discipline Leader — Planning Services, May 2019 to April 2022 • Continuing Services contracts for local government clients (Hillsborough County, Hillsborough City County Planning Commission and City of Lakeland) • Entitlement and due diligence projects for real estate transactions and commercial and residential development in multiple west coast jurisdictions • Expert witness and appraisal support for eminent domain cases for FDOT and local governments • Recent projects include: Cortez Bridge (3 parcels for FDOT District 1), 1-75/Bee Ridge Road (12 parcels for District 1), Hillsborough County (3 parcels for water pipeline), Hillsborough County (library site). Suburban Maryland Transportation Alliance (SMTA) Executive Director, July 2017 to May 2019 Served as first Executive Director for a 501(c)4 whose mission was to educate and advocate for roadway and transit improvements in Maryland. Responsibilities included public speaking at various levels of government and in the community, media relations, policy and program development, events, fundraising and operations. Swift & Golden Principal, May 2017 to May 2019 • "Making Communities More Human" by assisting clients with advocacy, transportation policy issues, due diligence and permitting, and association management, public engagement and media relations. City of Rockville, Maryland Director, Community Planning and Development Services Department, April 2008 to April 2017 • Responsible for a staff of 42 including planning, zoning, housing, and permitting. • Advisor to the Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, Board of Appeals, Historic District Commission, and Sign Review Board. • Managed complete revision of City's building and "green building" codes. • Implementation of new Zoning Ordinance including training, procedures manuals, technology changes, and public information. • Supervision of Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit program. • Oversight of Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan and the Historic Building Catalog. Boggs Engineering, LLC 607 S. Alexander St., Plant City, FL 33563 www.boggseng.com DBOGGSEzN • Supervision of Rockville Pike Plan which includes a form -based code and redesign to a multi -modal boulevard cross-section. • Multiple zoning ordinance revisions for mixed use, sign updates and process improvements. • Reorganized permitting and inspections staff to enable cross -training, coordination and significant efficiencies. Town of Leesburg, Virginia Director, Planning, Zoning and Development Department, July 2002 to April 2008 • Responsible for a staff of 23 including comprehensive planning, zoning, plan review, historic preservation and the town arborist. • Staff support for Town Council and five Commissions including Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Board of Architectural Review, Environmental Advisory Commission and the Tree Commission. • Produced "State of the Department" report and Strategic Plan • Initiated major changes and tools to streamline site plan review, cutting processing time in half and improving consistency. • Revision of the Town Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Codes for a town with 96% growth. • Revision of historic district guidelines, sign guidelines and archeological surveys for Civil War sites. • Project manager for the Town's first redevelopment plan, the Crescent District Plan and a form -based zoning district for the area. • Led effort for the Town to develop its own transportation and fiscal models. HDR, Inc. Senior Planner and promotion to Florida Planning Manager, 1999 to 2002 • Brandon Main Street Master Plan: Implementation and Financing Strategy and development regulations; Eloise Redevelopment Plan, Historic Palm Harbor Downtown Master Plan and zoning code, community participation for the Reservoir Recreation Plan and the Hillsborough County Brownfield Task Force • Due diligence reports for various private sector clients. • Expert witness services for mediation and litigation of 80 parcels for various government condemning authorities including FDOT and Tampa Bay Water. Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. (now Cardno/Stantec) Director of Community Development, 1995 to 1999 • Responsible for marketing and managing projects for various public agencies, expert testimony for eminent domain activities, due diligence reports, zoning and site plan approvals, redevelopment plans and grant applications. • Polk County Land Development Code, St. Petersburg Enterprise Park brownfield master plan and grant application, Manatee County Airport Development of Regional Impact (DRI). • Expert witness, acquisition and litigation support for Orange County and 100 parcels throughout Florida DOT Districts 1,3 and 7. Boggs Engineering, LLC 607 S. Alexander St., Plant City, FL 33563 www.boggseng.com City of Tampa, Florida DBOGGSiN Deputy Director, Department of Housing & Development Coordination, 1993 to 1995 • Responsible for staff of 190 including Land Development, Real Estate and Code Enforcement Divisions, Community Redevelopment Agency, and the Construction Services Center. Major accomplishments included: creating and operating the new one -stop Construction Services Center, streamlining residential building permit and commercial site plan review procedures, implementing the Inspection Hotline. Co-authored Channel District regulations and design guidelines for a warehouse district redeveloping into a mixed use and tourist area; co-authored the Neighborhood Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; project manager for the Central Business District Plan which first outlined the Tampa Riverwalk. City of Tampa, Florida Manager, Land Development Coordination Division, 1984 to 1993 • Responsible for a staff of 20 including zoning, right-of-way, subdivision and Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's). • Supervising development reviews and staff reports for 50 cases, monthly. • Writing and administering all land development regulations, subdivision, historic preservation and design guidelines; city-wide rezoning of 120,000 parcels; reviewing and negotiating more than 35 Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) including Florida's first downtown and first area -wide DRI's. • Author of three award -winning zoning regulations for Ybor City, Channel District and the Tampa Quality Development District; Chair of the land use subcommittee of the MacDill Air Force Base Reuse Committee; project manager for Concurrency System and innovative airport zoning districts. HONORS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROFESSION • Appointed by Mayor Castor to the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission. • Appointed by Maryland Governor to Transportation Advisory Committee. • Author of 2011 APA QuickNotes "Getting the Most Out of Staff Reports". • Contributing Columnist to FAPA Magazine & Member of Editorial Board. • HDR Employee Recognition Award and Marketing Team Award. • National Awards Juror for the American Planning Association. • Awarded three Suncoast APA awards for innovative zoning for the Ybor City, Tampa Quality Development and Channel Districts and Brandon Main Street Plan. • Guest lecturer, Ball State University, The Catholic University & University of Maryland, College of Architecture and Planning. • 15-year member of the Site Visit Team for the Planning Accreditation Board. • Appointed to various statewide committees including the editorial committee for the Florida Model Land Development Code publication. • Testified before and lobbied Florida, Maryland and Virginia legislatures on issues including transportation, affordable housing ordinances, comprehensive planning, Developments of Regional Impact and adequate public facilities ordinances. Boggs Engineering, LLC 607 S. Alexander St., Plant City, FL 33563 www.boggseng.com EST. 1971 MARK J. WOODWARD Board Certified: Real Estate Law and in Condominium & Planned Development Law ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. Board Certified: City, County, and Local Government Law J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMORA Licensed in FL and OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R. WOODWARD Senior Counsel Board Certified: Real Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W.LOMBARDO Board Certified: City, County, and Local Government Law CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FL and NY F. SCOTT PAUZAR, III REPLY TO: Q 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD. PIRES & LOMBARDO. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 16, 2024 By email Board of County Commissioners Collier County Florida Rick.LoCastro@CollierCountyFL.gov; Chris. hall@colliercountyfl.gov; Burt.Saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; Dan.kowal@colliercountyfl.gov; Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: PL20230014863 I APPEAL OF INTP-PL20230010644; BZA Hearing date, February 27, 2024 Commissioners, This firm represents Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood"). Lakewood is appealing INTP-PI20230010644, the interpretation by the Collier County Planning and Zoning Director (Director) of the conditional use "neighborhood community center", which renders the word "neighborhood" meaningless. Lakewood asks the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) under section 1.06.01.D.6.c., of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to reject the official interpretation INTP-PL20230010644 (OI) of the Director dated August 18, 2023, and hold that the word "neighborhood" matters and has meaning, acting as a limitation.' The Request for Interpretation, OI, and this Appeal are not site specific. All properties zoned GC are affected. All residential properties adjacent to or nearby properties zoned GC are also affected. Due to the large number of properties and residents impacted, we respectfully request a time certain. This Appeal was initiated on September 18, 2023 by the timely filing of the Appeal Form and Application, along with supporting narrative, documents and exhibits (the "Appeal Packet"). It is requested that this submittal, the entire Appeal Packet, and the materials from BCC Agenda Item #16.K.6 on October 24, 2023, be included in the Agenda Book for the BZA hearing on February 27, 2024, as part of the record of the Appeal. ROLE OF THE BCC SITTING AS THE BZA In this appeal: "The Board of Zoning Appeals... shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall consider the interpretation of the County Manager or designee... and public testimony in light of the growth management plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code related matters, whichever is applicable. The Board of Zoning Appeals... shall adopt the County Manager or designee's... with or without modifications or conditions, or reject their interpretation. The Board of Zoning Appeals... shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's... unless such board finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the official interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the future land use map, the LDC or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable." § 1.06.01.D.6.c., LDC. THE BZA SHOULD SET REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE OI From the entirety of the Appeal Packet, and evidence to be adduced at the BZA hearing, the BZA should reject the Director's determination. The Director's determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence and, to the contrary, substantial competent evidence will show it is contrary to the LDC and the GMP. In addition to the materials and documents in the Appeal Packet noted above, enclosed with this cover letter is: • The Supplemental Planning Opinion of Susan Swift, AICP; and • The previously submitted Narrative Submittal in Support of Appeal without exhibits. Based on the above, as well as the testimony, evidence, and argument to be entered into the record at the hearing, Lakewood asks that you reject the interpretation of the Director and hold the word "neighborhood" has meaning, and specifically that: 1. The Director's determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence. 2. The Director's determination is contrary to the LDC and GMP. Page 2 of 3 3. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area i.e. the term "neighborhood" in the context of the CU of a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. 4. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 ft of the property lines of the subject property where the NFCC is located. 5. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood" such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. Lakewood reserves the right to supplement this submittal with additional arguments and additional materials. If any additional information would be helpful, please let us know. Sincerely, Is/Anthony P. Pires, Jr. Anthony P. Pires, Jr. Enclosures as indicated. Copies to County Attorney J. Klatzkow, Esq.; County Manager A. Patterson; County Planning and Zoning Director M. Bosi. Page 3 of 3 BOGGS Plant S. Alexander Street Plant City, FL 33563 (813)747-9100 ENGINEERING, LLC boggseng.com ANALYSIS & PROFESSIONAL OPINION — UPDATED REPORT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATON # INTP-PL 2023-0010644 LAKEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. Collier County, FL This report is a professional planning analysis and opinion in support of the Appeal by Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. of the Official Interpretation INTP-PL 2023-0010644. The Appeal respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in its capacity as Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), set aside the Official Interpretation by the Planning Director. The Request for Official Interpretation (ROI) sought clarification of "what type of facility qualifies as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. That is, what use or uses constitute a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" ("NFCC"). Said use is listed as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course, Recreation, and Open Space (GC) zoning district per Section 2.03.09A.1.c.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The Official Interpretation by Mike Bosi, AICP, Collier County Planning and Zoning Director states: In conclusion, 1 find that Conditional Use No. 7 in the Golf Course Zoning District, "neighborhood fitness and community center," is a facility that serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community." This report provides substantial and competent evidence that refutes the Official Interpretation and supports the Appeal. The following statements summarize the more detailed analysis of my professional planning opinion: ■ The staff's conclusion merely rearranges the words in the question asked in the ROL ■ The Official Interpretation does not provide any definitions, features, facilities, characteristics of use or relevant examples of the types of activities that comprise a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center use, as requested in the ROL ■ A review of the other Conditional Uses in the GC district does not shed any light what constitutes a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. In fact, no other use in the GC district is modified or limited by the word "neighborhood." ■ The Official Interpretation misconstrues the questions about "neighborhood" which are intended to identify the appropriate location and impacts of a NFCC use rather than its Market Area. ■ The staffs reliance on Market Area is faulty and irrelevant for non-commercial uses such as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; the GC District does not list commercial uses except for a "snack shop" which is only allowed as a support use within Accessory Use #2. ■ The staff asserts, without supporting reasoning, that because some of the other Golf Course (GC) District uses not limited by the term "neighborhood," may be national and/or regional attractors, that therefore, the Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center may also be a regional attractor. BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 2 of 18 ■ The Golden Gate Community Center is not a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. The staff's example is incorrect and irrelevant to Conditional Use #7 for two reasons: 1) Golden Gate is a County public park and facility; and 2) Golden Gate is zoned C-1, not GC. ■ Mr. Bosi's reference to "various neighborhoods" implies that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center could serve any neighborhood in the County, even if it does not serve the neighborhood in which it is located. This is not supported by Mr. Bosi's own prior opinions, specifically in his testimony regarding food truck parks, as explained below. Finally, Mr. Bosi's Official Interpretation in this case, as to the meaning of "neighborhood" is directly at odds with his testimony and interpretation in a hearing before the BZA on October 12, 2021 that provided a proper definition: "What that's saying is the neighborhood commercial was a neighborhood commercial zoning district, meaning that it doesn't serve multiple neighborhoods, it serves one neighborhood." Additional analysis and findings to support my opinion are provided on the following pages. ANALYSIS As noted, the Request for Official Interpretation (ROI) asks "what type of facility qualifies as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" and focused on three issues. This report is formatted to follow those three issues. 1. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area i.e. the term "neighborhood" in the context of the CU of a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center in the GC Zoning District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. Neighborhood and Community Definitions Mr. Bosi's interpretation renders the word "neighborhood" extraneous and meaningless. To the contrary, it is an important and intentional word that limits the location, proximity and therefore, the impacts of a fitness center and a community center. The word "neighborhood" is a word of limitation that is not used for any other conditional used in the GC District. This distinction is consistent with his prior testimony in the food truck hearing. As noted elsewhere in the Appeal documents, both The Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus (2d ed 2009) and Black's Law Dictionary, 101" Edition, define neighborhood as a geographic area. Oxford contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city; the area surrounding a particular place, person BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 3 of 18 or object. Black's defines "neighborhood" as "the immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place." This is the most relevant definition to the proper interpretation of the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" use that appears as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course zoning district. In addition, there are numerous nationally -recognized planning publications that provide definitions for neighborhoods and neighborhood -level services. These support the concept that neighborhoods are geographically limited and identifiable. NEIGHBORHOOD. An area of a community with characteristics that distinguish it from other areas and that may include distinct ethnic or economic characteristics, housing types, schools or boundaries defined by physical barriers, such as major highways and railroads, or natural features, such as water bodies or topography. (Source: The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, New Expanded Edition; Harvey S. Moskowitz & Carl G. Lindbloom; Routledge Publications; 2017) NEIGHBORHOOD. A neighborhood is an area where people live and interact with one another. (Source: National Geographic Education) NEIGHBORHOOD. The neighborhood is a physical place — varied in intensity from more rural to more urban — that many different communities inhabit (Neighborhood Units Matter, Howard Blackson, 2013). In his publication, "The 5 C's of Neighborhood Planning," Howard Blackson observes that "The source of most conflicts and confusion I see occurring during these [comprehensive plan or code] updates is due to the confusion over the scale and size difference of a 'Community' versus a 'Neighborhood' unit." In my analysis of the body of definitions from this variety of resources, a "neighborhood" is tied to an area or geography where the word "community" is not necessarily defined in geographic or spatial terms. As applied to the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center," the word "neighborhood" modifies and significantly limits the terms "fitness center" and "community center." To that end in the Lakewood context, a development project is a Neighborhood Fitness or Community Center use only if it serves the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. Consistent with the above, per the Black's Law Dictionary definition of neighborhood to mean "the immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place.", in the Lakewood context an NFCC may only serve the vicinity; the area near or next to a specific place, i.e. Lakewood. BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 4 of 18 Land Development Code Support Despite the fact that neither the Growth Management Plan (GMP) nor the Land Development Code (LDC) contain definitions for the terms "neighborhood" or "community", there are numerous other examples in the County's code that support that the word "neighborhood" means a smaller and more immediate geographic area than the Official Interpretation characterizes. One example is in the LDC definitions: Park, neighborhood: Means a park which serves the population of a neighborhood and is generally accessible by bicycle or pedestrian ways. It states "a neighborhood" not "various neighborhoods." Further, the reference to bike and pedestrian indicates the small area and a relatively short distance from residents in "a neighborhood." The most common measure of walkability used by planners is one -quarter or a 10-minute walk. Section 2.03.09.A.1.c of the LDC specifically states that Conditional Uses in the Golf Course district" are subject to LDC Section 10.08.00" which requires such uses to be in an appropriate "location, or relation to the neighborhood." The very definition of Conditional Use in the LDC (Section 1.04.02) uses the same language. This further supports that the word "neighborhood" is a qualifier of location and proximity. It is not comparable, as the staff incorrectly states, to a 4-mile market area of the Golden Gate Park which is a public facility and is zoned as a commercial district. Growth Management Plan Support Nor does the Growth Management Plan (GMP) define the words neighborhood or community, however, it includes several policies and infrastructure projects that describe the County's intent. For Example, • Goal 2 of the Recreation & Open Space Element differentiates neighborhood parks which are accessible "with pedestrian pathways and bike lanes" from community and regional parks that are "larger parks and recreational facilities as well as passive open space within a 15-20-minute drive..." • Based upon Table 2.2 in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, the County's neighborhood parks do not include fitness centers. The GMP thus further supports the assertion of the Appeal that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is intended to serve a narrow geographic area such as the Lakewood neighborhoods, and is contrary to the Official Interpretation. SIC Definitions As noted above, the Official Interpretation and the Land Development Code itself confuse the term Community Center— referring to it as a use rather than a building. A Community Center is a building housing a variety of uses — and therefore, the breadth of activities within a Community Center informs the definition of that particular use at that location. Contrary to BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 5 of 18 the staff's interpretation, "neighborhood" is the modifier used to adjust for locations within residential areas. When reviewing the Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) used elsewhere in the County's LDC to characterize uses, the differences between a fitness center and community center become clearer. SIC Industry code 7991 is a Physical Fitness Facility, however, it is a different industry code if it is open to the public (7999) and yet another if operated on a membership basis (7997). There is no code for a neighborhood fitness facility. 2. That a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and that limited geographic area is for persons in properties located no more than 500 ft of the property lines of the subject property where the NFCC is located. The staff's interpretation that a limited geographic area does not apply to a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center is faulty because of the plain English and professional definitions shown above. My analysis shows that the term neighborhood refers to the location of the use — in a neighborhood, meaning in the midst of residential uses. Although the "Neighborhood" Information Meeting notice area of 500 ft or 1,000 ft may be too small, the point is that the location of any Conditional Use in a residential area has direct impacts on those residents. By virtue of its public notice requirements, the County recognizes that residents within a 500 ft or 1,000 ft distance are the immediate neighborhood in which a use/project/development is located. In addition, Section 5.05.15A of the LDC requires "property owners within 1,000 ft of a golf course to be referred to as stakeholders" when conversions occur. Acknowledging that a 500 ft or 1,000 ft area may be too small — the Official Interpretation is simply not consistent with the plain English of the terms "neighborhood" or "community. Mr. Bosi asserts that the NFCC use doesn't have to serve the Lakewood neighborhood but can serve "various neighborhoods" within the region. If that statement were true, then all uses in GC District would contain the word "regional" and the use at issue should really be called a Regional Fitness and Community Center. As noted above, this is the opposite of Mr. Bosi's interpretation of the word "neighborhood" in his 2021 testimony on food trucks. 3. That when there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood" such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center on the Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any such Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community. The staff's interpretation implies that a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" does not have to serve the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the larger Lakewood BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 6 of 18 community. The Official Interpretation conclusion sates the NFCC "serves the fitness and community needs of various neighborhoods and a broader community." This implies that such a project can serve other areas of the County — but not serve Lakewood residents. On the contrary, I conclude a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" is intended to serve the neighborhood in which it is located. For example, a development project in the Lakewood neighborhood would be a "Neighborhood Fitness or Community Center" use only if it serves the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods or the Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. Similarly, a development project in any of the other GC districts would have the same limitation. It is important to note that the County has used the Golf Course zoning district sparingly but has applied it to areas of similar character, as shown in Appendix A. Applying the staff's logic would allow more intense and impactful uses in numerous other neighborhoods similarly located. The nine GC districts listed below include golf courses, are located on local streets and are surrounded by residential neighborhoods: 1. Quail Run Golf Club 2. La Playa (Palm River) 3. Imperial Golf Club 4. Quail Creek Country Club 5. Hibiscus Golf Club 6. Riviera Golf Estates 7. The Glades Golf & Country Club 8. Big Cypress Country Club 9. Lakewood Market Area vs. Location The staff has misunderstood the ROI question and the relevance of the word "neighborhood" in this case. The term "neighborhood" identifies the location in a neighborhood, a key fact that is ignored in the Official Interpretation. The term "neighborhood" does not refer to the market area of a fitness and community center and we agree with Mr. Bosi's conclusion that "market area is not a factor within the intent of the Golf Course Zoning District." In the Official Interpretation, however, he focuses most of the discussion on the market areas of various Permitted, Conditional Uses and one Accessory Use. No other analysis or evidence is provided to support his conclusion. A Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center (NFCC) is not generally considered a commercial use and therefore, the focus on Market Area, is not relevant. Further, the staff's analysis of market area for other Permitted or Conditional Uses is irrelevant. It is true that some uses such a golf courses and museums may be regional attractors, however, that has no bearing on the interpretation of the NFCC use. Perhaps the clearest explanation comes from BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 7 of 18 the Appraising Residential Properties, 41h Edition which differentiates market area and neighborhood as follows: "A neighborhood is an area of complementary land uses. The term neighborhood suggests a variety of balance of complementary land uses." "The market area is the area in which properties effectively compete with the subject property in the mind of purchasers." A market area is defined by the type of property, transaction, the geographic area in which competition exists and the homogeneity of the properties within its boundaries." Zoning is a regulatory tool that is location -based not market based. The purpose of zoning is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by regulating the impacts of the use on the surrounding people and properties. From its initial establishment in the United States, zoning governed the location of uses based upon: a) the impacts of that use on surrounding properties; and b) whether it was compatible with the surrounding uses. In Florida, Chapter 163 provides the requirements for comprehensive plans which outline a local government's framework for land uses and zoning. In my review of the statutes, there is not one reference or use of the term "market area" yet the word "location" is used 14 times. This is because zoning is intended to regulate the location of uses according to their impacts on surrounding uses. In this case, the impacts on the Lakewood residents. CONCLUSION After analysis of the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, relevant County documents, staff testimony at the food truck hearing and other professional planning and zoning resources cited herein, it is my professional opinion that all competent and substantial evidence shows that a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" must be focused on the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods, which in the context of Lakewood would be the Lakewood neighborhoods. If a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center is proposed for development within a residential neighborhood, it must be limited, primarily or exclusively, to serving that neighborhood. As stated in the LDC, the Board of Zoning Appeals must find that the Official Interpretation is supported by competent substantial evidence supported by the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, however, no such evidence was provided by the staff. Instead, when reviewed in context of the GMP and the LDC, I would interpret the "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" similar to the former Lakewood Clubhouse — which primarily served the surrounding Lakewood neighborhoods. Based on my experience, neighborhoods that have community centers within their boundaries, typically have a swimming pool, card rooms, art BBE # 23108 Lakewood Community Services Assoc., Inc. February 16, 2024 Page 8 of 18 rooms, meeting rooms and the like. They may or may not include a fitness center, pro shop or cafe'. They may or may not be open to non-residents. What they do have in common, however, is that those uses are located in and for the benefit of the surroundiniz neighborhoods with which they were planned or developed. In my professional opinion, a "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" which is listed as a Conditional Use in the Golf Course zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code, is comprised of a combination of the uses listed in the paragraph above, and primarily or exclusively serves it surrounding neighborhoods. It is not, as interpreted by the staff, intended to serve "various" neighborhoods or undefined "communities" or a regional market area. As noted above by the numerous examples and evidence outlined throughout this report, the word "neighborhood" is a modifier and limiter to the Conditional Use "Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center" and is intended to limit the location to be neighborhood -serving and limit the impacts and compatibility of such a use as it relates to surrounding properties. PREPARED BY: Susan Swift, AICP Director of Planning BBE-Boggs Engineering LLC Appendix A: Map of Golf Course (GC) districts in Collier County 23108_SS_2.16.24 Appendix A Maps of Golf Course (GC) districts in Collier County Rea Quail- Creek Country Club - y Caur" CIO Imperial Gaif lava Golf Club u Maples Park Pelican Bay lQuail Run Golf Club } b..: -.y pfess Golf Country Club Also known as Country Club of Maples) 1` I i�#gee Rd, Foue Seasons Vwde" Reach Pact- C a x r R C r Green canal Golden Gate A GadenCxt6ePkWy Golden Gat! _ ranat Berkshire Lakes _ The Glades Golf and pies Country Club ti omwaeti,a Lakewood Country Club'° t„ Riviera Golf Estates Hibiscus Golf Club Naples Hentagr Gaff and mad* [ournry Club i Naples Manor {lk- .. ,.. r ! 4� P F '- !� �;�„ _� ,� `� fir' �� { �, } �^:•- •� 41. ,.i • I-• i, 4t:' NARRATIVE SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL BY LAKEWOOD SERVICES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF INTP-PL 2023-0010644 INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS This Appeal, filing and submittal of various arguments(s), documents, reports, and material as part of this Appeal, appealing INTP-PL2023-0010644 (the "Official Interpretation"), requesting reversal of the Official Interpretation and rendering a decision requested by the Appellant, is being made and provided while reserving the right to further amend, modify or supplement this filing and Appeal with additional arguments, materials, evidence and testimony. As noted in the Appeal Form and submittal cover letter, this Appeal is being filed by the undersigned counsel on behalf of Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. ("Lakewood") the applicant in INTP-PL2023-0010644, an affected property owner, and an aggrieved or adversely affected party. As outlined and detailed herein, and as supported by the enclosed opinion from Susan Swift, AICP, of Boggs Engineering, Inc., there are several reasons why the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"), in its capacity as the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"), should hear and consider this Appeal and set aside the Official Interpretation and grant Lakewood the relief and interpretation requested by Lakewood. APPELLANT Lakewood Community Services Association Inc. is the owner of the real property in the Lakewood Community depicted on the attached Exhibit "A". Appellant was the applicant in the Application for Formal Interpretation dated June 1, 2023 (the "Application" see Exhibit "13-1 "), that resulted in the issuance of INTP-PL2023-0010644 (see Exhibit Lakewood is a Florida not for profit corporation representing the fourteen (14) distinct residential communities in Lakewood, consisting of three (3) condominiums, nine (9) villa communities/neighborhoods and two (2) single family neighborhoods: Lakewood Condominium 1, Lakewood Condominium 2, Lakewood Condominium 3. Lakewood Single Family Homes 1, Lakewood Single Family Homes 2, Lakewood Villas I, Lakewood Villas II, Lakewood Villas III, Lakewood Villas IV, Lakewood Villas V, Lakewood Villas VI, Lakewood Villas VII, Lakewood Villas VIII, Lakewood Villas IX. These fourteen (14) well established Lakewood residential communities and neighborhoods, located on property platted pursuant to six (6) "Lakewood" plats' comprise the "Lakewood Community" or ' The plats are Lakewood Unit 1, Lakewood Unit 2, Lakewood Unit 3, Lakewood Unit 4, Lakewood Unit 5, and Lakewood Unit 6 Page 1 of 7 "Lakewood Neighborhood" and are zoned as either RSF 3 or RMF. The center of the Lakewood Community consists of two golf courses. All of the streets in the Lakewood Community are "local streets", there are no arterial or collector streets. THE BZA IS THE PROPER ENTITY THAT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL As outlined in this Appeal and the submittal cover letter, the BCC sitting as the BZA is the body that has the jurisdiction to hear and consider the Appeal. This is clearly stated and outlined in Section 1.06.01.6.a of the Collier County Land Development code ("LDC"), Chapter 4.G (at page 107), of the Collier County Land Development Code, Administrative Procedures Manual (3/8/2022 version, hereinafter the "Administrative Code") and section 250.58, Collier County Code of Ordinances. Copies of these are attached as Exhibit "C". Prior actions of the BCC and Collier County zoning staff affirm and confirm that the jurisdiction to hear and consider and decide the Appeal is within the sole jurisdiction of the BZA. As clearly and succinctly stated by Mike Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director, in the October 12, 2021, Executive Summary for BCC Agenda Item &A, the Appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 (the "Food Truck Park Interpretation"): CONSIDERATIONS Section 1.06.01.D.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes a procedure for appeal of an official interpretation of the County Manager or designee. In accordance with Section 1'.06.01.D.6.c., the Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County Manager or designee's interpretation, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the interpretation. The Board of Zoning appeals is not authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or designee's interpretation unless it finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas, or building code, whichever is applicable." (see attached Exhibit "D-1 ", emphasis added) On October 12, 2021, the BCC sitting in its capacity as the BZA, heard and considered and rendered its decision(s) on the appeals of official interpretations, including the Food Truck Park Interpretation. A copy of the resolution approving same is enclosed as Exhibit "D-2". By its actions on October 12, 2021, the BCC sitting as the BZA, made it clear and affirmed and confirmed its role as the body that hears appeals of official interpretations. Page 2 of 7 Appellant has found no statement in the LDC or Administrative Code that an appeal of an Official Interpretation may go to any reviewing body other than the BZA, e.g., the Hearing Examiner. Jurisdiction to hear and decide this Appeal rests with the BCC sitting as the BZA, consistent with and in compliance with the Collier County LDC, the Administrative Code, and the actions and practices of the BCC. Accordingly, appropriate edits to the appeal form have been made by the Appellant. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THIS APPEAL; REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION This matter involves the interpretation of the term "neighborhood" in the phrase "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the list of conditional uses in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District ("GC District"). In rendering his Official Interpretation, the Zoning Director outlined factors he used in an effort to support his erroneous determination. The Zoning Director made a number of assertions and assumptions without detailing any independent data or analysis to support these bare assertions and assumptions. As part of his analysis, the Zoning Director references that in 2017, certain recreational uses were added to the list of conditional uses in the GC District. However, the Zoning Director mischaracterized the 2017 amendments to the LDC that added additional uses to the GC District. Of the ten (10) conditional uses now allowed in the GC District after the 2017 amendments, one stands out as geographically restricted and restrictive in nature. One of the new conditional uses has a limitation or qualifier as to geographic area. That one use is the use that is the subject of the Official Interpretation and this Appeal: the "neighborhood fitness and community center". It is interesting to note that none of the other nine (9) conditional uses in the GC District contain that limitation or qualifying language. Thus, a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the GC District is uniquely restricted as to its intended "customer", geographic or "user" area. This geographic limitation is consistent with the October 12, 2021, statements and position as to the meaning of "neighborhood" made by Mr. Bosi, in his testimony to the BCC/BZA, during the public hearing on the aforementioned appeal of the Food Truck Interpretation: "What's that saying is the neighborhood commercial was a neighborhood commercial zoning district, meaning that it doesn't serve multiple neighborhoods, it serves one neighborhood." (Excerpted from minutes, October 12, 2021, page 130; Exhibit "E") Page 3 of 7 In its application for the Official Interpretation, Lakewood provided significant authority and support for the proposition that a "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the GC District refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" is to be located. The Zoning Director completely failed to refute or address key portions of Lakewood's Application. Lakewood's Application provided dictionary definitions of "neighborhood": Black's Law Dictionary, 10TH Edition defines "neighborhood" as: "[t]he immediate vicinity; the area near or next to a specified place", Black's Law Dictionary 1200 [10th ed 2014]. The Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, (2d ed. 2009) contains a definition of "neighborhood" as a district, especially one forming a community within a town or city: the area surrounding a particular place, person, or object. The Zoning Director never discussed, addressed, or refuted these definitions. Further, the Zoning Director did not provide any authoritative source for his alternative definition of a neighborhood that broadens the meaning of "neighborhood" to that beyond these accepted dictionary definitions. Instead, the Zoning Director created an expansive definition of "neighborhood" to mean "various neighborhoods and a broader community', without any geographic constraints, limitations, or borders, and without any citation to any authority whatsoever. Further, the Zoning Director's interpretation contradicts his October 12, 2021, statement that the word "neighborhood" as a modifier means "it doesn't serve. multiple neighborhoods, it serves one neighborhood." As articulated in the enclosed zoning report and opinion from Susan Swift, AICP, enclosed as Exhibit "H" and resume enclosed as Exhibit "I", the word "neighborhood" has meaning. And, it is a restrictive meaning. The report contains the following findings supporting this Appeal: ■ The staff's conclusion merely rearranges the words in the question asked in the ROI; ■ The staff conjectures that because some of the other GC District uses may be national and/or regional attractors, therefore the Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center can be a regional attractor; Page 4 of 7 ■ The Official Interpretation does not provide any definitions, features, facilities, characteristics of use or relevant examples of types of activities that comprise a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center use, as requested in the ROI; ■ A review of the other Conditional Uses in the GC district is irrelevant and does not shed any light what constitutes a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; ■ The Official Interpretation misconstrues the questions about "neighborhood." The word is a qualifier that acknowledges the location in a neighborhood - not its Market Area.; ■ The staff's reliance on Market Area is faulty and irrelevant for non- commercial uses such as a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center; the CG District does not list commercial uses except for a "snack shop" which is only a support use within Accessory Use #2.; ■ Mr. Bosi's reference to "various neighborhoods" implies that a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center could serve any neighborhood in the County, even if it does not serve the neighborhood in which it is located. This is not supported by the Growth Management Plan, professional planning standards or definitions. Ms. Swift concludes her opinion with: "After analysis of the County's documents and other professional planning, recreation and traffic resources, it is my opinion that a "Neighborhood Fitness and. Community Center" must be focused on the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods, which in the context ' of Lakewood would be the Lakewood neighborhoods. If a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center is proposed for development within a residential neighborhood, it must be limited to primarily or exclusively serving that neighborhood." . Additionally, the Golden Gate Community Center is not a Neighborhood Fitness and Community Center. The staff's example is irrelevant to Conditional Use #7 for two reasons: 1) Golden Gate is a County public park and facility and 2) would be classified as Conditional Use #8, Parks and playgrounds, in the GC district. The Zoning Director leans heavily on the Golden Gate Community Center as a basis to create an expansive definition of a "neighborhood fitness and community center". Such reliance is misplaced. As outlined, described, and defined in the existing Collier County "Parks and Recreation Master Plan", there are three (3) "park types" in Collier County. The three (3) park types are neighborhood, community and regional. The Golden Gate Community Center is classified as a "community" park or center and not a "neighborhood" park or center. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (see Exhibit "F") and the Collier County 2022 Annual Update and Inventory Report ("AUIR") listing the park inventory (see Exhibit "G"). In addition, true to its nature as a community park, the Golden Gate Community Center is located on a busy commercial corridor, at the Page 5of7 intersection of two (2) four (4) lane roads, Golden Gate Parkway (a minor arterial) and Sunshine Boulevard. Lastly, Lakewood's Application also put forth the proposition that the radius/distance required to be used to notify property owners of a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) forms a useful guide as to the extent of a "neighborhood". For many land use applications, the current LDC and the Administrative Code require that the applicant conduct a noticed "Neighborhood Information Meeting". The notification area(s) of the "neighborhood" for certain land use petitions/applications can be found in Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code and are consistent with the concepts articulated in the above definitions. For property owners in the Urban designated area of the future land use element of the growth management plan entitled to mailed notice, the "notification area" includes: A. All property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property or one mile of the property lines of the subject property if located within the areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. B. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the 500 foot or one mile distance is measured from the boundaries of the entire ownership or PUD. C. The maximum notification area is 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) from the subject property, except for areas designated in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Similar to the manner in which the Zoning Director turned a blind eye to the above definitions provided by Lakewood, the Zoning Director did not explain or address this approach and guidance rooted in Collier County's required defined notice areas for Neighborhood Information Meetings. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and the attached, exhibits and documents it is respectfully requested that the BCC sitting as the BZA: 1. Reverse and set aside the above noted August 18, 2023 Official Interpretation. 2. Enter a ruling, decision, and determination that: a. A "neighborhood fitness and community center" is a use that only serves persons in a limited geographic area, i.e, the term "neighborhood" in the context of the conditional use in the LDC of a "neighborhood fitness and community center" in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District Page 6 of 7 ("GC District") refers to and means a limited and identifiable geographic area in the immediate vicinity of and nearby the property where the proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center' is to be located, and adjacent lands and surrounding lands. b. When there is a readily identifiable "community" or "neighborhood such as the Lakewood Community, in the context of a proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center' on the GC zoned Lakewood Country Club golf course property, the primary use or uses of any proposed "neighborhood fitness and community center" must be limited to serve persons owning or residing in the Lakewood Community, c. A "neighborhood fitness and community center' cannot be used to serve persons outside of a limited geographic area and the limited geographic area can be guided by the notice distance requirements for NIMs- I Enter a ruling, decision, and determination that the exclusive jurisdiction for the consideration of this Appeal is by BCC sitting as BZA. 4. Enter a ruling. decision, and determination that The Collier County Hearing Examiner ("HEX") has no jurisdiction to hear or consider this Appeal- RespectfVi -r 'f , Modw'a"rd, ires & ombar P.A. Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esq. Zachary W. Lombardo, Esq- Enclosures. Copies with enclosures: Jeffrey Klafzkow, County Commissioner Rick LoCastro Page 7 of 7