Agenda 12/10/2019 Item # 9E (Resolution - Rivergrass Village)12/10/2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 with
conditions a Resolution designating 997.53 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning
Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village
Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,500 residential
dwelling units, of which a minimum of 250 will be multi-family units; a maximum of 80,000 square
feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 62,500 square feet of
neighborhood commercial in the village center; a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic ,
governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing
care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square
footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap; and
approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village Stewardship
Receiving Area and establishing that 6198.08 stewardship credits are being utilized by the
designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located
south of 45th Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10,
14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a
companion to Agenda Items 11.K. and 11.L.) [PL20190000044]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition; and ensure the
project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in
order to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to
voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the
protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in
exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). One of
the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index Assessment, which
documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA.
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index
(NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Rivergrass Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI
scores demonstrate that Rivergrass Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff
Report for further information.
The Rivergrass Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or
have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within
the vicinity of Rivergrass Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village
(PL20180000622), Longwater Village (PL20190001836), and Belmar Village (PL20190001837) which
are currently under review.
The Rivergrass Village SRA consists of two context zones, which are required per the SRA Overlay
regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. Approximately 46% of the Village
acreage is located north of Oil Well Road, and the remaining 54% is located south of Oil Well Road. A
long perimeter lake system runs along the eastern boundary of the Village, both north and south of Oil
9.E
Packet Pg. 407
12/10/2019
Well Road. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to
wildlife. The proposed Big Cypress Parkway is located along the western boundary of the Village. This
SRA application for Rivergrass Village SRA will include approximately:
- 2,500 residential dwelling units with an SRA density calculation of 3.1 units per acre;
- a minimum of 250 multi-family dwelling units;
- a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
- a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
- a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; and
- senior housing, including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities
limited to 300 units.
The Village will also have other uses such as a Golf Club and Amenity Center, an 18 -hole golf course, a
park, and a community green space. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.14 acres, and
57.3% open space or 571.91 acres has been provided. The Attachment -BCC Staff Report provides
specific staff analysis and recommendations including but not limited to Growth Management Plan,
Environmental and Transportation review.
For further information, see Attachment-Proposed SRA Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) by and of itself will have no fiscal impact
on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build-out, will maximize its authorized level
of development. However, if the SRA is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and the new
development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects
identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the
adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of
concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is
required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in
accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected
prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that impact fees
and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to
analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed
the proposed SRA and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP.
See Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard and continued Petition SRA-PL20190000044, Rivergrass Village SRA from September 19, 2019,
to October 3, 2019, to October 17, 2019, hearings and to November 7, 2019, hearing. The CCPC voted
4-1 to deny this petition for the following reasons:
- Failure to move from greater, urban density to lesser, more rural density;
- Lack of vehicular connectivity:
- The presence of 18-20 cul-de-sacs;
- Lack of vehicular connectivity to adjacent Village lands as was
provided for in the previous Rural Lands West petition;
9.E
Packet Pg. 408
12/10/2019
- Poor accessibility;
- Failure to be walkable;
- Failure to be innovative;
- Housing diversity is insufficient:
- 90% of housing is single-family, and 10% of housing is multi-family;
- Lack of affordable housing;
- Failure of the agent to provide the CCPC requested Fiscal Neutrality document: and
- Failure to provide a complete Big Cypress Parkway land reservation.
For further information, please see Attachment-Reasons for Vote of Planning Commissioner Edwin S.
Fryer against Rivergrass Village SRA Application, which is provided at the request of Planning
Commissioner Fryer.
The agent has revised the SRA Document to comply with some of the changes that were discussed at the
CCPC hearing. Those revisions include the following:
- Limit the number of Senior/Group Housing units to 300 units;
- Reduce the maximum square footage of a clubhouse from 50,000 square feet to 30,000
square feet in Deviation;
- Remove Clubhouse and Amenity Centers as an accessory use;
- Increase the front yard setbacks for Clubhouses and Amenity Centers to 12 feet to avoid
utility easement conflicts;
- Provide a unit mix of commercial;
- Remove the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Adult Living Facility (ALF) and Continuing
Care Retirement Center (CCRC) units;
- For clarity, add the words “as defined by the LDC” after “shopping center;”
- Locate 125 multi-family units north of Oil Well Road and 125 multi-family units south of
Oil Well Road and within ½ mile of the Village Center;
- Remove statement related to the timing of Parking Analysis submittal and add a
Deviation for Parking Analysis submittal time; and
- Remove the panther fence from Big Cypress Parkway.
The following revision was not requested but made by the agent and staff is in agreement:
- Removal of 2-acre, 10,000 square-foot Neighborhood recreation areas from the
Neighborhood General Principal Uses list.
The CCPC also requested the following revisions which have not been made by the agent and have
become part of the Conditions of Approval:
- Add “as depicted on Master Plan” after the Clubhouse and Amenities reference in
Section 5.1.1. A. 6);
- Increase the front yard setbacks for all land uses to 12 feet to avoid utility easement
conflicts;
- Make the lake symbol on the Master Plan one color, not two colors;
- Add the words “at least” to Note 2 on Page 3 of the Master Plan;
- Change the minimum width of the Right-of-Way Cross Section from 48 feet to 50 feet.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition requests the creation of the Rivergrass Village SRA. A
Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2 as:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and
mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages
9.E
Packet Pg. 409
12/10/2019
shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of
residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the
focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be
designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall
include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section
4.08.07 J.1. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the
extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for
the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is
permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2.
In addition to meeting the above Village requirements and being consistent with the Growth Management
Plan, the applicant must prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The
burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denial, that such denial is
not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the
amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for creation of SRA
1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient
housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on
lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the
exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on
land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of
the land or parcel.
5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than
1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state.
6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage
of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage
includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of
Stewardship Credits.
7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located
outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not
be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas,
and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be
contiguous to or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or
indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate
the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP.
11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.]
and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District
Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs,
HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits
9.E
Packet Pg. 410
12/10/2019
to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for
Board approval. Should there be a dispute as to any of the deviations to the Code requested by the
applicant, a vote of four is required. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is constrained from recommending approval of Petition SRA-
PL20190000044, Rivergrass Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners.
However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The companion Landowner Developer Agreement pertaining to transportation facilities is required to
be approved with this SRA request. (Staff and the applicant are not in agreement with all items as noted
in the companion item for the Landowner Contribution Agreement.)
2. Provide for potential interconnections (north, east, and south) on the Master Plan and acknowledgment
that residents on the north side of Oil Well Road will have internal access to the commercial area on the
south side of Oil Well Road without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or the future Big Cypress Parkway.
(The applicant is not agreeable to staff's recommendation.)
3. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a Listed Species Management Plan must be provided for
review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther and all other
listed species.
4. The negotiated Interlocal Agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big
Cypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA Resolution.
5. The following CCPC requested revisions shall be incorporated into the SRA Document:
- Add “as depicted on Master Plan” after the Clubhouse and Amenities reference in
Section 5.1.1. A. 6);
- Increase the front yard setbacks for all land uses to 12 feet to avoid utility easement
conflicts;
- Make the lake symbol on the Master Plan one color, not two colors;
- Add the words “at least” to Note 2 on Page 3 of the Master Plan;
- Change the minimum width of the Right-of-Way Cross Section from 48 feet to 50 feet.
Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (PDF)
2. BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (PDF)
3. Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (PDF)
4. Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (PDF)
5. Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (PDF)
6. Attachment E-NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm (PDF)
7. Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (PDF)
8. [Linked] Attachment G-Application for 12-10-2019 BCC (PDF)
9. 10-RLSA Villages Map-092419 (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 411
12/10/2019
10. Reasons for Vote of Planning Commissioner Edwin S. Fryer against Rivergrass Application
(PDF)
11. Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (PDF)
12. Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (PDF)
13. [Linked] 10.3.19 CCPC minutes - approved (PDF)
14. 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (PDF)
15. 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (PDF)
16. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10935 (PDF)
17. Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (PDF)
18. Rivergrass Team Presentation (PDF)
19. REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 412
12/10/2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.E
Doc ID: 10935
Item Summary: ***This item to be heard no sooner than 2:00 p.m.*** 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 with conditions a Resolution
designating 997.53 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a
Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which
will allow development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 250
will be multi-family units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village
center and a minimum of 62,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center; a
minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including
adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in
place of a maximum square footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour
trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village
Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6198.08 stewardship credits are being utilized by the
designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located south
of 45th Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22,
23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda
Items 11.K. and 11.L.) [PL20190000044]
Meeting Date: 12/10/2019
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Nancy Gundlach
11/20/2019 3:04 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
11/20/2019 3:04 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 11/25/2019 3:58 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 11/25/2019 4:13 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 11/25/2019 4:14 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 11/26/2019 3:09 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 12/02/2019 1:49 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Wells Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/02/2019 1:52 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 12/02/2019 2:57 PM
9.E
Packet Pg. 413
12/10/2019
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 12/03/2019 3:09 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/04/2019 1:45 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/10/2019 9:00 AM
9.E
Packet Pg. 414
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1Packet Pg. 418Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1Packet Pg. 419Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1Packet Pg. 423Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1Packet Pg. 424Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1Packet Pg. 448Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1Packet Pg. 449Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1Packet Pg. 450Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1Packet Pg. 454Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1Packet Pg. 455Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1Packet Pg. 460Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment A-Resolution- Rivergrass Village - HFAC initialed (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 1 of 36
STAFF REPORT
***THIS POST CCPC STAFF REPORT HAS BEEN REVISED FROM THE ORIGINAL
SEPTEMBER 19,2019 CCPC STAFF REPORT TO INCLUDE UPDATED INFORMATION
PROVIDED TO STAFF AND TO THE CCPC ***
TO:BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:ZONING DIVISION ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE:DECEMBER 10,2019
SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190000044, RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA (SRA)
_______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS:
Applicant:
Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Property Owners:
Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and
CDC Land Investments, LLC
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Agents:
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Hole Montes, Inc.Coleman, Yovanovich &Koester,P.A.
950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 2 of 36
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 3 of 36
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 4 of 36
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC)consider a
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 997.53 acres
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving
Area,to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow
development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet
of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 60,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial in the village center;a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic,
governmental and institutional uses;senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing
care retirement communities limited to 300 units; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a
maximum PM peak hour trip cap;and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit
agreement for Rivergrass Village SRA and establishing that 6,198.08 stewardship credits are being
utilized by the designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property,consisting of 997.53 acres, is located south of 45th Avenue NE and north of
26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48
South, Range 28 East, Collier County,Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff
Report.)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order to protect
natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to
voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve
the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Area
(SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits,which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Area
(SRA). One of the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index
Assessment,which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA.
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource
Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Rivergrass Village SRA. It should be noted that
the NRI scores demonstrate that Rivergrass Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section
of this Staff Report for further information.
The Rivergrass Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County
or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages
located within the vicinity of Rivergrass Village SRA along the future Big C ypress Parkway are
Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622), Longwater Village (PL20190001836),and Belmar Village
(PL20190001837) all of which are currently under review.
The Rivergrass Village SRA consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA
Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. Approximately 46%
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 5 of 36
of the Village acreage is located north of Oil Well Road,and the remaining 54% is located south
of Oil Well Road. A long perimeter lake system runs along the eastern boundary of the Village,
both north and south of Oil Well Road. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater
system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. The proposed Big Cypress Parkway is located along the
western boundary of the Village. This SRA application for Rivergrass Village SRA will include
approximately:
2,500 residential dwelling units with a SRA density calculation of 3.1 units per acre;
a minimum of 250 multi-family dwelling units;
a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses;and
senior housing,including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities
limited to 300 units.
The Village will also have other uses such as a Golf Club and Amenity Center, an 18-hole golf
course,and park and community green space. The required minimum of 35% open space is
349.14 acres, and 57.3% open space or 571.91 acres has been provided.
For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) and a zoning
designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(A-MHO-RLSAO)
East:Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Are a Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO)and a zoning
designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(A-MHO-RLSAO)
South:Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Collier Land Holdings and Collier Development
Corporation (A-MHO-RLSAO)
West:Undeveloped land and developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E),
and developed land with excavation ponds with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile
Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 6 of 36
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. The subject property is designated
Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed-Use District) and is within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 7 of 36
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).Owners of property
within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions -
agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit
per 5 acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc. or choose to participate in the Stewardship
Program. The Stewardship Program provides for the protection of valuable habitats by designation
as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) where land-use layers are removed, which generates
Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle mixed-use developments known as Stewardship
Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands appropriate for development.SRAs may vary in size and must
contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Details
of the RLSAO are provided in the RLSAO Policies and RLSAO Attachment C,Stewardship
Receiving Area Characteristics, in the FLUE as well as the implementing RLSAO zoning overlay
in the LDC, Land Development Code -also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District.
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this SRA petition and reached the following
conclusions (see Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review Memo dated Nov. 14, 2019,for full
analysis):
1. The Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation
Application (revised to 8/08/2019) for SSA no. 15, and the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit
Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019), have been reconciled and updated and may be found
internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials.
2. The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document (revised to 10/30/2019) is consistent with
the FLUE in that it complies with the objective requirements of the RLSAO (SRA size,
permitted uses, mix of uses, residential density, minimum amount of open space and non-
residential uses, etc.).
3. The Rivergrass Village SRA does not fully meet the minimum intent of the policies in the
RLSAO pertaining to innovative design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of
uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, interconnectedness, etc.this
SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban
area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSA.This is greenfield
development -the site is former agricultural fields; there are no known natural resource (or
other) constraints that preclude a more compact form of development with majority of
dwelling units proximate to the Village Center, the Village Center located in the interior rather
than on the edge,commitment to provide some number of residential units in the Village
Center,a grid street system, greater number of multi-family dwelling units, commitment to
provide some amount of affordable housing,interconnections to future nearby developments to
the north/east/south, etc.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends the following:
Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP:
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 8 of 36
The County shall acquire a sufficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and
collector roads as appropriate to meet the needs of the Long Range Transportation Plan or
other adopted transportation studies,plan or programs, appropriate turn lanes, medians,
bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, a shoulder sufficient for pull offs, and
landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered when it can
demonstrated, through a traffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at
build-out will be less than the standard.
Staff finding:On October 28, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)approved a
Resolution related to the creation of the Big Cyp ress Stewardship District. A requirement of the
Resolution and the enabling legislation for the District required the District and Collier County to
enter into an Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement. The Agreement was to provide a fair share
capital construction funding contribution for the long-range traffic capacity improvements of
county arterial and collector roads,within and proximate to the District. The Agreement was to be
executed within 90 days of the Act taking effect.
At the October 26, 2004, BCC meeting, Agenda Item 10C, the Board entertained the approval of
the Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement with the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In this
specific agenda item, County staff pursued a right-of-way reservatio
Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard among other right-of-way reservations. It was acknowledged
during the meeting by both the County and representatives of Collier Enterprises, that there was
disagreement as it related to the During the meeting, Tom Conrecode, representing
Collier Enterprise We understand the constraints at Oil Well and Immokalee Road. We
understand how they need to be addressed and aligned with the needs of Randall. I st not
appropriate to be in this agreem will have plenty of opportunities to do that
in the futu ot doing anything with the land but farming it today. At some point in the
future when we come back with a zoning action before this county commission, staff will have the
opportunity again to go after that road and many, many more to serve the needs of the are r.
Conrecode went gree on is the connection between
Randall and Oil Well Road. The reason is is that nobody has been able to study i .If we take the
time and agree to work together, work on a solution that solves
to come up with a better solution that serves all the transportation public in Collier Co Mr.
Conrecode finishe pr a zoning change requested of
the county.The county has all the power and the authority; t te time to enter into
lling to work with the county and talk with the county on that and many other
corridors that the county puts into its long-range pl dentified man The
Board approved the Agre proposed language;however, the District did not act
on it. Ultimately, the District did enter in a Land Donation Agreement with the County as it
pertains to Oil Well Road, but not the remaining items.
In 2016, Collier County began the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study. This
study evaluated several corridor alternatives to enhance traffic operations and safety conditions
based on current and future travel demands. While the County was studying the corridor, the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted an amendment (May 25, 2018) to the 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan that added a new needed roadway that became known as Big
Cypress Parkway between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The County continued
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 9 of 36
forward with the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study,which included
coordination with Collier Enterprises as it related to their SRA development at the time (Rural
Lands West SRA). In May 2019, the Board adopted Viable Alternative 2+, which included the
following improvements:
Randall Boulevard (8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard 6 lanes)
Randall Boulevard (Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway 4 lanes)
Oil Well Road (Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road 6 lanes)
Everglades Boulevard (Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road 4 lanes)
Additional regional roadway needs to enhance access, safety,and mobility:
Vanderbilt Beach Road (16th Street NE to Big C ypress Parkway)
Everglades Boulevard (Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext.to Randall Boulevard)
Big Cypress Parkway (Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road)
Consistent with the commitments previously made by Collier Enterprises for the Stewardship
District, staff is requiring a right-of-way reservation for Big Cypress Parkway within the limits of
the Stewardship District. The companion Developer Agreement is intended to contain the rights-
of-way necessary to accommodate Big Cypress Parkway within the Stewardship District. This
reservation is consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan,Randall Boulevard and Oil
Well Road Corridor Study final alignment network,and the commitments made to address the
regional roadway network at the time of rezoning. The applicant has only agreed to sell the right-
of-way immediately adjacent to the Rivergrass SRA and has not made a commitment for the
remainder north of the Rivergrass SRA or south of the Rivergrass SRA within the Big Cypress
Stewardship District. In addition, Collier Enterprises, Inc., has not fulfilled the commitments
made at the time of support of the redistricting, specifically,the requirement to donate 100-feet of
right-of-way for Immokalee Road and the necessary stormwater management for the said roadway.
This donation should be completed immediately, without regard to this petition. However, it has
been included in the companion Developer Agreement.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request. The applicant and staff have not come to an agreement on the right-of-way
for Big Cypress Parkway north and south of the Rivergrass development.
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
mmission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved.A petition or application
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 10 of 36
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links,the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point
where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impa
significant impacts on all
Staff finding: In evaluating the Rivergrass Village SRA,staff reviewed the applicant s Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) dated August 5, 2019,for consistency using the applicable 2018 Annual
Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
According to the SRA document and noted above,the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,250
single-family residential dwelling units and up to 250 multi-family residential dwelling units, up to
80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and
institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for
1,414 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,086 multi-family dwelling units, up to 25,000
square feet of governmental and institutional uses, 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses,and an
18-hole golf course.
Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation
calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network,and reflects a reasonable
development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap
commitment in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation.
According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways:
Existing Roadway Conditions:
Link #Roadway Link
Location
2018
AUIR
Existing
LOS
P.M. Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Projected
P.M. Peak
Hour/Peak
Direction
Project
Traffic1
121.2 Oil Well
Road
Oil Well
Grade to Ave
Maria Blvd
B 2,000/West 1,464 186
121.1 Oil Well
Road
Desoto Blvd to
Oil Well
Grade
B 1,1002/West 564 655
120.0 Oil Well
Road
Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
B 1,1002/West 541 530
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 11 of 36
119.0 Oil Well
Road
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
C 2,000/East 863 633
136.0 Everglades
Blvd
Oil Well Road
to Immokalee
Road
C 800/North 350 39
135 Everglades
Blvd
Golden Gate
Blvd to Oil
Well Road
B 800/North 445 133
118.0 Wilson Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Golden Gate
Blvd
B 900/South 560 103
133.0 Randal Blvd Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
C 900/East 261 60
132.0 Randal Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
E 9003/East 40 60
112.0 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Logan Blvd to
Collier Blvd
C 3,000/East 1,052 106
111.2 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Livingston Rd
to Logan Blvd
C 3,000/East 859 53
17.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Collier Blvd to
Wilson Blvd
C 2,300/East 590 106
123.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Wilson Blvd
to 18th Street
NE/SE
B 2,300/East 1,095 166
123.1 Golden Gate
Blvd
18th Street
NE/SE to
Everglades
Blvd
B 2,300/East 1,105 166
124.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
B 1,010/East 783 113
46.0 Immokalee
Road
Oil Well Road
to SR 29
C 900/East 322 14
45.0 Immokalee
Road
Wilson Blvd
to Oil Well
Road
C 3,300/East 891 606
44.0 Immokalee
Road
Collier Blvd to
Wilson Blvd
D 3,300/East 681 386
43.2 Immokalee
Road
Logan Blvd to
Collier Blvd
D 3,200/East 188 265
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 12 of 36
43.1 Immokalee
Road
I-75 to Logan
Blvd
D 3,500/East 530 159
42.2 Immokalee
Road
Livingston
Road to I-75
D 3,500/East 871 53
30.1 Collier Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Vanderbilt
Beach Road
C 3,000/North 773 53
30.2 Collier Blvd Vanderbilt
Beach Road to
Golden Gate
Blvd
B 3,000/South 1,662 32
31.1 Collier Blvd Golden Gate
Blvd to Pine
Ridge Road
C 3,000/North 1,142 106
31.2 Collier Blvd Pine Ridge
Road to Green
Blvd
C 3,000/North 1,160 53
50.0 Logan Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Vanderbilt
Beach Road
C 1,000/North 371 53
1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic i s August 5, 2019;Traffic Impact Statement provided by the
petitioner.
2.P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (subject to an approved
developer agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000.
3.A portion of this link is committed for widening;Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service
volume will increase to 2,000. The remain s service volume will remain unchanged.
The companion Developer Agreement fulfills the mitigation necessary to comply with the Growth
Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 5.1.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
ia of the Access Management Policy
as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial
and c
Staff finding: The Rivergrass Village SRA is proposing several access points on Oil Well Road
and the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points
shown on the master plan for this petition, nothing in this development order will vest the
developer to anything more than a right in/right out at the locations. Directional and full median
openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat
(PPL). To be explicit regarding a future signalized intersection, a provision of the companion
Developer Agreement includes a commitment from the developer that they will not seek a traffic
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 13 of 36
signal along Big Cypress Parkway within one-half mile of the intersections of Randall Boulevard
or Oil Well Road.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
e, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between
developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC
shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of
neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe
interconne
Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected
street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The
proposed Rivergrass Village SRA s Master Plan shows potential-future interconnections to
adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway. However, there are no interconnections
shown to areas of future development. At the multi-day CCPC hearings, representatives of the
applicant indicated that the development may be gated both north and south of Oil Well Road. It
was not clear during the hearing if residents on the north side of Oil Well Road would have access
to the south side of Oil Well Road. This is particularly concerning to staff as the internal
connection to the commercial area on the south side of the road may be gated and would thereby
force the residents on the north side of Oil Well Road to utilize the County s collector/arterial
system for access to goods and services located within the same SRA. The Collier County Master
Mobility Plan tested sub-area road connectivity (Section 4) specific to the RLSA area,and noted
benefits of interconnected roadways such as reduction of vehicle miles traveled,and vehicle hours
traveled within the sub-area. Therefore, staff recommends the establishment of potential
interconnections (north, east,and south) with the knowledge that other Stewardship Receiving
s)are anticipated. Staff also recommends a commitment from the applicant that the
residents on the north side of Oil Well Road would be able to cross Oil Well Road and have access
to the commercial area without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or the future Big Cypress.
Condition of approval: The Master Plan shall be modified to show interconnections, as well as
an acknowledgment that residents north of Oil Well Road will have access to the commercial
on the south side of Oil Well Road via an interconnected internal network.
Staff Recommendation:
Tr ansportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP subject to the following
Conditions of Approval below:
Conditions of Approval:
1.The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request.
2.Provide for potential interconnections (north, east,and south) on the Master Plan and
acknowledgment that residents on the north side of Oil Well Road will have internal access to the
commercial area on the south side of Oil Well Road without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or
the future Big Cypress Parkway.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 14 of 36
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)and FLUE related to
Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent
with the CCME and FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element,
preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is
addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been
approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria.
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition and recommends
approval subject to the condition of approval below.
Site Description:
The subject property consists of 997.53 acres of predominately intensive agriculture acreage.
Land use consists of row crops, improved,and unimproved pasture and other agriculture-related
uses with a small area of native vegetation. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in
Listed Species Survey (Appendix B). The natural area is 0.13 acres, which is classified as
disturbed Hydric Pine.This area is impacted by exotic vegetation and would not meet the LDC
definition of native vegetation for preservation purposes. The property contains 1.30 acres of
disturbed wetlands;wetland mitigation for impacts to these areas are addressed through South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
11-03949-P.
Listed Species:
The Rivergrass Village SRA project is located within the boundary of previously proposed Rural
Lands West SRA. Protected Species surveys have been conducted throughout the area in various
years between 2007 and 2017.The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC)and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants
listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)and USFWS as
endangered, threatened or commercially exploited.Eagles and their nests were also included as
part of wildlife survey observations.Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through
2017 indicate the following species have been present in the boundary for the Rivergrass SRA:
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea),tri-colored
heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
pratensis), Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway),Bald eagle (Haliaeetu leucocephalus),Florida
bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Florida panther (Puma conocolor coryi) and Florida black bear
(Ursus americanus floridanus).The current wildlife survey conducted in 2019 revealed the
following species were observed onsite: wood stork (Mycteria americana), little blue heron
(Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis; see Appendix H). There are five protected plants listed in LDC
P that may occur on the project site: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine air
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 15 of 36
plant (Tillandsia utriclata), inflated wild pine air plant (Tillandsia balbisiana),stiff-leaved wild
pine air plant (Tillandsia fasciculata), and twisted air plant (Tillandsia flexuosa). Additionally,
there are five protected plants listed in the LDC as Plants -site,
including:Cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii),Cu
milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleate)and West Coast prickly-
apple (Harrisia gracilis).
Environmental Planning staff also reviewed this petition per LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.d.,which
requires Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA)with lands greater than one acre and a Natural
Resource Index (NRI)value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a
predominantly natural vegetated state.There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain
acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The majority of the Rivergrass Village SRA has been
historically agricultural and cleared for crops.
Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species
habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of
the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been approved for the petitioner to
obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
Evaluation of Suitability criteria in LDC section 4.08.07. A:
Residential,commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient
housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands
that receive an NRI value of greater than 1.2 (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.b).There are no areas
having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential,commercial, manufacturing/light
industrial, group housing, and transient housing,institutional, civic and community service uses
may be sited on these lands.
Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception
of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that
receives an NRI value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC section
4.08.07.A.1.c).There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore,conditional use
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public
safety, and governmental essential services may be sited on these lands.
Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2
shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC
section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2.
An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and
shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to,or
encompass,a WRA (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or
HSA;it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan.
SSA credits required for SRA designation:
Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff who provided
the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits:
The Stewardship Credits for Rivergrass Village SRA are created from SSA 15 located on
properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 16 of 36
Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough.The credit
calculation is based on the total acreage of Rivergrass, which is 997.53 acres. The minimum
open space requirement is 349.14 acres; the applicant has proposed 571.91 acres of open space.
Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 774.76 acres. In addition, approximately
104.81 acres are being reserved for future County Arterial Road Rights-of-Way for the
expansion of Oil Well Road. The petitioner has elected to consume credits for the benefit use
areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. Therefore,
Rivergrass Village requires 6,198.08 Stewardship credits.
Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use
Land Cover (FLUCCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA
application, minor changes to the Land Use Land Cover Classifications have not occurred as a
result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in May 2015. No changes have occurred to
the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA. A comparison of the
detailed 2015 FLUCFCS map with the propo 2019 FLUCFCS map revealed the total acreage
under agriculture did not change; some conversion between different agricultural uses did occur.
The remaining acreage, comprised of previously disturbed vegetated areas,required minor changes
to FLUCCS classifications.These changes reflected the more detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping
that was recently performed for state permitting efforts, as opposed to the comprehensive planning
level of the Study FLUCCS mapping. These minor classification changes do not produce any
significant overall changes to the SRA Natural Resources Index (NRI) Value scores.
Rivergrass Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15 which has
7,261.8 total available credits.
Environmental Planning staff recommends the following Condition of Approval:
3.Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL,a Listed Species Management Plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida
panther and all other listed species.
Public Utilities Review:The Rivergrass Village SRA lies within the regional potable water and
northeast wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water,
wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project from the
Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site located at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier
County fairgrounds).
The CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection at the northeast corner of the
adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA (pending approval, PL20180000622). The pipelines will be
designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the point of connection.
Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the
NEUF site to serve the project. Utility services are scheduled to be provided by September 30,
2020,pending Board approval of the interlocal agreement that accompanies this petition.
The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility
system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 17 of 36
Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance Number 2004-31, as amended). Residents and businesses will
receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Per the interlocal
agreement, the golf course may be irrigated from onsite water sources. Additionally, the developer
has agreed to reserve a 5-acre utility site in support of future developments anticipated south of
Rivergrass Village. The site will revert back to the developer if the site is deemed unnecessary.
The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following condition of
approval:
4. The negotiated Interlocal Agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big
Cypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA Resolution.
Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and
has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary,
middle,and high school levels. Therefore, there are no requirements for the applicant. At the time
of SDP or PPL,the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the
concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency service areas.
Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Archeology and Historic Preservation Review:Archeology and Historic Preservation Review
staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Landscape Review:Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Fire Review:Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Community and Human Services Review (Housing)Review:Housing staff has reviewed this
petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability.
Through multiple submissions and reviews,staff has continued to recommend that a Housing
Needs Analysis be performed to estimate affordable housing demand, and to create a plan to
address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village SRA.The applicant has
not undertaken such an analysis.
The Applic The average assessed value for Rivergrass single-
family homes is $370,000, which is 41% hig
The Assessment also states that of the 2500 residential units, 1086 units will be buil condo,
duplex, or single-family atta ue of $272,000 per unit. The balance
of 1414 residential units are planned as single-family detached,with an average sales value of
$394,000 per unit.Although the Assessment identifies the possibility of there being 1086 multi-
family units built, through a commitment made at the CCPC hearing, the applicant only committed
that there will be a minimum of 250 multi-family units constructed in the development.
The Rivergrass Village SRA submission offers no details as to how many residential units will
meet the Cou dards for various income levels. It also offers no detail on the
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 18 of 36
number of affordable units,or price points that will be included to accommodate the additional
need for affordable units that are created as a result of the Village.
In the absence of a Housing Needs Analysis,staff is unable to review the application for
compliance with applicable sections of the Future Land Use Element, the Housing Element,and
the Land Development Code.Those applicable sections are listed and underlined below.
Applicable Sections of the Growth Management Plan and LDC:
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan:
Goal 1: To create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and Affordable Housing for all
residents of Collier County.
Objective 1: Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing
needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes,
including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier
County.
Objective 2: Increase the number of affordable housing units, by the methods contained in
Objective 1 and subsequent Policies, for very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce
income residents with the assistance of for-profit and not-for-profit providers of affordable
housing, within the County and its municipalities.
Policy 2.2: Partnerships shall be encouraged between private developers, non-profit entities, local
governments,and other interested parties to ensure the development of housing that meets the
nee -low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents.
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan:
Policy 4.7.2: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and
mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character o Design criteria for
Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Land Development Code:
4.08.07 -SRA Designation J. Design Criteria.3. Village Design Criteria. a. General criteria. iv.
Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
Accessory dwelling units shall not count towards the maximum allowed density.
While a Housing Needs Analysis itself is not a requirement of the Code, it would have provided
the needed data with which to review this application for compliance with the applicable Codes.
In the absence of a Housing Needs Analysis from the applicant, staff recommends the following
condition of approval of the SRA in order to ensure compliance with applicable Goals, Objectives,
Policies, and codes.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 19 of 36
Recommendation of Approval:
5.The applicant shall provide that at least 10% of the overall housing units (250) comply with the
This may be able to be facilitated by earmarking some of the 1,086 proposed o,
duplex, single-family attached, single-units planned in the development
which the applicant states may already fall within the affordability guidelines (average
sales value $272,000 per Economic Assessment).
a.62 Units Reserved for Gap-Income Households
ex: Household of 3 = $98,700/yr $330,000 Purchase Price
b.62 Units Reserved for Moderate-Income Households
ex: Household of 3 = $84,600/yr $275,000 Purchase Price
c.62 Units Reserved for Low-Income Households
ex: Household of 3 = $56,400/yr $150,000 Purchase Price/ $1,410 Rental
d.62 Units Reserved for Very-Low-Income Households
ex: Household of 3 = $35,250/yr $105,750 Purchase Price/ $881 Rental
Or land donation sufficient to build 62 VLI Units; approx. 5-10 acres
e.All Reserved Units should follow the monitoring requirements contained in LDC
Section 2.06.05
Result:
TOTAL = 248 units that address Housing Affordability, ensuring compliance with the
above cited provisions of the Housing Element, Future Land Use Element, and LDC.
If approved without Housing Affordability commitments,Rivergrass Village would
become the first development of this scale to be approved in Collier County that does not
address housing affordability in the past two decades.
Economic Assessment Review:
Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the
requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA).The Economic Assessment,at a minimum, is required to demonstrate
fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government:
transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste,
parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire,and school. In the event the
Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to
address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community
development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service
Taxing Units (MSTU), etc.
As detailed in the information above,the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating
997.53 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay D istrict as an SRA, to be
known as the Rivergrass Village SRA (Rivergrass), allowing for the development of residential,
commercial, civic, governmental, institutional and senior housing land use components.
Rivergrass submitted an Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial
Group, Inc, (DPFG)in accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 20 of 36
alternative fiscal impact model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality
at the horizon year (2042 buildout) using a inal/average cost hybrid m to
dete n capital and operating costs. DPFG also incorporated the
Co nd rates to estimate the demand and impact fee
contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not include the cost of
future infrastructure financing, which cannot be determined at this time,or provide for positive or
negative adjustments in costs, fees,tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development
for the project.
DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture
information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As
part of this process, the need for new facility s ites and other capital items, specifically related to
the proposed project were also analyz ed.
An outside peer review was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an
independent, evaluation of the report. See Attachment C-Peer Review. The Jacobs report
concluded that the analysis is reasonable and confirms the project ,as
defined.It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal
neutrality requirement and that the proposed Rivergrass development is fiscally neutral, as defined,
for Rivergrass Village SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the
Collier County School District.Jacobs noted that the companion Developer Agreements for the
project are important elements in the overall fiscal neutrality objectives.
The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also
reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility.
This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the
current, adopted rates,and as previously stated,does not include any projections for impact fee
increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue is
provided below, otherwise,the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of
residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The
same approach, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, was
used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for
the purpose of this analysis.
Transportation Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and
Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
fiscal analysis and public facilities impact assessment should be updated to reflect
the latest traffic impact statement,intersection analysis,and fair share mitigation reports as
provided by the applicant on August 5, 2019,and August 19, 2019, respectively.
of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis,and fair share
mitigation reports,the projected deficiencies exist both without and with the project.The adopted
level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed and
vested trips, plus additional project background trips from sources other than the development
project under review. The project is not causing the deficiency,nor can the projected deficiency
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 21 of 36
be cured by the development.The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses
to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. In addition, the applicant has analyz ed
multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be paying a proportionate share
toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This proportionate
share is included in the companion developer agreement.
Law Enforcement Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly w ith Collier County Sher
Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the
proposed development. At this time,there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed
development.However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed
developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund
a portion of a substation and/or other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency,nor can the
calculated deficiency be cured by the development.As stated above,the applicant will be paying
impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment D-Public Facilities
Impact Assessment,to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services
representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the
proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed
development, with additional planned,co-located facilities in the area. Therefore, currently, there
is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the
calculated deficiency b e cured by the development.The applicant will be paying impact fees for
the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Additionally,
proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for certain
EMS capital construction needs.
Regional Parks Fiscally Neutral.The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted
achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact
Fee Stud y.This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay
impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (Naples Zoo, Sports Tourism
Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development. This method is
generally acceptable with the following condition:
The analysis uses the 2018 Peak season population combined with the inventory for the 2015
adjusted achieved level of service.This method generates a calculated level of service that is lower
than any used for the Impact Fee Study or Annual Update and Inventory Report. The population
year and the inventory year should be the same. Therefore, based on the 2015 Impact Fee Study
(current) the adjusted achieved level of service should be 1.82 acres per 1,000 population verses
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 22 of 36
the 1.68 acres per 1,000 population which then, based on the Rivergrass proposed population,
requires 9.32 acres of Regional Parks attributable to the proposed development. At the current full
cost per acre, there is a calculated negative fiscal impact of $89,763 based on the estimated impact
fees and other capital revenues anticipated to be generated by the project.
Staff concludes that the project can still be considered fiscally neutral based on the minimal
estimated revenue shortfall, as it is primarily based on 2015 rates, which may increase in the
future, especially as this area develops and land prices in Eastern Collier County continue to
increase; the shortfall in acres is less than 1 acre (0.7) and the future Regional Parks Impact Fees
paid related to this development will likely contribute to funding the construction of the Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close proximity to the proposed project.
Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding
for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
Community Parks Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within
the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital
funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate to establish fiscal neutrality
related to Community Parks.
Public Utilities (Water,Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) Fiscally Neutral.
See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities
Impact Assessment,to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Public Utilities representatives
regarding the future needs of the project.As provided by the representatives: Utilities service will
not trigger above-average service deliver to serve the
Rivergrass Village SRA development and several other potential developments is no different than
what has been done in the past to serve an expanding service area. The current construction project
is the first phase of establishing regional treatment facilities in the northeast region of the County.
When complete,these facilities will serve Rivergrass Village SRA as well as growing areas
currently being served by the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant and the North County
Water Reclamation Facility. The northeast treatment facilities will increase the reliability of the
existing systems as the population expands. As an additional comment, all user rates are consistent
The proposed development will be required to pay User Fees, Impact Fees and Special
Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both capital and operating costs
attributable to the project. With respect to Irrigation Water, there is no responsibility or cost to
Collier County.
Stormwater Management Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact
Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater
Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by
a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001)and the Unincorporated
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 23 of 36
Area General Fund (111). The Big Cypress Stewardship District, which includes the Rivergrass
Village SRA,is responsible for the management of all designated flowways, which are also
governed by the provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The project water
management system will be fully permitted through the South Florida Water Management District
and Collier County. Collier County will have no responsibility for the capital construction or
maintenance of the Rivergrass water management system. Therefore, the determination of fiscal
neutrality is reasonable.
North Collier Fire & Rescue District Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff
Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the
following:
DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any
specific needs (land,capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed
development. As provided by North Collier, there are locations in the area that will service the
proposed development, with an additional planned,co-located facility with EMS in the area.
Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development.
The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related
demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to
adequately address the potential operational needs.
Collier County Public Schools Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District
Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be
read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific
needs (school sites,etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As
provided by School representatives, the new students from Rivergrass are not expected to trigger
level of service issues given existing and planned schools.
School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a
capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by th e project through these funding sources
provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the
proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by
the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs
attributable to the development. At this time, the total student population is unknown. However, a
portion of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a very-low student per household
number. Therefore, the assumptions used are conservative and support the determination of fiscal
neutrality.
The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings,
and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public
Facilities Im pact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the
analysis is fairly consistent with the impact fee methodology,and thus the determination of fiscal
neutrality is reasonable.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 24 of 36
As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout.
Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative,that may
affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis
concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating
needs of the specified public facilities. Further, the specified public facilities do not have
projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development.Therefore,
overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied.
Zoning Services Review:The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document sets forth the
design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., Villages are primarily
residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale
and character of the particular village Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community s support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods As
previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village
Center.
The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 976.60 acres and allows for residential
development consisting of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group
housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF)and Continuing Care
Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 5-acre Utility pump/tank station for water
and sewer is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context zone. The maximum zoned and
actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet.
The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.93 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for
multi-family development, commercial,office, civic,governmental,and institutional uses. As
previously stated, a minimum of 60,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental,and
institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and
60 feet.
The Village Center is located along the northern edge of the southern half of the SRA along Oil
Well Road, a minor arterial road and freight route. The Village Center is disconnected from the
northern half of the SRA Village by Oil Well Road resulting in a less walkable community.
The Rivergrass Village SRA is a compact,suburban-style development similar to many of the
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)located in the Urban Area of Collier County. For further
information, please see the Deviation Discussion section of this Staff Report below.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking 16 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. rationale and
staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 25 of 36
SRA Document Section 7.1.Village Center Standards:
Deviation # 1 (SRA Document Section 7.1.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii)General Parking Criteria,which states,The
majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side
secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings,to instead allow parking in front of
buildings in the Village Center,when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a
grocery store. A Type D buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is
adjacent to or abutting a road.
Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Village Center fronts on Oil Well Road and is separated from Oil Well by a 25-foot wide
Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place,the Village Center commercial uses need to be
both accessible and convenient to motorists from Oil Well Road. This may warrant parking in
what may be determined to be a front yard:however, with a 25-foot wide Type D buffer along
Oil Well Road, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and
exposure) to and from Oil Well Road,the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the
market place. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be
located within any yard.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a),the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)urther enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 2 (SRA Document Section 7.1.2)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be
located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on-street parking
within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards,when such parking is
in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store.A Type D buffer per LDC at time of
permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road.
s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side or rear yards in the Village Center in
order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of
commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2,
above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the
nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic,which is
absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also
necessary.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 26 of 36
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with the RLSA and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)her enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards:
Note:LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a
Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone.
Therefore,the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a) through i) on
the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village.
Deviation # 3 (SRA Document Section 7.2.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), Non-residential uses,which states the
maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall
be 15,000 square feet,to instead allow the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites and related uses to
be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each.
Pet Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Community Centers, both north and south of Oil Well Road will provide multiple amenities
and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips.This also
requires flexibility in size in order to be sufficient to meet market demands.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overl and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)er enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation #4 (SRA Document Section 7.2.2)):
A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07J.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of Multi-Family
residential, side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of 20 feet for the primary structu to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet
and a rear ya rd setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1:
Neighborhood General -Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height.
Petitio Justification:The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type
development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build
such units effectively and efficiently,they must be consistent with design used in other similar
developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many app roved PUDs
that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes.We have maintained the required
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 27 of 36
minimum 10-foot side and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family product,and
this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has dem deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)r enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 5 (SRA Document Section 7.2.3)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, Maximum
Multi-family lot size,which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4
acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed 4 acres, when located within one-half (½)
mile of the Village Center Boundary and limited to sites 25 acres or less.
Petition s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable
beneficial outcome. Presumably,it is applied to mainta scale. However, a larger
lot can also of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and
through design. There is no discernible benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style
development to parcels of 4 acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi-family
buildings may also be feasible on parcel greater than 4 acres in Neighborhood General
adjacent to or near the Village Center. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum
parcel size to 4 acres, as all of these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village
definition,which is as follows:
Villages are a form of S RA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of
housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular
village. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-
use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and
facilities.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner deviations are consistent with the RLS and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)hances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.3. Transportation Standards:
Deviation #6 (SRA Document Section 7.3.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements,which states that Cul-de-
sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing topographical conditions or other
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 28 of 36
natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs,to instead allow the maximum
permanent cul-de-sac length to be 1,200 feet as measured along the centerline of the right-of-way from
the intersecting right-of-way c enterline to the end of the cul-de-sac right-of-way.
Pe tification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Master Plan design has minimized the occurrence and maximum length of cul-de-sacs.
The longest cul-de-sac depicted on the SRA Master Plan is now 1,050±feet. However, this
deviation (to allow cul-de-sacs up to 1200 feet) is to allow for design flexibility. This deviation
has been approved and utilized throughout Collier County (including in other SRAs).
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that he deviations are consistent with the RLSA O and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 7 (SRA Document Section 7.3.2)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. Figure(s)5, 6, and 7, Local Street |Neighborhood
General for cross-sections requiring 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of a local street, to instead
allow for a 10-foot-wide sidewalk or multi-use pathway on only one side of such street only where
residential development is located on only one side of the street.
Petition ustification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This option of allowing a 10-foot-wide pathway rather than 5 or 6-foot sidewalks on both sides
of a street provides for flexibility without reducing pedestrian mobility. This will only occur
where residential development is located on only one side of the street.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated tha deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overl and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 8 (SRA Document Section 7.3.3)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood
General,which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to
instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in
Neighborhood General.In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized.If the
option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree
crown projection shall be provided.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 29 of 36
This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet,
measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on
the driveway without parking over the sidewalk.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petition deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overla and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)r enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),F.S.
Deviation #9 (SRA Document Section 7.3.4)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required
parking nstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with
an SRA designation ap n
the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or,
at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP
Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analys is based upon the
mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the
type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This
analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-
residential uses in the Village Center.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
pet deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overla and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)urther enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.4. Sign Standards:
Deviation #10 (SRA Document Section 7.4.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, On-premises directional signs within residential
districts,which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the
edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet
from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA
only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways.
Petition : The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 30 of 36
This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A
unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and
drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned
residential developments in Collier County.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrat deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)er enhances the
tools,techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 11 (SRA Document Section 7.4.2)):
A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, On-premises signs within residential districts,which
allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet at each entrance to a multi-family or single-
family development,to instead allow a maximum height of 12 feet for such signs,limited to the two
primary project entrances from Oil Well Road (not including access points to the Village Center
Tract).
Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The increased height of signage at the project entries will allow the project to feature a more
pronounced, grand entrance, and will result in a recognizable entry for pedestrians and
motorists.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with th and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)urther enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.5. Landscape Standards:
Deviation # 12 (SRA Document Section 7.5.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, Types of buffers,Table 2.4
Information, Footnote (3)which requires Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within
a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet
wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet,to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide
with each abutting property contributing 5 feet.
Pe tification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and
parking areas within the Village Center.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 31 of 36
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated th deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)hances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.6. Other Deviations:
Deviation # 13 (SRA Document Section 7.6.1)):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G,Parking Space Requirements,which requires 1 parking
space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health
clubs to instead allow for parking for the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1
space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes
throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car.
Additionally, the centrally located Golf and Amenity Centers (both north and south) are
restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public.
The one space per 100 square feet for
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)ces the
tools,techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies,as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 14 (SRA Document Section 7.6.2)):
A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. Location Criteria,which requires that LSPA [littoral
shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a
preserve area,to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain
specific development lakes,including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the
eastern perimeter of the SRA.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
These areas will be designed to create,enhance,or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat
and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat
value and minimize maintenance efforts.They will enhance survivability of the littoral area
plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger
lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action,which negatively
affects these littoral planting areas.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the deviation
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 32 of 36
and has found the concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters along the eastern edge of
the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve
water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is
reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting
areas.
Environmental Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in
compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has d e deviations
are consistent wi and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation(s)es the tools, techniques,and strategies based on
principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),
F.S.
Deviation # 15 (SRA Document Section 7.6.3)):
A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.Walls,Commercial or Industrial Zoning
hich states that fences or walls in commercial or industrial areas are limited to a
maximum height of 8 feet, to instead allow a maximum height of 10 feet.
Petitione Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The requested additional fence/wall height allows for better screening between residential and
commercial uses.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overl and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)urther enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Note: Deviation below has not been added to 8-15-19 SRA Resolution and will be added to a
future revised SRA Resolution:
Deviation # 16 (SRA Document Section 7.6.4)):
A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, Potable Water System,which states separate potable
water and reuse waterline shall be provide the applicant at no cost to Collier County for
all subdivisions and developments and Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will
not be maintained by Collier County, to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to
be conveye d to and maintained by Collier County.
Petitioner s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to
allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 33 of 36
appurtenances (i.e.,the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is
support by Utilities staff.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with the RLSA Over and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)nhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 6, 20189 at 5:30 p.m.at
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida.For further
information, please see Attachment E: NIM Summary.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County A e reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190000044,
Rivergrass Village SRA on November 22,2019.The following criteria applies to the creation of
an SRA:
1. Consider:Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider:An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider:Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall
not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider:Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with
the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not
be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2,
regardless of the size of the land or parcel.
5. Consider:Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly
natural vegetated state.
6. Consider:Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the
gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100
acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that
requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 34 of 36
7. Consider:As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an
SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained
open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider:An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into
such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6.An
SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider:The SRA must have either direct access to a County c ollector or arterial
road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity
to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation
planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the GMP.
11. Consider:Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section
4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider:SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA
District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away
from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider:Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider:Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is constrained from recommending approval of Petition SRA-PL20190000044, Rivergrass
Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners.
However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1.The companion Landowner Contribution Agreement pertaining to transportation facilities is
required to be approved with this SRA request. Staff and the applicant are not in agreement with
all items as noted in the companion item for the Landowner Contribution Agreement.
2.Provide for potential interconnections (north, east,and south) on the Master Plan and
acknowledgment that residents on the north side of Oil Well Road will have internal access to the
commercial area on the south side of Oil Well Road without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or
the future Big Cypress Parkway. (The applicant is not agreeable to staff s recommendation).
3.Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL,a Listed Species Management Plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida
panther and all other listed species.
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
December 3, 2019
Page 35 of 36
4. The negotiated Interlocal Agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big
Cypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA Resolution.
5. The following CCPC requested revisions shall be incorporated into the SRA Document:
-
Section 5.1.1. A. 6);
-Increase the front yard setbacks for all land uses to 12 feet to avoid utility easement
conflicts;
-Make the lake symbol on the Master Plan one color, not two colors;
-
-Change the minimum width of the Right-of-Way Cross Section from 48 feet to 50
feet.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution
Attachment B: FLUE Consistency Review Memo
Attachment C: Peer Review
Attachment D: Public Facilities Im pact Assessment
Attachment E: NIM Summary
Attachment F: Letters of Objection
Attachment G: Application
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: BCC Staff Report Rivergrass FINAL 12-3-19 r-1 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 1 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To:Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From:Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management
Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date:November 19, 2019
Subject:Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area
PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190000044
PETITION NAME: Rivergrass Village [REV: 3, updated post-CCPC]
REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Rivergrass
Village on a ±997.5-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
of Collier County, as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use
Element and the Collier County Land Development Code. The proposed SRA entails a maximum of
2,250 single-family and up to 250 multi-family dwelling units (2,500 DUs total), up to 80,000 square feet
of retail/office uses, and 25,000 square feet of civic, government and institutional uses. No areas are
designated for public benefit use.
LOCATION: The property is located east of DeSoto Boulevard, extending north from Oil Well Road (CR
858) to 56th Avenue NE and south from Oil Well Road to 18th Avenue NE; and lies within Sections 1, 2,
3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. Golden Gate Estates is
adjacent to the west; the proposed Hyde Park Village SRA is also immediately adjacent to the west, on
the north side of Oil Well Road.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS:
The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Owners of property
within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions - agriculture
and related uses, essential services, residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, parks
and open space, earth mining, etc. – or choose to participate in the Stewardship Program. The
Stewardship Program provides for the protection of valuable habitats by designation as a Stewardship
Sending Area (SSA) where land use layers are removed, which generates Stewardship Credits that can
be used to entitle mixed use developments known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands
appropriate for development. SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided
for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Details of the RLSAO are provided in the RLSAO Policies
and RLSAO Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, in the FLUE as well as the
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 2 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
implementing RLSAO zoning overlay in the LDC, Land Development Code - also referred to as the LDC
Stewardship District.
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:
The GMP together with LDC are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine
consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the FLUE’s RLSAO, the specific policies and
provisions of the RLSA zoning overlay found in the LDC are taken into consideration.
Within the RLSAO, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and
satellite communities is based on area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-
use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, while protecting environmentally
sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land
uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services.
Specifically, the RLSAO allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural
developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a Stewardship
Receiving Area, and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or private post-
secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages
required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities.
This application proposes the Rivergrass development using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System,
as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. The SRA application further proposes that Stewardship
Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent restrictions
on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from approved SSAs). The SRA procedures and standards
are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable the project to
proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. The SSA
documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and
Reconciliation Application (revised to 8/08/2019) for SSA no. 15 , and the Stewardship Receiving Area
Credit Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019); these documents have been reconciled and updated, and may
found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials.
All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA.
This SRA must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as
identified for Villages in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold
requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in
italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses.
Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±997.5 acres total.]
Residential Units (DUs) per gross
acre base density
1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,500 DU/ ±997.5 acres = ±2.50 DU/ac.
proposed in the SRA.]
Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles,
lot sizes; [The SRA includes up to 2,250 single-family and up to 250
multi-family dwelling units (2,500 DUs total). Housing types include
at least four single-family styles and multi-family residential
buildings. However, staff would prefer to see a more meaningful
mix between single family and multi-family housing; the proposed
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 3 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
ratio is 90% single family and 10% multi-family as compared to the
County as a whole with a ratio of approximately 50% single family
to 45% multi-family.* (reference RLSA Policy 4.7.2, below) *Note:
remainder is mobile home and other unit types.]
Maximum Floor Area Ratio or
Intensity
Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; [These uses are provided for in the mixed-
use “Village Center”. FAR figures as shown.]
Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; [These uses are provided for
in the mixed-use “Village Center”. FAR figures as shown.]
Group Housing ‒ 0.45; ]not required – ALFs (Adult Living Facility)
and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed
(with equivalency ratio). FAR is provided.]
Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; [not required – not proposed.]
Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village
Centers ‒ Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; [(2,500
DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU) = 62,500 sq. ft. required. The SRA includes
62,500 to 80,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses.]
Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system;
[Served by centralized County facilities.]
Interim Well and Septic; [not required – not proposed.]
Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum
1% of gross acres); [9.975 acres are required (997.5 acres x 1%), and
9.98 acres are provided.]
Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required – 156.66 acres are
provided.]
Lakes; [provided, covering more than 218 acres.]
Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA; [350 acres of Recreation and
Open Spaces required ‒ 615.27 acres provided.]
Civic, Governmental and
Institutional Services
Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum 10 sq. ft./DU;
[25,000 sq. ft. required (2,500 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 25,000 sq. ft.
proposed.]
Full Range of Schools; [not required – not proposed.]
Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required
connection to collector or arterial; [An interconnected road system
is provided; the SRA connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a minor
arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and the
future north-south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway; additional
potential future interconnections are provided, (crossing the future
north-south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway), to connect with
43rd Avenue NE and Randall Blvd].
Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [provided.]
Equestrian Trails; [not required – not proposed.]
County Transit Access; [not required – transit stop proposed.]
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 4 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
The relevant RLSAO Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed below, followed by staff comments/analysis [in
italics].
Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 4.1:
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of
the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate
population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to
encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development
regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into
the LDC Stewardship District.
[The subject petition is for an SRA.]
Policy 4.2:
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as
a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria
and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay…
and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now:
163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for
SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300 acres within the
ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay
requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and
infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability
are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the
principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein.
[Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and other standards described in
RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA
designation (Open”).]
Policy 4.3:
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the
applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The
County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 5 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public
infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any
consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
[The petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described
in Policy 4.5. The total Stewardship Credits available are those to be transferred from SSA no. 15 (6,198.08).
These Stewardship credits derive from ‘Base’ and ‘Early Entry Bonus’ credits. Consistency with the intent
of RLSA provisions in the “LDC Stewardship District” (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein.]
Policy 4.4 is not directed toward individual applications.
Policy 4.5:
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified
as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
[The applicant has submitted a master plan with their petition intended to demonstrate the SRA complies
with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance or
noncompliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance
with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Zoning Services Section,
Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management
Department. Matters of noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be matters of
noncompliance with this Overlay.]
Policy 4.6 is not directed toward individual applications.
Policy 4.7:
There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are
set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4.
Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC
Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and
development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3248] and 9J-
5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth
on [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C
may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity
blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus
as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density
is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The
base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location,
size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation
review and approval process.
[The SRA size, density, and uses are consistent with those set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C, Stewardship
Receiving Area Characteristics, for a Village.]
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 6 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application.
Policy 4.7.2:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres
or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a
mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities.
Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have
parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail
and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range
of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow
for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC
Stewardship District.
[This SRA is primarily a residential development and allows multiple DU types. A mix of uses are provided
– residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site comprises +997.5 acres. Open space
is provided throughout the SRA. The Village Center allows a mix of uses – multi-family dwelling units; a
variety of commercial uses (minimum of 62,500 s.f. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental
uses (minimum of 25,000 s.f. required). Due to its location and orientation (at the corner of Oil Well Road
and future Big Cypress Parkway, oriented to Oil Well Road), it is questionable whether the Village Center
serves as a focal point for the community.
From the direction (Policy 4.15.1 and) this Policy provides, one would expect smaller Villages (nearer 100
acres) to represent the lower end of the scale for diversity of housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and mix
of uses; while larger Villages (nearer 1,000 acres) would be expected to provide the greatest diversity of
housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and fullest range of uses – much in the same way the store with more
floor area would provide a bigger variety of merchandise. The single family to multifamily ratio proposed
is 90%/10% as compared to the countywide ratio of 50%/45% (remaining DUs are mobile homes, etc.);
staff would prefer to see a more meaningful mix.]
Policies 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 do not apply to this application.
Policy 4.8:
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without
requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
[The SRA is not contiguous to lands designated FSA or HAS but is contiguous to lands designated WRA.]
Policy 4.9:
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. To further direct
development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light
industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within
a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In
addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 7 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a
Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those
areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of
potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2.
[Staff defers review and comment pertaining to the Natural Resource Index value within the SRA to
specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division. That staff
has determined all lands within the SRA have an NRI score of <1.2.]
Policy 4.10:
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation
lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas
and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to
serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have
such [open space] areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-
five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres.
Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open
space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located outside of the ACSC,
exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
[Open space exceeds the minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage. Approximately 349 acres
are required (±997.5 acres x 35%), and additional acres are provided. A 5-acre utility site on acreage
exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use” and, no lands are
reported to have Index values of greater than 1.2.]
Policy 4.11:
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges
of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining
property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open
space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the
design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural
activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses.
[All perimeter lands not abutting Oil Well Road or future Big Cypress Parkway are planned to contain
lakes or perimeter buffers. Comprehensive Planning staff defers the determination of compatibility with
surrounding land uses to Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of the project.]
Policy 4.12:
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the
Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts
to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not
adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations
shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project
control elevations and water tables.
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 8 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
[The SRA does not abut FSAs, HSAs or conservation lands but does abut WRA lands. Staff defers review
and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section
of the County’s Development Review Division.]
Policy 4.13:
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any
adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map.
Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private
conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf
areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-
back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and
HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer
shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300
feet.
[The SRA does not abut FSAs, HSAs or conservation lands. The subject site is located within land designated
as “open” on the RLSA Stewardship Map. Lakes and perimeter buffers are located along the SRA perimeter
except where abutting Oil Well Road and future Big Cypress Parkway.]
Policy 4.14:
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a
road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to
be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the
time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section
2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the
necessary data and analysis.
[Access is to Oil Well Road, a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and future
Big Cypress Parkway. Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff. Concurrency
is determined at the time of subsequent development orders.]
Policy 4.15.1:
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and [FLUE] Attachment C.
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on
the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD shall
provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and
institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required
to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the minimum amount
of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C, and shall be also included
in the Stewardship LDC District.
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 9 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
[This SRA includes mixed uses – residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar
to those in the LDC’s C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district.
Application materials address some of the above issues and requirements within their Statement of
Compliance, Rivergrass Village Master Plan, and its component Village Center and Neighborhood General
context zones. Specific requirements are contained in other Policies, and staff analysis is provided there.]
Policy 4.15.2:
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
[A 5-acre utility site on acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public
benefit use”. A school site is not proposed nor identified as a need by the Collier County Public Schools.
A park is provided and total open space is provided in excess of that required.]
Policy 4.15.3:
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning
to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As part of the SRA
application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary,
middle, high school); and,
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any
sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility.
[Project development is planned in a single phase. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or
dedicated for public use in the development.
The School Impact Analysis projects 600 new students to be generated from the 2,500 residences [4,269
permanent / 5,123 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure, however, is not allocated to the number
of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school. Staff defers
review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School
District personnel – which did not identify a need for a school site in this SRA.]
Policy 4.16:
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the
SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water,
wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is
discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are
required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be
required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 10 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall
be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a
Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other
governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as
decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they
meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited
to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis
until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable
water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100
acres or less in size.
[The demand for potable water will be approximately 1.03 million gallons per day (average) and 1.33
million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate
approximately 0.78 million gallons per day (average) and 1.16 million gallons per day (3-day maximum).
Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and
wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. As an alternative, the developer
proposes that on-site treatment facilities will be constructed (including formation of an independent utility
company).
Golf course and landscape areas do not use the same waters. The project requires irrigation of the golf
course and landscape areas for approximately 1.4 million gallons per day (annual average-based) and 2.1
million gallons per day (monthly maximum-based). A privately-owned and maintained system will
withdraw irrigation water from the SRA’s own lake system. The lake system will be replenished by recharge
wells that tap into the Lower Tamiami Aquifer.
Collier County expanded its jurisdictional Water-Sewer District service area boundary in September 2018,
encompassing this area (FKA Big Cypress).
The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies phased construction of a
new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the
Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development. Staff also defers to other
departments, agencies and public vetting of this project.]
Policy 4.17:
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A public
facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in
accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of
local development order approval.
[This project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2 of
the CIE. Staff defers to the departments and agencies identified above involved directly with Concurrency
Management – for which review occurs at time of subsequent development order.]
Policy 4.18:
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon
year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 11 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that
may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts,
shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid
waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and
mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted
levels of service standards.
[The applicant asserts the development will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis
provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the other County staff involved in the review
of the Economic Assessment Report.]
Policy 4.19:
Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a
public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and
provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation
entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and
are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and
[FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan.
[The proposed SRA comprises ±997.5 acres; of those, ±775 acres require ±6,198 credits, and this 1:8 ratio
is met. Sufficient Stewardship Credits are available from approved SSAs to enable development of the
project (see Policy 4.3 comments).]
Policy 4.20:
The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in
Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public
or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the
minimum acreage requirements of [FLUE] Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and
governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools
shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, 163.3177
F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged
to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting
requirements.
[A 5-acre utility site on acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public
benefit use”.]
Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern.
Review of select FLUE Policies (followed by staff analysis in [italics]):
Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land
uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination
to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, giving special consideration
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 12 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
to the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (also referred
to as the LDC Stewardship District) found in the LDC.
The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include reviews of both the subject
property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities,
development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building
location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic
generation/attraction, etc. Like the subject property, surrounding or nearby properties are under review
for SRAs or eligible for future SRAs; these may be viewed as an interrelated set of projects, each of which
affects the others.]
The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use
arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart
Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access,
interconnections, open space, and walkable communities.
Objective 7:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing
development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating
intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This property fronts Oil Well Road
(CR 858), classified as a minor arterial road in the Transportation Element. Connections to Oil Well Road
are made at access points from the northerly and southerly portions of the project. This property also
fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation
Element. Connections to the future Big Cypress Parkway are made at access points from the northerly
and southerly portions of the project.
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Internal
accesses are provided for the proposed development, including direct accesses into the northerly and
southerly residential areas from Oil Well Road, and indirect access into the southerly residential area
through the “village center” tract. The project is proposed as a “Village”. Design parameters for villages
differ [from this Policy], and this project must meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to
Stewardship Receiving Areas.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use
type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the
Transportation Element. [This property fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future
collector road in the Transportation Element. The proposed Hyde Park SRA is located across the future
Parkway, west of [the northerly portion of] this site. “Potential future interconnection” points appear
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
‒ 13 ‒
PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA
along Big Cypress Parkway to interconnect to the Hyde Park SRA and other existing roadways to the west.
Once Big Cypress Parkway is constructed in the future, any such interconnection will become a street
connection (intersection). No interconnection is provided to the “Open” areas to the north or east. Staff
recommends both be provided.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This SRA
provides for different dwelling unit types and sizes, significant open space, and
civic/institutional/government facilities. Sidewalks are provided throughout. However, if the project were
designed in a more compact manner, placing more residential development closer to the Village Center
and Amenity Centers, then walkability could be significantly increased.]
CONCLUSION:
1. The Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application
(revised to 8/08/2019) for SSA no. 15, and the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement (revised
to 8/08/2019), have been reconciled and updated and may be found internally consistent with other
proposed SRA materials.
2. The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document (revised to 10/30/2019) is consistent with the
FLUE in that it complies with the objective requirements of the RLSAO (SRA size, permitted uses,
mix of uses, residential density, minimum amount of open space and non-residential uses, etc.).
3. The Rivergrass Village SRA does not fully meet the intent of the policies in the RLSAO pertaining to
innovative design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity
continuum or gradient, interconnectedness, etc. In staff’s view, this SRA is, with some exceptions, a
suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is
contrary to what is intended in the RLSA. This is greenfield development - the site is former
agricultural fields; there are no known natural resource (or other) constraints that preclude a more
compact form of development with majority of dwelling units proximate to the Village Center, the
Village Center located in the interior rather than on the edge, commitment to provide some number
of residential units in the Village Center, a grid street system, greater number of multi-family
dwelling units, commitment to provide some amount of affordable housing, interconnections to
future nearby developments to the north/east/south, etc.
cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
G:\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\ Rivergrass Village SRA\SRA-2019-44 Con Rvws
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2019\SRA-SRAA\PL19-44 Rivergrass Vlg ConRev memo for BCC1.docx
9.E.3
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review 11-19-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 1
M E M O R A N D U M
Collier County GMD – Peer Review of Rivergrass Village
Economic Assessment for Financial Neutrality
PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County
Trinity Scott, Collier County
Nancy Gundlach, Collier County
Ray Bellows, Collier County
James French, Collier County
Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County
COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs
PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs
Darren Betts, Jacobs
Dennis Jackson, Jacobs
DATE: November 20, 2019
Introduction
Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged CH2M-HILL
(hereinafter referred to as Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Rivergrass Village Economic
Assessment” (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier
Enterprises Management, Inc. (the Applicant), revised July 24, 2019. The purpose of the peer review was
to assess:
• The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment.
• The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions.
• The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other
sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and
operating) for the appropriate forecast period.
• The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally-accepted governmental
accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact-fee-setting practices, balanced
development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the
Collier County Land Development Code).
Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing
of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the
consistency of results with the County’s current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop
an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but reviewed DPFG’s alternative fiscal impact
model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and
assumptions is provided in Appendix A.
In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the
County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
2 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best
efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County,
Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal
impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by
the County or third parties.
Qualifications and Consultant Team
Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction
services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and
maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 80,000+ employees in 400+ locations
around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial,
and government clients across multiple markets and geographies.
Jacobs’ economics consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a range of
public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process, we help
clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is
comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning – from the conceptual
stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship-based approach
and value strong partnerships within the team.
Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included:
• Palm Beach County, Florida – Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use
elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population,
employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years.
The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to
provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's
budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the
proposed standard would have on the County's economy.
• City of Phoenix, Arizona – Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB
1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which
tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State’s impact fee law.
• Broward County, Florida – Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the
construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center.
• Various Municipal and Local Government Clients – Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal
impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and
infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services.
The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are:
• Bill Gramer, PE – Client Liaison
• Dave Green – Economist, and Project Manager
• Dennis Jackson, PE – QA/QC Reviewer
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 3
• Darren Betts, MBA – Financial Analyst
Legal Basis
Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program “was established under the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive-
based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida
Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and
smart growth development.
Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation
purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages,
hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize
preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems
and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation
areas.”1
Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states “the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally
neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal
impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The [Board of County
Commissioners] BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing,
as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community
Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall
consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools.
Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships
shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.”
Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for
SRA Designation, which “is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity
and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District….]. One of several preconditions for the
SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows:
L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section
shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and
funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC.
1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a
whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base.
This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services
listed above, using one of the following methodologies:
1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
4 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and
maintained by Collier County.
b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact
model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact
model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant
exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or
workforce housing.
DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Rivergrass Village (Rivergrass) to
demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section
4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a
considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law.
DPFG measured fiscal neutrality “at the project’s horizon year (buildout 2031)” after a 10-year buildout
period (from 2022 to 2031). The overall assessment is underpinned by this fundamental assumption,
and DPFG’s analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment.
It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does
not include a year-by-year examination of the County’s sources and uses of funds. New development
may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must
make initial investments to accommodate growth – prior to a compensatory public revenue stream
from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent
in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review
and are beyond the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality.
There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG’s analysis
largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted:
• Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known
variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the
development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could
render the analysis obsolete.
• The cost of future financing is not included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to the
overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of
positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue
District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing options
to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time.
• Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues
whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over recover (subject to
economies of scale) or under recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given
development.
• While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project-specific revenue and cost drivers, certain
obligations are subject to the analyst’s discretion.
2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County’s impact fees for schools and correctional facilities.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 5
The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Rivergrass development
plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County’s control, and beyond the constraints of
fiscal impact analysis, generally.
DPFG’s methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections.
Methodology
DPFG’s approach to “the fiscal impact analysis of Rivergrass uses a marginal/average cost hybrid
methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”3 which is customary for
fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain
marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the:
• Sheriff Department
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department
• North Collier Fire & Rescue District
• School District
The case study approach is based on the analyst’s determination that other standard approaches have
material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the
particular use.
DPFG’s approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General
Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU).
Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the
case study approach applied to the referenced departments and districts.
Key Assumptions
Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model
(filename: Rivergrass EA 2019.05.31 LOCKED.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time
answering Jacobs’ questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of
their methodology and assumptions.
Inflation
All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect year 2018 dollars, unless otherwise
noted. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which
enables comparisons across years and across projects.
3 DPFG Report, page 8
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
6 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
Impact Fees
Impact fee calculations utilized the County’s Residential Impact Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018
and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017.4
Taxable Real Estate Values
To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non-
residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the
Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for
non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties
from the County appraiser’s database.
Land and Improvement Conversion Factor
To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot
costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square
foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Unlike
residential real estate, there is no rule-of-thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this
percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared.
Population
“2018 population estimates were used in the EA. The population estimates in the 2017 Annual Update
and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR) were used for consistency with the Hyde Park Village EA
as the 2018 AUIR report was not available for that study.”5
Annual Absorption by Use
Not applicable.
Millage Rates
DPFG utilized fiscal year 2018 millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property)
tax revenues over the forecast period:
• 3.5645 County General Fund
• 0.8069 MSTD General Fund
• 0.0293 Water Pollution Control
Mil rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local revenues
sources are also based on the County’s 2018 General Fund budget.
Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs)
DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive
countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is
to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2018 source data
would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file “Collier County IMPLAN
Conversion.xls” to support this assumption.
4 Golf Course Bundled impact fees were applied in the economic assessment model. Bundled refers to communities where the golf club
membership is included with the home purchase. As such, the bundled impact fees used in the economic assessment are appreciably lower
than non-bundled impact fees and are a conservative revenue assumption.
5 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 7
Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines,
realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details.
• Retail: 400 square feet per employee
The Rivergrass employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the
2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG
Report was prepared.
Home-based employment was not specifically addressed.
Rivergrass Population Growth Forecasts
DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth
due to Rivergrass. The population per unit assumptions utilized were:
• Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: 1.26
• Single Family Detached: 2.65
Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy,
consistent with best practices.6
Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG’s key assumptions described above.
Structure of Funds
For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County
(through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District
(“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own
taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal
neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital
impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts.
General Fund
The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These
services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental
facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative
services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem – or property tax revenue.
Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra-ordinary
services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax.
North Collier Fire & Rescue District
“Most of the North Collier District’s revenue is generated by property taxes. Each year, the Collier
County Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The
Board of Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District’s
Enabling Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples
6 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association,
2004
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
8 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
Service Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big
Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of
the District’s expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District’s
residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly
trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of
emergency situations.”7
Collier County School District
School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and
expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries
specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports
the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and
internal service. The General Fund covers the day-to-day operations of the School District and accounts
for the majority of operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program
(FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the
availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of
geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property
taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the
State.
For fiscal year 2018, federal sources provided 8.98% of the School District’s total revenue, state sources
provided 14.75%, and local sources provided 76.27% of the School District’s total revenue.8
Enterprise Funds
Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service.
Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in
the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency
medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund,
the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as
major funds. The County also maintains two other (non-major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund
and the Collier Area Transit Fund.
“Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426
CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no
other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.”9
Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier
County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation
insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology.
Fiscal impacts on County enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Enterprise funds are
inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-
supporting through user rates and fees.
7 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/
8
https://www.collierschools.com/cms/lib/FL01903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%20Summary%20Final%
20FY%2018.pdf
9 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 9
Jacobs finds DPFG’s exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach.
Fiscal Impacts
Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, “shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid
waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools,” each of which is
reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC.
County Operating Impacts
Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG’s analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund
groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities,
government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Rivergrass’ annual total general
fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $2,909,000 against revenues of
approximately $3,707,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $798,000. Rivergrass’ annual total MSTU
operating expenditures are projected at approximately $448,000 against revenues of approximately
$694,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $246,000.
Transportation (Roads)
Operating Impacts
Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established
for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation
Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2018 the transfer from the General Fund
amounted to $21.7 million of Transportation Services’ total funding of $26.0 million).
Capital Impacts
The County imposes road impact fees on new development to fund the construction of growth-related
improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the
cost burden on new development for transportation-related expansions and improvements which are
necessitated by such development.
DPFG treats road impacts from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to
the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the
corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG’s approach, Rivergrass will generate
approximately $17.1 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development
parameters and current road impact fee rate table.
Transportation capital impacts are based on a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) associated with the zoning
application for the development, in addition to a Fair-Share Mitigation Report prepared by Trebilcock
Consulting Solutions, PA. Based on the TIS, the following improvements may be necessary to maintain
acceptable LOS:
• Oil Well Rd and DeSoto Blvd intersection: add WB left-turn lane median directional; restrict DeSoto
Blvd connection into Oil Well Rd to a right-in/right out only access
• Oil Well Rd and Immokalee Rd intersection: add NB right-turn lane
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
10 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
• Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection – at grade improvements as illustrated in the FDOT
District One, Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study of the intersection of Immokalee
Rd at Randall Blvd – Financial Project ID 435368-1-22-01 – Phase 1
• Immokalee Rd and Wilson Blvd intersection – add WB left-turn lane; add NB left-turn lane and
restripe to provide a dual left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane; reconfigure SB
approach to provide dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane.
Per the Fair-Share Mitigation Report, the Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection improvements are
approved to be funded from the Collier One-Cent Sales Tax revenue and are not included in the fair-
share mitigation cost evaluation. Therefore, Rivergrass will make a $440,000 fair-share mitigation
contribution to the County, in addition to the Transportation impact fees.
Comparing the calculated Road Impact Fee Revenues to the calculated Proportionate Fair Share costs of
the project at buildout indicates that Rivergrass’ fair share costs towards area-wide transportation
improvements will be fully funded via its road impact fees and fair-share mitigation contribution.10
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be
reasonable, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Agreement.
Potable Water and Wastewater
Potable water and wastewater services for Rivergrass will be provided by the Collier County Water and
Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings LTD., CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress
Stewardship District. Fiscal impacts on the County, if any, would be on the County Water and Sewer
District Fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific
purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Recall that enterprise funds
were excluded from DPFG’s analysis.
It should be noted that there are nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and
wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of
such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs’ review is not intended to
analyze to that level of detail.
Per Collier County Principal Project Manager – Utilities Expansion, Craig Pajer, Rivergrass’ utilities service
will not trigger above-average service delivery costs. “The infrastructure being installed to serve the
Rivergrass development and several other potential developments is no different than what has been
done in the past to serve an expanding service area. The current construction project is the first phase of
establishing regional treatment facilities in the northeast region of the County. When complete, these
facilities will serve Rivergrass as well as growing areas currently being served by the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant and the North County Water Reclamation Facility. The northeast
treatment facilities will increase the reliability of the existing systems as the population expands. As an
additional comment, all user rates are consistent throughout the CCWSD.”11
10 From the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study – note that the trip length used for the single-family land use (5.88 miles) is
based on local studies conducted in 1999. More recent studies conducted in Collier County suggested an average of 7.28 miles, with a range of
3.05 miles to 11.29 miles.
11 Collier County Email RE: Rivergrass Follow Up Items, dated August 19, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 11
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public
facilities and services to be reasonable, subject to the negotiation of an interlocal agreement between
the parties.12
Irrigation Water
Residential and Commercial irrigation water services for Rivergrass will be provided by the Collier
County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per an MOU that outlines
commitments from Collier Land Holdings LTD., CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress
Stewardship District. The proposed change in land use, as a result of the development, will result in a
net reduction of irrigation water usage of 75% on a maximum monthly basis and 58% on an average
annual basis. As part of their development of water resources to meet both irrigation and potable
demands throughout the County service area, the Collier County Water and Sewer District may seek use
of some of the residual water supply, available after conversion of agricultural land uses in the
Rivergrass Village service area to residential use, for other purposes.
Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Rivergrass irrigation system,
therefore the fiscal impact to the County is neutral. Impacts associated with the Rivergrass irrigation
system should be self-contained within the County Water and Sewer District Enterprise, as described in
this review.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable, subject to
the negotiation of an interlocal agreement between the parties.13
Stormwater Management
Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Rivergrass water management
system.
“The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit
from the South Florida Water Management District (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the
preparation of this plan were based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater
management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are
equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the
discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the
agreement between the County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of
I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would
be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the
development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. The County currently
maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future.”14
Jacobs reviewed Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. #11-03949-P, which was originally issued for
the Rural Lands West development on April 3, 2018. Per Valerie Pike, Project Manager at Collier
12 The MOU “commits the parties to negotiate an interlocal agreement, providing for the timely initiation of water and wastewater services by
CCWSD to all of the lands and property within the political boundaries of the District…”
13 The MOU “commits the parties to negotiate an interlocal agreement, providing for the timely initiation of water and wastewater services by
CCWSD to all of the lands and property within the political boundaries of the District…”
14 DPFG Report, page 27
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
12 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
Enterprises, this conceptual ERP is applicable to Rivergrass as well, as Rivergrass is a subset of the larger
parcel. Valerie Pike also indicated that Collier Enterprises is currently preparing a Construct and Operate
Permit Application.15
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities
and services to be reasonable.
Solid Waste
Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-
supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for
a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise
funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be
reasonable.
Parks
Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained
community and regional parks is a combined 3.15 acres per 1,000 residents. The County’s LOS (per 1,000
residents) by type is compared to DPFG’s assumptions, as follows:
• Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres
• Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres
• Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres
• Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres
It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2018
Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved
value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015
adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect
2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 9.32 acres.
Capital Impacts
The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of
community parks were calculated at $1,817,000 (plus other capital revenues of $29,000) and regional
parks were $5,144,000 (plus other capital revenues of $270,000 for a total of $5,414,000).
The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community
parks forms the basis for capital impacts – estimated at $1,737,000.
The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks
forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $5,089,000. With the proposed adjustment
to reflect the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population, the cost of the additional acreage for Regional Parks
would amount to $5,503,000. This is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of
$5,414,000 by $89,000.
15 DPFG Email FW: Rivergrass Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 13
The 2018 parks cost per acre used in the economic assessment is the same as the 2017 cost per acre
used in the Hyde Park Village Economic Assessment. “Both reports reflect the most recent Indexed
Impact Fee Costs which are considered representative. Based on recent discussions with Amy Patterson
(Impact Fee Director), only minor changes are expected from the Parks Impact Fee study which is
currently underway.”16
DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative
assumption that increases the cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the
blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG’s calculations.
Based on conversations with the County, it is understood that developer contribution agreements will
ultimately form the basis for balancing between developer dedications, County regional planning
requirements, and payment of impact fees. In addition, a portion of the proceeds of a One-Cent
Infrastructure Surtax is slated for use to fund the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
Based on the adjustment to the 2015 Seasonal Population discussed above, Jacobs finds that the parks
will be fiscally neutral, as opposed to DPFG’s determination of parks as fiscally positive.
Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department)
Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the County’s current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per
1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84.
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law
enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law
enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue at $1,219,000 and other
capital revenues at $221,000.
Based on discussions with Lucy Gallo, law enforcement officials indicated that there is less need for
physical stations because patrol vehicles have become mobile offices in which officers can write reports,
so there is less of a need to travel to a central station for routine operations. As such, no satellite office
is needed to service Rivergrass, at this time. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted
versus achieved LOS for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed
Rivergrass Development and cannot be resolved by this development.
Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $961,000.
The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the
amount of $479,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law
enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Emergency Medical Services
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects total capital
revenues of $296,000. According to EMS management, these capital revenues will be used to partially
16 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
14 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
fund a new EMS facility planned that would likely serve Rivergrass. The new station will also be funded
from the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax, approved in November 2018. The cost of the new
facility is $2,117,634, which was obtained from the 2018 AUIR. Rivergrass’ allocated share of the new
facility is $264,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will generate. The remainder will
likely be applied to the direct capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Fire & Rescue
Operating Impacts
“Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density
development, Rivergrass is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses.”17 The
millage rate and the projected tax base of Rivergrass results in annual ad valorem revenues of
$2,637,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Rivergrass’ population, based on an average of the
fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $899,000. Thus, there is a projected operating
fiscal surplus.
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Rivergrass will
generate total capital revenues of $1,400,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching
levels of capital costs. “Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Rivergrass is within
1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and
Rescue District.”18 “The narrative should have stated that land for the planned facility is already owned
by the NCFR District. The facility is yet to be constructed. Table 29 reflects Rivergrass’ proportionate cost
of the new facility.”19
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Schools
The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows:
• Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: 0.11
• Single Family Detached: 0.34
The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or
weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments.
Operating Impacts
Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and costs impacts,
the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Rivergrass is
fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $2,803,000, with
matching levels of operating expenditures.
17 DPFG Report, page 32
18 DPFG Report, page 31
19 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL 15
Capital Impacts
The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the
current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report,
dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from
fees. The fees are being phased-in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance.
There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to
the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows:
• Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: $2,844.19
• Single Family Detached: $8,789.54
Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on
residential-only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.48 mills on both residential and non-
residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will affect the
determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Rivergrass development program
results in a fiscal capital surplus.
The Report uses the 2018 Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to estimate the
available school seats in 2022-23. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 Collier County Public Schools CIP. Based on
the 2019 CIP, the available elementary seats are not sufficient for Rivergrass. “During the meeting with
Collier County Schools on January 17, 2019, they indicated that between available capacity, redistricting
opportunities, and existing/planned sites, that there were no additional needs for Rivergrass. They
indicated the School District has been very successful in their long-range planning and capital funding
strategy. The FY 2020 – FY 2039 CIP confirms this conclusion.”20
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Additional Public Services
The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional
facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional
services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC.
While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did
include them in their analysis.
Correctional Facilities
Capital Impacts
The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail
facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for
residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the
capital costs for correctional facilities. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and
employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial
land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues
of $1,100,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs.
20 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY
16 JACOBS COLLIERCTY RIVERGRASS PEER REVIEW FINAL
Government Buildings
Capital Impacts
The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non-enterprise
County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based
on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to
calculate the capital costs for government buildings. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for
population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand
from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG
estimates capital revenues of $1,972,000 against indirect capital costs of $1,974,000.
Libraries
Capital Impacts
The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection
materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and
square footage for non-residential. The County’s adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate
the capital costs for libraries. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately
$136,000.
Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG’s
analysis and in the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined, but with the noted exceptions. It is our opinion
that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed
Rivergrass development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Rivergrass SRA for Collier County, the North
Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District.
It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more
into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new
analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example,
adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams.
In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County-
Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by
several developer contribution agreements (DCAs) and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation,
execution, and administration of DCAs and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the
County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives.
Based upon DPFG’s analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Rivergrass
qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, with the
noted exceptions. Pending these changes, the DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs’ opinion is professionally
prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that
the Rivergrass development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality.
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Assumption/Calculation Source Model Tab Comment
Collier County millage rates Collier County County Inputs Checked
Road developer contribution requirement cost Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Executive Summary Checked
Water, wastewater, and irrigation water services Memorandum of Understanding N/A Checked
Stormwater management permit #11-03949-P SFWMD N/A Checked
Golf value per square foot Collier County Property Appraiser Golf Checked
Fire impact fees Fire Impact Fee Schedule Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked
Big Corkscrew Island SDA millage rate Fire Resolution 18-024 Fire Operating Checked
Collier fire total expenditures North Collier Fire Budget Fire Operating Checked
Functional population Fire Impact Fee Schedule Functional Population Checked
Functional population coefficient Fire Impact Fee Study Functional Population Checked
School impact fees Collier County Impact Fee Summary Checked
School operating millage Collier County School District Budget SCHOOL INPUTS Checked
School enrollment 2019 Collier County School District Budget SCHOOL INPUTS Checked
Eligible homestead percentage Shimberg Center for Housing Studies County Inputs Checked
Collier County impact fee schedule Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Checked
School capital improvement millage rate Collier County School District Budget School Capital Rev Checked
State revenue sharing Florida Department of Revenue General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked
Half cent sales tax revenue Collier County Government Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked
Construction cost index RSMeans RS Means Checked
Construction costs per square foot RSMeans RS Means Checked
Collier county permanent population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked
Collier countywide employment EMS Impact Fee Study County Inputs Checked
FTE conversion IMPLAN County Inputs Checked
Collier County peak tourist population Collier County CVB March 2018 County Inputs Checked
Collier unincorporated county permanent population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked
Collier unincorporated county peak population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked
Unincorporated general fund expenditures Collier County Government Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked
County operating budget Collier County Government Budget Operating Budget Recap Checked
Peak seasonal persons per unit EMS Impact Fee Study Persons per Unit Checked
Employment coefficient EMS Impact Fee Study Development Program Checked
Student generation rate (SGR)School Impact Fee Study SCHOOL INPUTS Checked
General fund transfers Collier County Government Budget 001 General Fund Transfers Checked
CIP sources/uses Collier County Government Budget CIP Capital Outlay Checked
Law enforcement level of service Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked
Law enforcement land and building cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked
Law enforcement equipment total cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Inventory Checked
Law enforcement impact cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Net Impact Cost per FuncRes Checked
Correctional facility level of service Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Impact Cost per Res Checked
Correctional facility cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Asset Inventory Checked
Correctional facility impact cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Net Impact Cost per Func Res Checked
EMS net impact cost EMS Impact Fee Study EMS Net Impact Cost per Res Checked
EMS capital costs Collier County AUIR Prop Share EMS Capital Checked
Number of owned stations Collier County AUIR EMS Current LOS Checked
Library level of service Library Impact Fee Study LIB Current LOS Checked
Library cost per square foot Library Impact Fee Study LIB Impact Cost per Res Checked
Library unit cost per capita Library Impact Fee Study LIB Impact Cost per Res Checked
Library net impact cost Library Impact Fee Study LIB Net Impact Cost Checked
Parks cost per acre Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study Parks Impact per Res Checked
Government buildings capital cost Collier County AUIR GOV Impact Cost per Res Checked
Government buildings level of service Government Building Impact Fee Study GOV Impact Cost per Res Checked
Government buildings net impact cost Government Building Impact Fee Study GOV Net Impact Cost Checked
Fire net impact cost Fire Impact Fee Study Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked
Fire operating costs North Collier Fire Budget Fire Operating Checked
Percentage of students per school type School Impact Fee Study Enrollment by School Type Checked
School capacity School Capital Improvement Plan School Inventory Checked
School cost per student station School Impact Fee Study Cost per Station Checked
School transportation/ancillary cost per student School Impact Fee Study Cost per Station Checked
Net impact cost per student School Impact Fee Study Net Cost per Student Checked
9.E.4
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment C-Peer Review -final.pdf 11-20-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 1 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
RIVERGRASS SRA
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8-9-2019
Solid Waste
A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all
solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of
recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and
remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site.
Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste
generated within Rivergrass. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling
containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be
collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a
local business specializing in the recycling of construction products.
Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage
and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and
institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Rivergrass will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid
Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management’s Okeechobee Landfill.
According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25
years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and
according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity
at this facility.
Stormwater Management
A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component
of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designation Application
Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the
following information:
a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information:
(1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA;
No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area.
(2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site
including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 2 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from
the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the
predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater
discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total
volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the
event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning
the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of
undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities
caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County
currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future.
(3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater
discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties.
No adjacent properties drain through this site.
b. A narrative component to the report including the following information:
(1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater
discharge from the site will ultimately outfall;
The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Rivergrass is the existing agricultural water
management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit
Canal via Camp Keais Strand.
(2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County
Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation;
The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10
is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted
agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will
be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime
that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made
at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11-
03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property.
(3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from
surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management
system of the proposed development;
The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to
development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding
properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage
basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 3 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
(4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water
management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided
prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and
Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet
detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by
SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with
SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas
will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control
structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment
consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment
volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an
additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality
volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment
will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert.
(5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the
report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08.04A.4.b.
Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by
SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their
associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s.
These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation
and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit
which will be made upon implementation of the impact.
The water management concept for Rivergrass involves the use of the existing agricultural water
management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations,
discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval
Permit issued by SFWMD.
All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality
volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to
form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted
areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s
will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated
through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project.
Potable Water
A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code
for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the
standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall
specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 4 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed
for potable water supply.
The following table is a calculation of the Rivergrass potable water demands and wastewater
generation with all factors and assumptions:
Rivergrass Water and Wastewater Demands
Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.4
Residential 2,500 DU @ 250 gpd = 625,000 gpd 2,500 DU @ 350 gpd = 875,000 gpd
Commercial 105,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 15,750 gpd 105,000 sf @ 0.21 gpd = 22,050 gpd
Golf 536 members @ 25 gpd = 13,400 gpd 536 members @ 35 gpd = 18,760 gpd
42 employees @ 15 gpd = 630 gpd 42 employees @ 21 gpd = 882 gpd 669,030 gpd 936,642 gpd
654,780 gpd = 0.66 mgd
ADF
916,692 gpd = 0.92 mgd
ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.98 mgd M3D Flow = 1.19 mgd
Potable water services for the Rivergrass project will be provided by the Collier County Water and
Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that
outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the
Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential
development at the project is based on 350 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,500
residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 21 gpd per 100 feet
square or 0.21 gpd/sf. Potable water demand for golf is based on 35 gpd per member and an
additional 21 gpd per employee. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Rivergrass
development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.92 MGD average daily demand and
1.19 MGD maximum 3-day demand.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 5 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
Irrigation Water
Residential and Commercial irrigation water services for the Rivergrass project will be provided
by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a
Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and
CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. This is shown in the
following table:
Land Use Acreage % Irrigated Irrigated
Acreage
% Total Category Onsite
Source
Neighborhood 421 40 168 45 Residential
ROW 111 25 28 7 Residential
Golf Course 148 95 141 38 Commercial X
Golf Club 6 40 2 1 Commercial X
Lakes 219 0 0 0 N/A
Open Space 62 40 25 7 Commercial
Village Center 19 25 5 1 Commercial
Buffers 13 25 3 1 Residential
999 372
Rivergrass will require irrigation for approximately 372 acres. The golf course will be irrigated
from onsite sources. The projected irrigation demands for the Rivergrass project are 0.8 MGD for
golf and 1.3 MGD for other on a maximum monthly basis and 0.5 MGD for golf and 0.9 MGD for
other on an annual average basis. The project site has a long history of permitted agricultural
withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural
environments. The agricultural water use allocations currently permitted and used within the
Rivergrass area that will be absorbed through the transition from agriculture to residential and
commercial land use are approximately 8.8 MGD on a maximum monthly basis and 3.3 MGD on
an annual average basis. Therefore, the proposed change in land use will result in a net reduction
of irrigation water usage of 75% on a maximum monthly basis and 58% on an average annual
basis. As part of their development of water resources to meet both irrigation and potable demands
throughout the County service area, the Collier County Water and Sewer District may seek use of
some of the residual water supply that may remain on the Rivergrass parcels upon conversion of
agricultural land uses.
Wastewater
A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The
assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having
a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a
capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 6 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent
applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process.
Wastewater services for the Rivergrass project will be provided by the Collier County Water and
Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that
outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the
Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based
on a per capita daily volume of 250 gpd per D.U. for 2,500 residences. Wastewater demand for
amenities is based on 25 gpd per member and an additional 15 gpd per employee. Wastewater
demand for golf is based on 25 gpd per member and an additional 15 gpd per employee. This
results in build out wastewater flows of 0.66 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.98 MGD on a
maximum 3-day basis.
School Concurrency
The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high
school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school
CSAs. The subject site is within the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3
North Central Area CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools.
The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools Capital
Improvement Plan, for fiscal years 2019 through 2038.
The E10 CSA includes two elementary schools, Corkscrew and Estates. They have a combined
FISH capacity of 1,499 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 1,220 students, and a projected
2022/2023 enrollment of 1,195 students (80% capacity).
The M3 CSA includes three middle schools, Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Cypress Palm. They
have a combined FISH capacity of 3,219 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 2,606 students,
and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 2,537 students (79% capacity).
The H3 CSA includes two high schools, Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge. They have a combined
FISH capacity of 3,995 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 3,822 students, and a projected
2022/2023 enrollment of 3,995 (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools
CIP, enrollment at Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge is being monitored.
The proposed development consists of up to 2,500 dwelling units, broken down by type in the
table below, in accordance with Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance(s) methodology and
terminology and applying the student generation rates established in the 2015 Collier County
School Impact Fee Study, the project is anticipated to generate 600 new students at build out.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 7 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E10, M3, and H3 CSAs,
the proposed development will not generate enough students to cause a substantial change in the
level of service.
The proposed SRA will result in a permanent population of approximately 4,269 people.
We have contacted the Collier County School District staff (Amy Lockhart and Tom Eastman)
and received an email (dated May 14, 2019 and attached to his Report) from Tom Eastman
indicating the following:
“At this time, there is existing or planned capacity within the next 5 years for the purposed
development at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Therefore, there are no
requirements from the applicant. At the time of site plan or plat, the development would be
reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is
located within or adjacent concurrency service areas.”
Fire and EMS
The subject site is located within the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Fire station #
10 (with Collier County EMS) is located at 13240 Immokalee Road, approximately 6.2 miles west
of the property.
Additionally, based on discussions with North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District personnel,
Rivergrass is within 1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which is already owned by the
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. The location of this planned fire and EMS facility,
as described in the Economic Assessment, was discussed in live meetings with the North Collier
Fire Control and Rescue District on January 16, 2019 and April 8, 2019, and in a conference call
on March 20, 2019. Chief Ricardo’s approval of the fiscal analysis and related narrative, which
has been included in the resubmittal of the Economic Assessment, is shown below.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 8 of 8
/var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 -
Rivergrass[3].docx
No three- or four-story condominium buildings will be constructed in Rivergrass unless and until
the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District agrees in writing to allow structures greater than
two stories.
Additionally, please see requested maps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from
those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with this Report.
Transportation Impacts
See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts.
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 1 of 2
C:\Users\BobMulhere\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5EG8Z8W1\NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm.docx
NIM SUMMARY
Rivergrass Village SRA (PL-20190000044)
Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:30 p.m.
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension
14700 Immokalee Road, Multi-Purpose Room, Naples, FL 34120
The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows:
1) To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village consisting of 999.969±
acres of land located in eastern Collier County, in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48
South, and Range 25 East. The SRA is to be known as Rivergrass Village. Rivergrass Village is
proposed to allow up to 2,500 dwelling units, of which a maximum of 250 dwelling units will be
multi-family; a minimum of 62,500 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of
neighborhood scaled retail and office use; and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic,
government, and institutional uses; and, one 18-hole golf course.
Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. A video recording can also
be provided upon request.
Attendees:
On behalf of Applicants:
Patrick Utter, Vice President, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
Valerie Pike, Project Manager, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes, Inc.
Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
County Staff:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
Approximately 15 members of the public attended.
Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He
explained the NIM process, the process for approval, provided a brief history of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, and an overview of the project.
Following Mr. Mulhere’s presentation, there was approximately twenty minutes of questions from the
public in attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves (primarily) as residents
of the Estates. April Olson, a Senior Environmental Planning Specialist from the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, also attended.
The following issues were raised:
Timing
Questions were asked regarding the timing of the project. Mr. Mulhere explained that once County Staff
finds the application sufficient, the project will need to go through the public hearing process. Mr. Mulhere
estimated that the process will be complete by the end of the year. Mr. Utter explained that there is still
environmental permitting required and estimated construction may begin in a year. Mrs. Olson asked if the
proposed development was a phase of a larger plan for the area. The applicant is considering additional
phases for the area, but there is no additional information at this time.
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment E-NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Page 2 of 2
C:\Users\BobMulhere\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5EG8Z8W1\NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm.docx
Environmental
Questions were raised regarding panther habitat. This will be analyzed during the permitting process and
applicable mitigation, if any, will be determined. Additional questions were asked regarding wetlands.
There will be a mitigation plan for wetlands within the project, as they are impacted with exotics. Wetlands
and significant habitat area will be also preserved offsite via Sending Lands, per RLSA requirements.
The meeting concluded at approximately 6:00 PM.
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment E-NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Project No. 05CEM1481
RIVERGRASS SRA
NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT
May October 2019
Prepared For:
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 261-4455
Prepared By:
Passarella &Associates,Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274-0067
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
2.0 WRA Delineation............................................................................................................1
3.0 Verification of NRI Values .............................................................................................2
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
Exhibit 1.Project Location Map........................................................................................E-1
Exhibit 2.Aerial with Boundary........................................................................................E-2
Exhibit 3.Aerial with Stewardship Overlay ......................................................................E-3
Exhibit 4.Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map .......................................................E-4
Exhibit 5.Documented Listed Species Locations
(2007-20098,2014-2016,and 2019 Surveys)...................................................E-5
Exhibit 6.Soils Map ..........................................................................................................E-6
Exhibit 7.NRI Assessment ................................................................................................E-7
Exhibit 8.SRA Natural Resource Index Values ................................................................E-8
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resource Index (NRI)Assessment Report (Assessment) documents the
environmental conditions and NRI scores within Rivergrass and demonstrates that Rivergrass
meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)Overlay District-Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)
Designation Application on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. This Assessment is
consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, LDC, Section 4.08.00.
This NRI Assessment includes the following:
A summary analysis and verification of the NRI scores.
Refined and updated land cover mapping of the SRA along with listed species survey
data.
Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, within the SRA that have an NRI value
greater than 1.2.
Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, included within the SRA.
Demonstrates compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1.
This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 999.97.5±acres as Rivergrass
located in Sections 10,14,15, 22, 23,and 27;Township 48 South;Range 28 East;Collier
County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of Rivergrass is indicated on Exhibit 2. Rivergrass is
located within lands designated as “Open” on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not
encroach into any Flow-way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) lands, or
Water Retention Area (WRA) as illustrated in Exhibit 3.Rivergrass is not within the Area of
Critical State Concern (ACSC).
The subject property is currently dedicated to agricultural activities (i.e., row crops and improved
pasture) and includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation (i.e., Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia),non-forested wetlands, non-forested uplands, and forested
wetlands),all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance. There are few undisturbed native
vegetation areas present within Rivergrass.
Listed species data from state and federal wildlife agencies indicate occurrences of panther
telemetry points, wading bird rookeries, or other listed species occurrences within the SRA.
2.0 WRA DELINEATION
WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were produced from
digitizing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)permit boundaries on aerial
photography base at scales suitable for comprehensive planning. Detailed analysis of these areas
was conducted on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and permit boundaries.The
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
2
Stewardship Overlay digitized WRA boundaries were refined with the actual groundtruthed data.
The Rivergrass SRA boundary was created so that no WRA areas were included. Exhibit 3
illustrates the refined Stewardship Overlay within the SRA boundary.
3.0 VERIFICATION OF NRI VALUES
This NRI Assessment includes documentation that refines the NRI values that were assigned
during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. Of the six NRI Factors on the
Stewardship Credit Worksheet,only two factors (i.e.,Land Use-Land Cover and Listed Species
Habitat)are prone to change over time or require mapping refinements. Both NRI factors have
been updated for this application.
While the Land Use-Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report was generally accurate at the
regional/planning scale, groundtruthing by Passarella &Associates,Inc.(PAI)in 2015 revealed
some positional and classification errors which are rectified in this application. The updated
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS)mapping for the
Rivergrass SRA is presented in Exhibit 4.
This application also updates the Listed Species Habitat Index mapping for the SRA.Listed
species surveys were conducted by PAI in 2007 through 2008,2014 through 2016,and 2019;
and the current listed species occurrence data and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)
telemetry were obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission website.
A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records,and Florida panther
telemetry points is provided as Exhibit 5.
A 2018 aerial of the SRA is provided as Exhibit 2.The U.S.Department of Agriculture-Natural
Resources Conservation Services (USDA-NRCS) soils map for Rivergrass is provided in Exhibit
6.
The NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 is a table format
of the SRA values.The assessment demonstrates that no lands within the Rivergrass SRA carry a
NRI value greater than 1.2.
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 2
AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 3
AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 4
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 5
DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS
(2007-20098,2014-2016,and 2019 SURVEYS)
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 6
SOILS MAP
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 7
NRI ASSESSMENT
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 8
SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection (flat) 11-8-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
o Count
, er y
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colllersov.net (239) 252-2400
Pre -Application Meeting Notes
Petition Type: Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)
DateandTime:�Wednesday 1/23/201,9 10:30 AM
Assigned Planner: _Nancy Gundlach __.
Engineering Manager (for PPI!s and FP's):
Project Information
Project Name: Collier Village SRA (SRA)
PL #: 20190000044
Property D#:0 00017707, 0022 CurrentOZoning:2A-AK-ALSAQ25440005,
Project Address: City: Naples State: F'L Zip: 34120
Applicant: Robert; J. Mulhere,FATCP
Agent Name: Hole Montes, Inc Phone: 239-254-2040
Agent/Firm Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34110
Property Owner: CDC Land Investments - 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 7, 2 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 9
ColllerLand Holding -222840006, 225400003, 225440005, 225500007
Please provide the following, if applicable:
L Total Acreage: 999 acres +/- 9+/- Acres note; information is
conceptuualal and may
li. Proposed # of Residential Units: 12,500 max—L be subject to
change
Ili. proposed Commercial Square Footage: 180,000 sq
Iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number:
V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please Indicate the
type and number: -.-_
vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#:
Updated 12/03/2018 Page 1 1 of 5
Cao o r County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.collier¢oy.net (239) 252-2400
Meeting Notes
As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated
Application Is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure
Form Is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre -app
Note — link is htts://www.colIieraov.net Horneshowaocument?*75093.
FCA
Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is
based on the pest available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant
of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the
regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an
application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all
required data.
-�A
Updated 12/03/2018 page j Z'of 5
CR 858
EVERGLADES BLVDIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD E
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W
0 6,0003,000
Feet
-
RLSA Villages Location Map
Legend
Immokalee Road Rural Village
HYDE PARK SRA
BELLMAR
LONGWATER
RIVERGRASS
9.E.9
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: 10-RLSA Villages Map-092419 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.10Packet Pg. 636Attachment: Reasons for Vote of Planning Commissioner Edwin S. Fryer against Rivergrass Application (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass
9.E.10Packet Pg. 637Attachment: Reasons for Vote of Planning Commissioner Edwin S. Fryer against Rivergrass Application (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass
Project No. 05CEM1481
RIVERGRASS SRA
NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT
Revised October 2019
Prepared For:
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 261-4455
Prepared By:
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274-0067
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
2.0 WRA Delineation............................................................................................................1
3.0 Verification of NRI Values .............................................................................................2
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ........................................................................................ E-1
Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary ........................................................................................ E-2
Exhibit 3. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay ...................................................................... E-3
Exhibit 4. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ....................................................... E-4
Exhibit 5. Documented Listed Species Locations
(2007-2009, 2014-2016, and 2019 Surveys)..................................................... E-5
Exhibit 6. Soils Map .......................................................................................................... E-6
Exhibit 7. NRI Assessment ................................................................................................ E-7
Exhibit 8. SRA Natural Resource Index Values ................................................................ E-8
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment Report (Assessment) documents the
environmental conditions and NRI scores within Rivergrass and demonstrates that Rivergrass
meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay District-Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)
Designation Application on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. This Assessment is
consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, LDC, Section 4.08.00.
This NRI Assessment includes the following:
• A summary analysis and verification of the NRI scores.
• Refined and updated land cover mapping of the SRA along with listed species survey
data.
• Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, within the SRA that have an NRI value
greater than 1.2.
• Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, included within the SRA.
• Demonstrates compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1.
This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 997.5± acres as Rivergrass
located in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier
County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of Rivergrass is indicated on Exhibit 2. Rivergrass is
located within lands designated as “Open” on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not
encroach into any Flow-way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) lands, or
Water Retention Area (WRA) as illustrated in Exhibit 3. Rivergrass is not within the Area of
Critical State Concern (ACSC).
The subject property is currently dedicated to agricultural activities (i.e., row crops and improved
pasture) and includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation (i.e., Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), non-forested wetlands, non-forested uplands, and forested
wetlands), all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance. There are few undisturbed native
vegetation areas present within Rivergrass.
Listed species data from state and federal wildlife agencies indicate occurrences of panther
telemetry points, wading bird rookeries, or other listed species occurrences within the SRA.
2.0 WRA DELINEATION
WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were produced from
digitizing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit boundaries on aerial
photography base at scales suitable for comprehensive planning. Detailed analysis of these areas
was conducted on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and permit boundaries. The
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
2
Stewardship Overlay digitized WRA boundaries were refined with the actual groundtruthed data.
The Rivergrass SRA boundary was created so that no WRA areas were included. Exhibit 3
illustrates the refined Stewardship Overlay within the SRA boundary.
3.0 VERIFICATION OF NRI VALUES
This NRI Assessment includes documentation that refines the NRI values that were assigned
during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. Of the six NRI Factors on the
Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only two factors (i.e., Land Use-Land Cover and Listed Species
Habitat) are prone to change over time or require mapping refinements. Both NRI factors have
been updated for this application.
While the Land Use-Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report was generally accurate at the
regional/planning scale, groundtruthing by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) in 2015 revealed
some positional and classification errors which are rectified in this application. The updated
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping for the
Rivergrass SRA is presented in Exhibit 4.
This application also updates the Listed Species Habitat Index mapping for the SRA. Listed
species surveys were conducted by PAI in 2007 through 2009, 2014 through 2016, and 2019;
and the current listed species occurrence data and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)
telemetry were obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission website.
A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records, and Florida panther
telemetry points is provided as Exhibit 5.
A 2018 aerial of the SRA is provided as Exhibit 2. The U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural
Resources Conservation Services (USDA-NRCS) soils map for Rivergrass is provided in Exhibit
6.
The NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 is a table format
of the SRA values. The assessment demonstrates that no lands within the Rivergrass SRA carry a
NRI value greater than 1.2.
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
TERRYTERRYSTST
N
EW
N
EW
M
A
R
K
E
T
R
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
R
D
BECKBECKBLVDBLVD
GREENGREENBLVDBLVDOAKSOAKSBLVDBLVDLIV
INGSTON
RDLIV
INGSTON
RDLOGAN BLVDLOGAN BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RDRADIO RD
VANDERBILTVANDERBILTBEACH RDBEACH RD
PINE RIDGE RDPINE RIDGE RD
GOLDENGOLDEN
GATE PKW
Y
GATE PKW
Y OI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D CAMP KEAIS RDCAMP KEAIS RDAIRPORT-PULLING RDAIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVDGOLDEN GATE BLVD
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EVERGLADES BLVDEVERGLADES BLVD¿À850
¿À849
¿À846
¿À29
¿À951
¿À846
§¨¦75COLLIERCOLLIERLEELEE;3EXIT116
;3EXIT101
;3EXIT105
;3EXIT111
;3EXIT107
Gulf of Mexico
COLLIERCOLLIER
LEELEE
HENDRYHENDRY
§¨¦75
(/41
¿À29
¿À846
¿À839
¿À951
¿À833
¿À82
¿À837
¿À850
¿À858
¿À892
¿À94
¿À839CORKSCRE
W
R
D
BIRDON RDVANDERBILT DR^^^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^
^^
^
^
MIAMI
TAMPA
NAPLES
ORLANDO
KEY WEST
SARASOTA
PENSACOLA
FORT MYERS
VERO BEACH
LAKE PLACID
PANAMA CITY
GAINESVILLE
TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA BEACH
FORT LAUDERDALE¶
PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27TWP 48 S, RNG 28 E
EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP H.H.
C.G.R.
6/18/15
6/18/15RIVERGRASS
F.L.10/15/19
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 2
AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NO
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
DOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
0 2,000 4,000Feet
LEGEND
EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 3
AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
42ND ST NE42ND ST NE44TH ST NE44TH ST NE46TH ST NE46TH ST NE2244TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2222NNDD AAVVEE NNEE
5544TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
1166TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD
1188TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
1144TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2200TTHH AAVVEE NNEE DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
EXHIBIT 3. AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
0 2,000 4,000Feet
¶LEGEND
RIVERGRASS
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 4
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
422
(5.88 Ac.±)
260
(2.42 Ac.±)
210
(152.20 Ac.±)
214
(295.33 Ac.±)
155
(3.53 Ac.±)100
(2.48 Ac.±)
100
(2.27 Ac.±)
6259E4
(0.13 Ac.±)8146
(0.29 Ac.±)
214
(528.15 Ac.±)
422
(0.35 Ac.±)
4221
(0.86 Ac.±)
7401
(0.35 Ac.±)
422
(0.21 Ac.±)
740
(1.26 Ac.±)
260
(1.55 Ac.±)
740
(0.14 Ac.±)
~OIL WELL ROAD~
525
(0.13 Ac.±)J:\2005\05cem1481\00_Rivergrass\2019\NRI Assessment\Ex 4 Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetland Map 101519.dwg Tab: 8X11-C TB Oct 15, 2019 - 12:33pm Plotted by: HoldenHSCALE: 1" = 1,600'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
REVISED
H.H.
K.C.P.
12/18/18
DATE
DATE
12/18/18
DATE
EXHIBIT 4. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP
RIVERGRASS
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH
A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI,
BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING
No. 12088SRA23-101119.dwg DATED
OCTOBER 11, 2019.
WETLAND LINES PER ABB, INC.
DRAWING No.JDL-N-WORKSHEET TO
KP15JUN07.dwg DATED JUNE 15, 2007.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM
1"=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND
LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE,
COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).
H.H.10/15/19
LEGEND:
SFWMD WETLANDS
(1.34 Ac.±)
SFWMD "OTHER SURFACE
WATERS" (0.13 Ac.±)
SURVEYED WETLAND LINE
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 5
DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS
(2007-2009, 2014-2016, and 2019 SURVEYS)
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
#*
!(
!(
#*#*
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
WOSTWOST
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
DOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
TCHETCHE
TCHETCHE
TCHETCHE
SHCRSHCR
SHCRSHCR
LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE
LBHELBHE
LBHELBHEFPSFPS
FPSFPS
BEBE
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA TCHETCHE
LBHELBHE
AAAA AAAA
WOSTWOST
LBHELBHE
TCHETCHE
EXHIBIT 5. DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS (2007 - 2009, 2014 - 2016, AND 2019 SURVEYS)H.H.
K.C.P.
12/18/18
12/18/18RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
F.L.10/15/19
LEGEND
#*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
#*
!(
!(
!(
0 1,000 2,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 6
SOILS MAP
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
2244TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NO
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
DOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
1717
1717
1717
2525
2525
2525
2525 2525
2525
2525
77
77
1717
1717
1717
1717
1717
1717
1717
2323
1717
1717
¶¶
0 1,000 2,000Feet
LEGEND
EXHIBIT 6. SOILS MAP H.H.
K.C.P.
12/18/18
12/18/18RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
F.L.10/15/19
SOIL UNIT NAME NSLP CLASSIFICATION7 IMMOKALEE FINE SAND FLATWOOD SOILS17 BASINGER FINE SAND FLATS (TRANSITIONAL) SOILS23 HOLOPAW AND OKEELANTA SOILS, DEPRESSIONAL SAND DEPRESSION25 BOCA, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM AND COPELAND FS, DEPRESSIONAL SAND DEPRESSION
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 7
NRI ASSESSMENT
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7. NRI ASSESSMENT F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7A. NRI ASSESSMENT - PROXIMITY F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7B. NRI ASSESSMENT - STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7C. NRI ASSESSMENT - LAND USE LAND COVER F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7D. NRI ASSESSMENT - SOILS/SURFACE WATER F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
REVIEWED BY
DRAWN BY
REVISED
DATE
DATE
DATE
4433RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
4455TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
4477TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
3311SSTT AAVVEE NNEE
3333RRDD AAVVEE NNEE
2277TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
2299TTHH AAVVEE NNEE
RANDALL BLVDRANDALL BLVD DESOTO BLVD NDESOTO BLVD NOI
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
O
I
L
W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
OIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD
EXHIBIT 7E. NRI ASSESSMENT - LISTED SPECIES HABITAT F.L.
K.C.P.
10/15/19
10/15/19RIVERGRASS
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
0 1,500 3,000Feet
¶
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
EXHIBIT 8
SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
E8-1
Exhibit 8. Rivergrass SRA Natural Resource Index Values
NRI Value Percent of Total
SRA Acreage
Open Total
Acres
Total
SRA Acres
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 58.70 585.5 585.5
0.3 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.4 26.00 259.4 259.4
0.5 0.20 2.0 2.0
0.6 15.10 150.6 150.6
0.7 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.8 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.9 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.1 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.2 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.3 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.4 0.00 0.0 0.0
1.5 0.00 0.0 0.0
Totals 100.0 997.5 997.5
Totals NRI ˃1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.E.11
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment Report (rev. Oct 2019).pdf 10-28-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
CONSERVANCY
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever.
Facebook.com/ConservancySWF
Twitter.com/ConservancySWFL
1495 Smith Preserve Way
Naples, FL 34102
239.262.0304
www.conservancy.org
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Introductory
comments:
Conservancy’s
position on the
RLSA
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands
Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study
page 40. Created by WilsonMiller. 2002.
“Only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the
buildout density in compact rural development…”
Conservancy supported the original intent of the
RLSA as presented to the Oversight Committee and
Commission
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
“the incentive-based stewardship program fulfills all
Final Order objectives…..Approximately 16,800 acres
are required fro compact rural development.”
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Collier County Board of County
Commission Adoption Hearing
Executive Summary page 3. October
22, 2002.
“Although there are 115,300+/- acres of potential SRAs (Private lands
less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the ‘8 credit requirement’ will
set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for
clustered development.”
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Collier County Board of County Commission Transmittal Hearing
Executive Summary page 5. June 12, 2002.
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Proposed Rivergrass Village
1. Rivergrass is inconsistent with the RLSA ,due to its proposed unacceptable
impacts to listed species habitat, and the NRI scoring is inaccurate because it is
not based on best available science;
2. Rivergrass is inconsistent with the RLSA due to its proposed design
characteristics;
3. Rivergrass is inconsistent with the RLSA, as many of the requested
deviations directly violate the County LDC policy requiring SRA deviations to be
consistent with the RLSA.
The Conservancy requests the Collier County Planning Commission
recommend denial of Rivergrass SRA
Outline of Presentation:
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
RLSA and its requirement to protect listed
species and their habitat
RLSA Group 3 Goal:
“protect water quality
and quantity and
maintain the natural
water regime, as well
as listed animal and
plant species and
their habitats by
directing incompatible
uses away from
wetlands and upland
habitat….” [emphasis
added]
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Why this is important to the Conservancy
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
NRI Index Factors: County Formula for
Identifying Environmental Value
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
What this looks like for the County
Source: Collier County
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?i
d=76739
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
What’s in a NRI Score?
NRI
Score
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Verification of NRI Scores Required for
SRA Application
4.08.07.D.3.b.
Verify that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are
still valid through recent aerial photography or satellite imagery or
agency-approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field
inspections
To verify the score, the sum total of the 6 index layers, the applicant and
the County must have the original scores assigned when the program
was created. Those original scores should then be modified based on the
best available survey and science information. The final score should be
a representation of current conditions compared to conditions from the
program as the NRI was created.
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Source: Collier Enterprises
Rivergrass SRA NRI Assessment.
Prepared by Passarella &
Associates, Inc. CCPC 10-3-19
Applicant’s Proposed NRI Values
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Timeline of NRI Score Verification
August 21, 2019 – Conservancy met with County staff – raised question of how NRI
score were being reviewed if only composite data was provided
No answer provided
September 10, 2019 – County staff report completed
September 12, 2019 – County staff report sent out as part of CCPC packet
County staff states review complete based on LDC requirements
September 16, 2019 – Conservancy submitted report from Natural Resources
Service, Inc. questioning how County staff could review and verify NRI scores without
the math that makes up the composite scores
No response from County staff
September 17, 2019 – Email from County staff, flagged ‘High Importance’, sent to
applicant requesting the updated GIS files for Rivergrass’ NRI score calculation
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
September 17, 2019 – Applicant’s consultants submit the data to the
County
September 19, 2019 – First public hearing before CCPC – continued –
CCPC did not get to this item
October 3, 2019 –CCPC Public hearing begins – County environmental
staff acknowledges they have, and have reviewed and verified, the
underlying data for the updated/verified NRI values
First time the Conservancy heard this data was received/existed
How was Collier County able to review, verify and include
information received on Sept. 17th within their Sept. 10th staff report?
Timeline Continued
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
LDC 4.08.01.Q
“Listed Species Habitat Indices. One of the indices comprising the
Natural Resource Index Value, with values assigned based upon the
habitat value of the land for listed species. Index values are based on
documentation of occupied habitat as established by the intersect of
documented and verifiable observations of listed species with land
cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that species. Land
mapped, using FLUCFCS, as 310, 321, 411, 425, 428, 434, 617,
6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624, and 630 is deemed to be preferred or
tolerated habitat for panthers for the purpose of assigning a
value for these indices. An intersection of at least one data point
establishing the presence of a listed species within a geographic
information system (GIS) polygon of preferred or tolerated habitat for
that species shall result in the entire polygon being scored as
occupied habitat.” [emphasis added]
What should be included in verification?
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Can best available panther science be
applied to the RLSA or was the intent to
keep the RLSA static in the year 2000
science?
The RLSA foundational study acknowledged:
“The analyses involving panther habitat for the Study will be
complemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential
habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan
by interagency committees led by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service.” [emphasis added]
Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report. 2000. WilsonMiller. P. 14.
Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report. Created by
WilsonMiller. 2000. Appendix E.
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Can the County ignore best available
panther science?
County outside legal counsel provided a memo
regarding updating the RLSA through the
amendment process, stating,
“Data relied upon must be the best available data.
If a more recent analysis or study is available, then
that must be considered.”
Memo to Collier County Board of County Commissioners. From Darrin F. Taylor, AICP, Nancy G. Linnan Carlton Fields.
March 1, 2010. Re: Analysis of Dta Analysis requirements to support RLSA Review Committee recommended
comprehensive plan amendments. Page 3.
Just because this amendment has not occurred,
this should not preclude the County from utilizing
best available science.
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Al Reynolds of Stantec, one of the primary authors of the RLSA, states in a
communication with County staff in 2011,
“One of the basic principles of the RLSA is that there will always be more recent and
more site specific data available as the program is implemented, and this is best
addressed at the time a property owner and the county evaluate a specific
application for SSA or SRA, or when a property owner uses their baselines uses.”
Email from Al Reynolds, Stantec to Michele Mosca, Collier County. Friday, December 02, 2011, 3:37PM. Subject: FW: Data & Analysis Requirements for the RLSA 5-Year
In further support of using panther best
available science
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Panther Best
Available
Science
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Figure: 5: USFWS states
Importance of Primary Zone
Panther Habitat
Source: USFWS Florida
Panther Recovery Plan,
3rd Revision. p. 89)
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Conservancy Map
71% of Village proposed
in Primary Zone habitat
34.5% of Village proposed
in Adult Breeding habitat
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
On October 4 and 8, the Conservancy
received GIS files that allowed us to review
the County’s shapefiles for Rivergrass.
We were unable to recreate the outcome NRI
values based on the files provided due to an
inconsistency betwenn the Collier County GIS
layers and the Applicant’s GIS layers. Collier
County then forwarded the Applicant’s GIS
files for us to review.
We applied what we believe should be the
NRI index values and came up with results
differing from the Applicant and Collier County.
Proximity Index
Conservancy
Applies the Data
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Listed Species Index
Conservancy map created
from data points provided to
the County by the applicant
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
Conservancy
Composite Map
Applicant
Composite
Map
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
More data continues to
come in
Additional GIS files
submitted to the County
Oct. 15
Conservancy maps created from data points provided to the County by the applicant
9.E.12
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Conservancy CCPC Presentation - Rivergrass - CCPC - 10-17-19 (10935 : PL20190000044
October 3, 2019
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, October 3, 2019
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the
County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Stan Chrzanowski
Patrick Dearborn
Karl Fry
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
ABSENT: Joe Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. BeIIows, Zoning Manager
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner
Jeffrey KIatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page 1 of 89
October 3, 2019
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Ja -- yeah, January.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You wish.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- October 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here,
Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt has an excused absence, and Mr. Fry is -- I think he's hung
up with the people downstairs. We'll -Find out when he gets here.
Anyway, that's the -- addenda to the agenda. I carefully want to go over the proposed agenda
today and for the rest of October, because we need to make some changes, and I have come up with some
ideas that I need the rest of you to weigh in on and see if you agree and see if we have a quorum.
I've got to remind everybody, a quorum is four people. So as long as we've got four, we can
move forward on some of these. So someone has duties that they have committed to, then so be it.
I wish Karl was bere to hear this because I'm going to need his input.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, he should be here momentarily.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Sometimes, momentarily, if you're trying to bring things
through the door you shouldn't be bringing, could take a while.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: An ARI 5 will stop you every time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not Karl. He's got screwdrivers, I guess, or something they found.
So, anyway. So Iet's start out with what we've got today. We had four items on today's agenda
and -- there he is.
Karl, do you have a screwdriver we could use to fix something up here?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm fresh out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, what we're doing is we're starting to talk about the agenda for the
rest of October.
We have three items on -- four items on today's agenda. First item up and the commitment that
was made that Rivergrass would be the first item today to start the meeting, and they will be.
The second item up, Hammock Park GMPA. Normally we put items that are continued first. The
applicant for Hammock Park agreed to come after Rivergrass. Well, Rivergrass isn't probably -- well, it
isn't going to get done today that I can see. It may not get done on the 17th, and it may end up going to
the 3rd. So Hammock Park may have to fall into a different slot.
Page 2 of 89
October 3, 2019
The Logan/Immokalee CPUD, I made a commitment to the applicant they will be heard at
1 o'clock today. That is only a one -word change or actually one number change on a PUD, and that
hopefully will go fast with this board, then we'll assume Rivergrass after that.
The AUIR is something we don't need to discuss at the meeting today. There's a little bit more
time involved. It actually needs to be discussed this month, though. I checked with staff, and in the past
we've had AUIR meetings over at Development Services in the Room 609/610. Part of that's because that
document is -- if there are questions, staff is heavily involved, and that's -- a lot of staff is right there. So I
suggested doing an evening meeting starting around 5:00 in that building, in that big conference room.
And I wanted to see if -- and I would suggest for planning purposes we avoid Wednesdays
because that's before our Thursday meetings. For the most part, Friday's obviously -- Thursday, if we've
got a meeting, we're going to be pretty booked to get through that. The weekend's not going to count, so
we're really looking at Monday and Tuesday. Since it's in that room, we're not going to have a conflict
with the BCC using this room.
So if the Monday or Tuesday works for you guys, I need to first see if Mondays and Tuesdays are
okay, and then we'll start looking at the dates of the Monday and Tuesday. Is there any Monday and
Tuesdays you all know that you can't be available for the AUIR?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we talking an evening meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, starting at 5:00. Okay.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: What month are we talking about, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October only.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I coach youth sports, and its an obligation. I'm the head
coach, and I cannot miss, and we practice Monday, Tuesdays, evenings, 5:00 to 7:30, 7:45.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's about the time we'd be meeting. So, yeah, you will not be able to
make that one but, then again --
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. We have -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. I would not be available on October 14 as a result of a
commitment that I have the second Monday of every month.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have, it looks like, almost every meeting -- 1 mean Monday
and Tuesday open.
So, with that, so you can't do it on the 14th, and Patrick won't be here no matter which day it is.
The only Monday we have to work around is the 14th, but we can also do any of the Mondays or
Tuesdays in between.
So here's what I'll do. And does anybody -- I'll assume, then, we have a consensus on that issue
and that at least four people will attend whatever meeting date we set up for one of those Mondays or
Tuesdays.
And 1 don't know who in staff is organizing the AUIR meeting, but whoever is, they need to
come back and pick the Monday or Tuesday that works best for the majority of the staff, the directors, or
anybody else that would be at that meeting for the Planning Commission to discuss one item; that's the
AUIR. We'll open and finish with it that night, then move it on to the Board.
So I'll leave that in staffs hands from this point, and they'll notify everybody by email once we
pick a date.
So now that takes us to the October 17th meeting. We've received a total of 1,527 pages just for
the SRA that we're discussing today. And I've also tried to lay it out on the agenda a schedule similar to
what we drafted last time we talked. The order's a little different because in talking with the applicant,
they needed some -- they needed to make sure their traffic guy got in in the morning.
And I talked to staff about -- they've got a specialist coming in to talk about traffic and
economics. So I put those two first, and then the environment, and then moved into the SRA document.
I don't see how we're going to get through the traffic, economic, and environmental today. We'll
Page 3 of 89
October 3, 2019
certainly give it the best shot we can. We'lI move as fast as we can, but seeing that, that means
October 17th may take a while to get through Rivergrass again.
And now, remember, we're not going to hear public comments till after we get done. So I expect
there might being some public comments on this based on some of the correspondence we received. With
that in mind, we could even go to November with finishing up Rivergrass.
So what I did is took a Iook at our calendar. And rather than tell the public we're going to hear
the five or six items -- I think it's six now -- that are scheduled for October 17th in addition to the
continuance of Rivergrass, I'm going to suggest that we take Hammock Park and those five or six items
that are scheduled for October 16th October 17th other than Rivergrass and move all those to a special
meeting on October 31st just for those items, not Rivergrass.
So what we'll do is we'll clean up all the items that are being delayed because of the time it takes
to hear Rivergrass and hear our Hammock Park first on that date and all the rest of them that are in line
behind it, and we'll clean up as many on that date as we can, and that will bring our schedule up to par by
the end of this month, and we can start November afresh.
And part of it, from discussions with the County Attorney's Office and the fact we're putting
items on the agenda that we know we can't hear because of the time frames and, you know, the public
could show up, and we'll never get to it. And it`s out of deference to making sure the public is accurately
told about dates.
I'm suggesting this board to do what I just suggested: Move all those outstanding items that are
going to be outstanding through October 17th to the 31 st, and we have a special meeting on the 31 st in
this room at this regular time.
Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My memory ain't what it used to be, but I kind of
remember sometime within the last two weeks I got some kind of email wanting to set something up for
October 31 st because I remember it's Halloween, and I made a joke about, yeah, that's fitting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff at the county Development Services celebrates Halloween rather
emphatically. They do a lot of decorating and stuff: There was an email going around about the theme
for this year's -- I don't know -- I don't participate in it, but I know that was one email -- that's the only
email I saw about the 31st.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. As long as they're not saying there's some kind of
meeting on the 31 st, I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray was supposed to check by today -- or somebody was. Maybe
it was somebody else. Ray, did you guys _-
MR. BELLOWS: I have been coordinating with Judy Puig. We're looking at the availability of
the room today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the 31 st?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no calendar that somebody can see if it's available or not?
MR. BELLOWS: We're looking at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When will you think you'll have an answer?
MR. BELLOWS: Maybe she'll email me during the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your mic's not picking you up too clearly.
MR. BELLOWS: We'll see if we can get a response before the meeting's over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as we take breaks or come back from lunch, or as soon as
you find out, Iet us know.
On the 31 st, if we move forward with that as a date as we've just described, does anyone know if
they can't make it? Now, that's a Thursday. Its the fifth Thursday of the month, so generally things aren't
scheduled for the fifth Thursdays of the months because they rotate. So I was assuming that would be a
clear day. Does anybody know if they can't make it on the 31 st?
Page 4 of 89
October 3, 2019
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, tentatively, working with staffs confirmation of that
date, we'll proceed as we've just discussed in moving all those items.
And on the agenda for the 17th, we will leave Rivergrass, and all the rest will have a notice
they're all being moved to the 31st of October, assuming we get confirmation on that. And what I'll do is
once we have confirmation today, I'll go back to the agenda and ask the Commission to acknowledge all
these as continued items to that date so that we can have the agenda properly noticed so the public isn't
sitting somewhere waiting for something that isn't going to happen.
So that takes us past the agenda issues.
As far as the Planning Commission absences, the next regular meeting is October 17th. Does
anybody have any -- know if they're going to be here on October 17th or know if they're not going to be
here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
And that takes us to approval of the minutes for September 5th. They were all sent electronically.
Does anybody have any changes to those minutes?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ned. Seconded by Patrick. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 0 -- or is it 6? Yeah, we've got six of us,
including me.
Okay. BCC report and recaps. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On September 24th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the
Allura PUD rezone and the companion Growth Management Plan, and that was approved 5-0; the
Livingston Road Growth Management Plan amendment was approved 5-0; and on the summary agenda
the Siena Lakes Orange BIossom PUD amendment was approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray.
That takes us to the chairman's report, and I have a couple -- actually one item. Terri and I
communicated about things to make her job move easier and the record to be clearer.
We're going into some long meetings for the next month or two, so I need you all to please
remember the following items: Number one, please wait to be acknowledged to speak. Number 2, please
speak into your mics. Some of us are sitting back Iike Ray was just doing, and if you could speak into
your mic, it can be picked up by not only Terri, but I forgot, there's a person that -- and I don't know what
Terri called it, but they actually type it in as the meeting's being portrayed. What's it called?
COURT REPORTER: Closed captioning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Closed caption. Thank you. So we need to make sure that we handle all
this so that the closed captioning can be accommodated.
So the third one, do not talk over one another and over other speakers. Tbat's been happening a
lot because we get anxious, but we're going to have to slow it down and not do that. And then the Iast
Page 5 of 89
9.E.14Packet Pg. 691Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 692Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 693Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 694Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 695Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 696Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 697Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 698Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 699Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 700Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 701Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 702Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 703Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 704Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 705Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 706Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 707Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 708Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 709Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 710Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 711Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 712Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 713Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 714Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 715Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 716Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 717Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 718Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 719Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 720Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 721Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 722Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 723Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 724Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 725Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 726Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 727Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 728Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 729Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 730Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 731Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 732Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 733Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 734Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 735Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 736Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 737Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 738Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 739Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 740Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 741Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 742Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 743Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 744Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 745Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 746Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 747Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 748Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 749Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 750Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 751Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 752Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 753Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 754Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 755Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 756Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 757Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 758Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 759Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 760Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 761Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 762Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 763Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 764Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 765Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 766Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 767Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 768Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 769Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 770Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 771Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 772Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 773Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 774Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 775Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 776Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 777Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 778Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 779Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 780Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 781Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 782Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 783Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 784Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 785Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 786Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 787Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 788Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 789Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 790Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 791Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 792Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 793Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 794Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 795Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 796Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 797Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 798Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 799Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 800Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.14Packet Pg. 801Attachment: 10.17.19 CCPC minutes - approved (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 1 of 55
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, November 7, 2019
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Mark Strain, Chairman
Karen Homiak, Vice Chair
Edwin Fryer, Secretary
Patrick Dearborn
Karl Fry
Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board
ABSENT: Joe Schmitt, Environmental
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner
Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 2 of 55
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 7th of the Collier County
Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here.
Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt notified us he had an excused absence today for another
commitment.
Addenda to the agenda. We have four items on today's agenda, but two of them have been requested to be
continued. So I'll ask for a motion to continue the following two. It's 9A2, and I'll read it. It's
PL20170002897/CPSS-2018-3. It's the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict, and the second one that
was being continued, both of them to the December 5th date, is PL20180002368, and it's a parking exemption
located on the east side of Tamiami Trail North south of River Court.
So with those two, is there a motion to continue those to December 5th?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick, seconded by Ned.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
That takes us to Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is on November 21st, and unless we don't
finish something today, November 21st, I think, has one regular item and several LDC amendments. That may
change, but that's the best I can recall right now.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 3 of 55
So, anyways, does anybody know if they're not going to be here on November 21st? Okay. We'll have a
quorum. We're good for that day.
Approval of minutes on October 17th. Is there a motion to either -- is there -- anybody have any changes to the
minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Ray, BCC reports.
MR. BELLOWS: There has not been a Board of County Commissioners meeting since last Thursday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's quick.
I have no chairman's report. There's no consent-agenda items. We'll move right into the first public hearing.
***It's a continuation. It's 9A1. It's PL20190000044. It's the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area.
It's been continued from September 19th, October 3rd, and October 17th to today.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures since the last time, or if it's just the same as last time, that's fine, too. Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: Same as last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Kind of a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When I worked at the county, we had a process called an insubstantial
change. And if they sent one change sheet out of 30, and I got all 30 sheets, I felt obliged to read all 30 sheets to
look if anybody had changed anything that wasn't shown on that. When I get a -- I have 3,000-something pages
to look at today. I'm not going to do that, okay? Yeah, you laugh. It's not funny.
I would prefer just to receive the changed sheets from now on; is that possible?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, like you, I can't keep rereading all those pages, so I'm still working off the first set
of documents that was sent out. And I expect as we walk through those documents, we'll be told of any
corrections -- questions we raise. So that's been working for a while. I don't know how to do what you're asking
and still give us all the information that we need to have because some of us may want to see it in context and not
just the changes. Is that -- so you're just asking --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have the original that you got.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you've got to open up two documents on your screen and compare them page
by page and walk through. That will actually take longer than probably rereading the whole document, honestly,
at least it would from --
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I don't care.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only the usual correspondence that I got through staff.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Since the last meeting, a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, a meeting with two
members of the applicant team, and Mr. Mulhere and additional emails from various groups filtered through staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 4 of 55
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing since last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same ones last time. I did receive some correspondence from the
Conservancy; I think everybody did. I talked to the -- Meredith with Wildlife Federation, we had actually a
correspondence, and then that's -- I think that's about all. I can't remember any others.
Go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, whatever we received in email.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing since last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, the way we had approached this, we laid out an order of review for
the various documents. And from the best I can recall, we reviewed -- we had the applicant's presentation, the
traffic report discussion, the economic report discussion, the environmental report discussion, and at the request
last time we moved public comment up to the end of those, and we had public comment at that last meeting.
So what we haven't done -- and these are probably smaller sections and segments to deal with, but we haven't
walked through the SRA document to ask questions we may have from that. We haven't walked through the staff
reports to ask questions we still have -- may have from those, and I compared some of the LDC and GMP
languages, and there's probably still a few of those I need some clarification from staff on. After that, we would
get into the applicant's rebuttal, and then the CCPC would discuss and have a recommendation.
So if it's okay with the rest of you, we'll just move on through like we were supposed to and pick up with the SRA
document. And, basically, it will be us asking questions of either staff or the applicant from the language in that
document.
And so I'll turn to the Planning Commission. Does anybody have any questions first from the SRA document?
Go ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just want to be sure that I understand where the -- what certain numbers have
evolved to. And, in particular, is it a minimum of 62,5- square feet of scaled retail and office uses? The number
62,5- is not 60,000, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's 62,5.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And, second, in earlier evolutions of this, it said a maximum of 250
dwelling units. And I think we mean a minimum, correct, single-family?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, multifamily. I'm sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. It was a minimum of
250 multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, yes. Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it's minimum, not a maximum.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not max. It's a minimum.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I had.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question from staff. It's on Page 3 of the staff report, and it's a Roman
Numeral II, Item 9. And it's a question I brought up before, and I don't remember getting a clear answer for it.
And I'll read the language that I think is a problem with that section. Let me find another document that has that
language in it. So hold on a second.
And in the LDC, and it's Section 4.8 something J under design criteria, it says, the size and base density of each
form of SRA shall be consistent with the standards set forth below. A couple sentences after that it says, the base
residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in an SRA by the acreage therein
that is entitled through stewardship credits.
Now, the division that I've seen so far is simple 1,000 acres divided -- 2,500 units divided by 1,000 acres. And
it's easy. It comes out to 2.5. But if you follow that direction in the LDC, it comes out to 3.23 development
units per acre.
So I don't know which one is the correct one for -- it seems to me the LDC is designed -- that's the criteria that
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 5 of 55
would be the correct one for the LDC on Page 3 -- or, I mean, for the SRA on Page 3. But I keep -- I've asked
this now privately with staff in the pre-meeting, I've asked it at the last public meeting, and I've never gotten an
answer. I just need to know what you guys want to do with this so we get the right number down here.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Well, the calculation, when you subtract out the excess open-space acreage per the
LDC, ends up being 3.099 dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I had a different number than that, but then I had the old acreage. Maybe I erred in
that, but --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm sorry. Can you give me the -- quote the section of the LDC again so I
can read along?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You know how --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it under villages?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem -- no, our table -- our LDC has got these huge sections, and you've
got to scroll pages and pages back. So let me go back to the beginning and see what page we started with or
what -- and it's 4.08.07, SRA designation, and then you've got to scroll all the way down to Section J, which I
believe --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Design criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then if you see design criteria, if you go down about two-thirds of the way,
you'll see a sentence that says the base and then it's bolded, residential density is calculated by dividing the total
number. That's the piece I'm trying to understand, because that is the acreage that needs stewardship credits, not
the gross acreage of the town, of which about a quarter to a third is noncredit acreage.
So I'm -- I just need to make sure we use the right divider and multiplier. That's all.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask you -- can we pull the visualizer up. Is this the provision you're referring
from?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm referring to Section J.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's under J, and that's the table that pertains to the villages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the language in that
sentence I read under J. You don't have that section.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, but I'm looking specifically at the village tables, and you'll see under the village
tables it says it's one to four DU's per gross acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it doesn't say that's how you calculate the density for the way -- necessarily,
for the way we have to state it in the SRA. And since this is the design-criteria section of the RLSA, I thought
that sentence must mean something. Where would you put it if you didn't use it there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere for the record.
To further confuse things, there's two terms used there. One says base density. The other says gross density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it says residential density. Does it say gross? Where's the gross?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm saying the table that Rich just put up there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. MULHERE: So you have two different, you know, ways to calculate them. We can calculate them both
ways if that helps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out where you defined where your base residential density is.
If it isn't in the SRA document, why are we asking the question if it's never used?
So somewhere that was intended to be used, and I don't know what it's supposed to be used for. It is a different
multiplier, and it may have impacts on other documents because of the way things multiply, and I'm just trying to
get to the bottom of it. And I've brought it up at the other meetings, but I've never gotten an answer. I thought
staff would research it before today, but I guess that didn't happen.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it does matter, and here's why I think it matters. You don't want to discourage
developers of towns and villages, et cetera, to provide excess open space and shrink the footprint, because -- and
if you do that the way you're talking about calculating it, if you provide more open space than you're required to
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 6 of 55
do, you don't have to use credits for the excess open space.
So you could, inadvertently, trip yourself and be 4.01 because you went with a smaller footprint by providing
more open space. That doesn't make any sense to me that you would punish somebody for providing more open
space in a more compact footprint in a village or a town. I would think you would look at them more specific,
which is the village criteria that speaks in gross density, gross acreage.
So I think that the calculation that we have of 2.5 is the correct way of measuring it, and that's my two cents and I
think the way the document should be reflected, but I don't think you want to go with a net acreage, if you will,
because you would be discouraging the provision of additional open space.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it's net, because it's only excepting out those areas that aren't entitled
to stewardship credits, and that would still include all the commercial and the other areas that aren't residential.
So you've still got more than just the net residential parcels involved because you've got everything that isn't
stewardship credits.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I said "net residential parcels" --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said "net."
MR. YOVANOVICH: I said "net acreage," I thought, which would mean any of the open space that exceeded
would not count towards your calculation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Richard, if this was written in a manner that you wanted to use it, I'm sure the
argument would be, well, it's put there for a reason; therefore, we get to use it. I need to know what the intent of
that section was because if that multiplier changes from 2.5 to 3.23, there may be impacts on others documents
and agreements that are in play here. I just don't know.
And I've asked -- like I said, it's not -- this didn't come up today. It's come up well over a month or six weeks
ago, and I still have not got an answer from either Comprehensive Planning or Zoning on this matter.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let's get the answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Easy. David?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David's not zoning. This is an LDC --
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but I want to know, how do you calculate it by -- pursuant to the GMP,
which is the controlling document?
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks for the Comprehensive Planning section. I'm looking it up right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to other things, and we'll get past this one, then.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to look to see what the Future Land Use Elements says, but sometimes
the Land Development Code can be different. It could be more --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Specific.
MR. WEEKS: -- specific or limiting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do recall I did ask this before.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: It could be more restrictive?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but if you get more density under the Land Development Code than contemplated by
the GMP, that would be inconsistent with the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not the question of more density or less. It's more the calculate -- the
density's going to be -- the amount's going to be the same.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just going to be -- it's going to have a different multiplier, and that involves all kinds
of documents, you know, so that's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And perhaps you can have a base residential density that exceeds four in a village, but the
measuring criteria for consistency with the LDC is on a gross number. So you're looking at the gross acreage for
determining how many units you can have, and perhaps the Board wanted to know how does that translate into
a -- I'll use the word "net." May not be the best word, but a net based upon the amount of credits. They would
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 7 of 55
be consistent interpretations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or -- yes, and maybe they wanted that to be something that helped them understand
how we reached fiscal neutrality, too. So it has a lot of other impacts. And I just want to make sure we look at
all of them, whether it's a DCA or anything else that's involved. But I'll move on, and we'll come back to that
before -- before we end up today.
In your permitted -- this is on Page 5 under the context zones of the SRA document, 5.1.1.A, permitted uses and
structures. This is No. 3. Senior group housing including, but not limited to, ALFs and CCRCs subject to
Florida Statutes and applicable LDC provisions.
There's no cap. I mean, so, basically, you could make the entire 1,000 acres all senior group housing if you
wanted to. Is that what you're intending? Because I'm not sure how that's going to factor into other issues
either, because you could have -- I mean, I don't even know how many units we're talking about. There's nothing
here to define it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Strain, at the risk of getting off on a good start of agreeing with you, I agree that,
theoretically, the entire village could be senior housing under the neighborhood general, which is basically
everything but the village center. That is clearly not our intent. If you will give us some time to figure out a
maximum number of units, or we can do acres -- because don't forget it's still a floor area ratio. But I know that
is a big square-footage number, and I understand what your question is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just come up with some number, and we'll use that as a basis for that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll either come up with a number of acres, which will translate to a number of
floor-area-ratio square feet, or we'll come up with a number of units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 6, clubhouse and amenity centers for residents and guests. My issue
here is, you're asking for those in the neighborhood general context zone, which is the bulk of the project, but
those are going to be subject to the locations on the master plan, as shown on the master plan, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize. I was listening to a comment. What was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the same section of the SRA.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6, clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests. I know you want
to do those, but because you're putting them in the context zone, they have to coincide with the locations on the
master plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Come up here, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Those -- I mean, we can put a reference to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Master plan.
MR. MULHERE: -- as depicted on the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's all. Your master plan is conceptual. You've got to be generally in that
area, and that's all I'm trying to get to.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Because if you look at No. 7, that's the smaller recreational facilities that we don't know
where they might be located within particular neighborhoods. So, yes, No. 6 could reference the locations
depicted on the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go down to accessory uses and structures, you also have clubhouses and
amenity centers and residents and guest under accessory uses and structures, and you also have them under
permitted uses and structures. Why do you have them in both sections? I mean, if they're accessory, you've got
to have a single-family or multifamily unit on the same parcel in the context zone to qualify.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, good question. You know, my opinion is that the -- No. 3, the clubhouse and
amenity centers for residents and guests would not be accessory, because it's a, you know, permitted principal use,
but No. 4 would be accessory, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't -- I was questioning 3 right now. So let's -- so 3 you would take out -- you
could strike out of that section.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 8 of 55
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, I'm reading off the most recent version that Heidi distributed, I
think, earlier this week or last week, because it's the easiest one. There's so many. I figured that's the best one,
so I reread that, and that's where my questions are coming --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm reading from the document attached to the resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I am, too, right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure you and I are reading from the same.
MR. MULHERE: So I understand.
And, Mr. Chairman, my thought was along the same lines that No. 7 under permitted principal uses could be
taken out since it's listed under accessory uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that would work.
And, Bob, when you plat this context zone, the intent would be to subdivide it into fee-simple lots, but then you'd
plat wherever you're deciding to put these neighborhood recreation centers or clubhouse as common areas or
something like that. You'd plat those separately. That's how you would end up doing that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: When it's a project that would require platting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You could have an SDP. I understand. But I'm just -- I want to make sure
you're not going to take R tracts and try to plop these on them. It wouldn't be what I intended. You're going to
actually separate the tract out, whatever lot it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we were not lumping everything into being a single-family
project, because we have to do multifamily as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your general development design standards table, it's on Page 6, a couple small
questions. Your minimum front yard for clubhouses and amenity centers, that's the only one I have a question of.
You say 10 feet. You do know that 10 feet will still have your overhangs going into the utility PUEs that are
alongside all your roadways? So if your front is fronting a roadway, and you've got your utilities alongside it, we
don't allow overhangs to go there. So usually we look at those at a minimum of 12 feet now. We've been trying
to correct that as we've gone forward.
MR. MULHERE: That's not a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the footnotes, the No. 4 and No. 5, they both have a word that I'm -- I
mean, I know what the word means, but I'm trying to figure out how we judge it.
Number 4, zero lot line and townhouse development means three or more attached units typically one or more
stories in height. Then it says, other multifamily means three or more units other than zero lot line or townhome
development typically more than two stories in height. "Typically" doesn't give us anything. So you could have
multiple heights but they -- because of the word "typically" wouldn't you -- how do we -- how do we judge -- how
do we set a standard with "typically"?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll tell you what. I would strike through the reference to height in both and just
leave it as zero lot line townhome developments means three or more attached units, period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Other multifamily means three or more units other than zero lot line or townhome
development, period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works.
MR. MULHERE: We just wanted to be sure we defined -- use the zoning definition for those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your permitted uses in the next section, it's the allowable uses in the village
center context zones, Number 7. One of the criteria for an SRA that's different than a PUD is you're supposed to
show that you've got some convenient shopping or necessary facilities, both commercial and retail so that the
residents don't have to drive into the urban area every time they need something.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a whole mix here, but I don't see a standard that says you're going to
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 55
have -- you're going to at least have X, like a grocery store or a gas station or something like that. I don't see any
detailed planning of how this village center is really going to serve the community that it's supposed to serve.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we have a minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- square footage, and we have a list of uses. And depending on the market -- I mean,
obviously, our optimal design would include a shopping -- would include a shopping center with a grocery store.
And, you know -- and to be a shopping center, you have to have eight or more separate retail establishments or,
you know, personal space. But in this case it's limited to neighborhood commercial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, Bob, look at No. 22. Now, right there, you could blow 80,000 square feet
in just a couple of acres, and there's your whole -- I mean, there's your whole section. So I know you don't intend
that, but we need -- I think from a planning perspective, we need some commitments on some of the uses that are
going to be there to service the village so that we know the village isn't going to put an abnormal amount of traffic
on the road system.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, I don't think -- and I know there have been different definitions of
group care, but I don't think in any definition I've ever seen from the county a "qualified as retail."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why do you have it under there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because that's an allowed use within the village center. I still have to do, in the village
center, at least 62,500 square feet of retail and office neighborhood goods and services.
It doesn't mean I can't also do with that 62,500 square feet multifamily because, in fact, village centers are
required to be mixed use. So it's not -- I still have to meet the 62,500 square feet of retail and office
requirements. I still have to meet my civic requirements.
So I would agree with Bob that the lists of retail and office uses are the types of uses that will serve our residents,
and I'm obligated to do at least 62,500 square feet of those. I'm not obligated as part of the initial approval of the
SRA to identify which from those uses I guarantee you I will deliver.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but my concern is that you could pick any one of those, and some of them more
reasonable than others, and say the bulk of your 62,500 square feet is going to be that item, and that item may not
service the needs as completely as a multiple of items with limitations on square footages for each under a
planning perspective.
MR. MULHERE: Just give me one. I might have a --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the concept. Would that be something we can --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll just talk -- before the meeting's over, let's get back to it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That will be on the list like assisted living. So you're asking -- you basically say -- and I
know this is what they teach us to do in law school. Go to the ridiculous. You don't want me to do 62,500
square feet barbershops.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, or retail nurseries.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But you want us to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or retail services. You need to tell us --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Or you want us to say the grocery store can be, who cares, because Publix has all kinds
of different kinds of prototypes. You're saying the others you want to say "not to exceed X."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to have a grocer, that's great. If you're going to have a gas station or
something so people can service themselves out there, that's fabulous, but we need to have some kind of
commitment of the sizing so we don't have all of -- too much of one thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Following up on that, the same -- sort of coming at the same concern. In earlier
iterations of the description of the proposed ordinance, the words "neighborhood retail" or "neighborhood scaled
retail" appeared in that -- in those iterations. And then the word "retail" dropped out and "commercial" came in
in its place. I just want to be sure that we're still talking about a minimum of 62,5- and a maximum of 80,000
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 10 of 55
square feet neighborhood scaled retail and office uses. Is that the language?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. All right. And so now what we're concerned about is tightening up
to some degree, if possible, the concept of diversity of mixed uses. It's things that are geared to keeping people
from having to drive to urban areas, like --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Reducing the times that they would need to do that. Because for us to say somebody's
never leaving this village to go --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Ned, that's what we're trying to get to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. We've got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to the next -- Page 9, and this is the village center development standards.
And, Bob, if you look at the second column, ALF, CCRC, and multifamily buildings only. I recall -- and
Richard may not remember this project, but it was one about a hotel in Bayshore that had a demand that
they -- because the table said 700 square feet per unit, that all the units had to be 700 square feet. You're not
telling me you're going to do a CCRC with every unit at 700 square feet, are you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I remember that very well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure you would, but then maybe we ought to correct this so that it reads -- I don't
think this should be -- I don't think you're intending to do all those senior living facilities at that size?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you need to asterisk and reference the multifamily.
MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm making a note, to put an asterisk and say, does not apply to CC -- to the ALF
or CCRC units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It wouldn't be good to have a dispute on this one when we just got out of the last
one.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should -- lessons learned. I think we both agree that as we get older we get
smarter, or we reserve the right to get smarter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a compliment? Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'm aging with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're a lot younger.
Let's look at front yards. Same issue with overhangs on front yards, Bob. It says zero or 10 feet. How are you
going to deal with any utility easements that are there? You can't do zero because then you'd be in the utility
easement. So what was your thoughts there?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'll be honest with you, I wasn't really considering the conflict -- if there's a conflict with
the utility easement, then it obviously has to be whatever -- it has to be outside of that conflict. I think we're
okay to put 12 feet there for front yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go down to buildings, height, actual, you're looking at 60 feet, and I
think -- well, I think you just answered it. Yes. Okay. Never mind. I got -- that tied into the front yard.
MR. MULHERE: And that's consistent with what the requirements are in the RLSA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you explain Footnote No. 1.
MR. MULHERE: So let me just read through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to picture how that applies.
MR. MULHERE: I think it came from discussions with Landscape Review, but let me look at it for a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be Mark Templeton.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if -- yeah, he's not here. No. Well, maybe you could get back with us on
that after you have time to think. I'm not trying to rush you with an answer that might not be accurate. I just
need to know -- I can't figure out how it applies.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the first sentence is pretty self-explanatory. You -- I mean, maybe it would
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 11 of 55
have been easier to say, shall -- because it's measured from the property line if you have a separate -- well, not
necessarily if you have a separate platted --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract, it's measured to the tract line.
MR. MULHERE: Tract line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you'd have tracts abutting the minimum required 25-foot landscape buffer
which in itself would be a tract --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Oil Well Road shall provide a front-yard
setback measured from the landscape buffer. That's where your zero and 10 would apply, right, or zero and 12.
MR. MULHERE: Now 12.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending if it's a PUE or not. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide
a front-yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Oil Well -- you mean, like, a driveway entrance, not a road?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct, within the project --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't be -- would it be a public road or private road?
MR. MULHERE: Private road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And that did come from discussions with Mark Templeton.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, if you look at the end of No. 2, except as described in Footnote No. 1 above,
front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the back of curb or edge of
pavement. This excludes public roads.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means none of your internal roads, then, would be public if you're going to use
that measurement.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no.
MR. MULHERE: Well, no. If it's a public road, then the setback will always be measured from the property
line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right-of-way line.
MR. MULHERE: Right-of-way -- well, that's the same as the property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the PUE issue kicks in for the overhang.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's why we're going to change it to 12 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The lake setback up on the table says 20 feet, but you've got this little Footnote
3 after the word "setback," and down below it says the required 25-foot lake maintenance easement shall be
provided in a separate platted tract, and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to
zero feet. Why say 20 if your intention is zero? Because you'll never -- you're never going to use the 20.
MR. MULHERE: Well --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to plat your LMEs, aren't you?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, this is really a standard that we've applied most recently. As long as you have
a separate tract that provides the 20-foot landscape maintenance easement around the lake --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're --
MR. YOVANOVICH: What if we change "shall" to "may"? If we do decide to provide a separate tract and you
can't go to zero --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if it's on -- if it's an easement, then we've got to meet the 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's what you were saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, I know we've done these things in the past before, but this one land-use
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 12 of 55
attorney used to say we reserve the right to get smarter.
MR. MULHERE: I got it. Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Believe me, I regret saying that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I use it a lot.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 5.2.3, village center required parking, you have a second paragraph that's a whole
bunch of language.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a deviation? Is that what you're trying to get? And if it's not a deviation, then
why is it there? Or if it is a deviation, it should be in the deviations section. If it's not a deviation and it just says
you're going to abide by the LDC, then why do we have that paragraph there? And the same thing falls under VI,
excavations. What are these two -- what is this in there for?
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a question of timing. And I had this discussion -- although he's not here anymore,
this was inserted after a discussion with Mike Bosi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, the last guy leaving always gets blamed, till the next guy leaves.
MR. MULHERE: I know. It's okay. I mean, the point here, Mr. Strain, was that if you think about it for a
minute, how do you do a multimodal split determined parking analysis? I believe the intent of this was that you
maybe don't need all of the parking that the LDC requires. So if you do this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: If you do this comprehensive study, you could come in and ask for less. It's asking for that
up front. We don't even know the mix of uses. How could we possibly do it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even if you didn't ask for up front, when you determined your mix of uses and the
LDC allowed you to apply for that, why -- you would just be able to. Why would you need -- see, I hate seeing
us repeat the LDC in the documents all over and over again, because it screws things up.
MR. MULHERE: No. The difference is the timing. The LDC requires it now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning with --
MR. MULHERE: Right now --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with this application?
MR. MULHERE: -- with this application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then wouldn't you need a deviation from the LDC to clarify that issue?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. It's not a dimensional standard, so we're asking for different timing. So at
least according to the discussions I had with Bosi, it was put it in the SRA document.
MR. YOVANOVICH: To the extent, if Heidi and Jeff now decide we need to add a deviation for that, we don't
have an objection to adding it to the list of deviations. It didn't come up. But if we need to do one, we'll add it
as a deviation. Nobody thought we needed to call it out as a deviation. But if we need to, I don't think it's -- we
can do that as part of the review.
MR. MULHERE: It was just timing. You got to know the mix of uses to be able to do the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, why wouldn't we be doing this, then, for every PUD? Why does it seem to be
unique then for an SRA?
MR. MULHERE: No. Because this study is only in the SRA section of the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the SRA section, which was written by the property owners out there through their
engineers at the time or experts --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- put that language in there to apply to a certain time as they move forward, and the
timing was now one that you've decided isn't the right timing?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, to me it's -- I'm not saying -- I don't know that everything was done right 17, 18
years ago. The timing of this just doesn't make sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't disagree with you. I think there's other things, though, that don't
make sense either that we keep telling -- we're now saying we've got to live by. So I think it's a quid pro quo.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 13 of 55
We've both got to go back and forth a little bit.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it doesn't make sense, we're not going to insist on it. I mean, Ray, does the provision
make sense?
MR. BELLOWS: No, it doesn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you jump that it doesn't make sense, if the intent of the village context zone or
village zone was to show that it's providing some self-sufficiency for the village that's being produced and that
this would have happened at that time based on those uses that you're going to put there, it would have answered
the question I started earlier when I said we need some limitation in knowing what you're going to put on a size
basis. So I think the intent was probably correct. It puts it on the table earlier so we have a balance in what the
village commercial and residential needs are to one another.
We don't have that now. So they're saying because we don't have it now, we're still supposed to approve it on the
faith we're going to get it, but on the second -- we want this exempted until we do figure out what we're going to
do. But we want you to give us the faith and approve it without it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My recollection of this issue was, in prior versions of the SRA, they wanted to be able
to count alternative types of modes of transportation that might occur in the future that might be more in use
or -- in other areas, and so they wanted a little bit of flexibility to bring in other types of transportation that -- I
don't know, Nancy. That was my recollection. They wanted -- you know, there were some other things. I don't
know if mopeds were included, but it had --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you bringing in --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Electric bicycles. I mean, I don't know. I remember there was golf carts.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's my preference. We recognized -- we amended, basically, the Land Development
Code several years ago recognizing that there would -- you were only allowed to bring deviations originally as
part of the very first SRA document. You couldn't even do it through the amendment process. So we corrected
the Land Development Code to allow for deviations to be asked later on in the process, recognizing that the
one-size-fit-all criteria may not work and deviations would be appropriate.
I would prefer that we just add a deviation for this to say we're asking for a deviation to be allowed to do this at
SDP instead of at the SRA because it takes makes more sense in the village to do that when you know the mix of
uses and whether or not you need a -- whether or not you're going to want an alternative parking calculation. I
think that's more consistent with how other deviations are being processed right now, recognizing this is the first
village to go through.
I think, consistent with what the Chairman is saying, perhaps we just should list it as a deviation instead of a
provision, and we'll add a deviation. I don't think anybody's objecting to the provision. We'll just call it out as
an additional deviation in the -- are we in the village center section right now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Page 10, 5.2.3 under village center required parking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll just add it as a village center deviation, if that's -- if that's okay with the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I've just got one question. Deviations to be added as PDIs or, in this case, an
SRA-I, if that's what we would call it, have become rather common because they're a way to clean up some things
like this that may not have the right applicability at the time. What would -- you don't even know if you're going
to need this yet. You're putting it here just in case you might.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. But if you're -- and I know you used to work on the development side. Certainty
and time are two critical elements to the development process.
So to then come back and do an amendment process to say I'd like this deviation, best-case scenario is six-month
process, and why would we add another six months to add a deviation that everybody's saying right now it makes
sense? Let's add it up front and say, we'll deal with this later at the SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to walk through all the deviations, and we'll get into that
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 14 of 55
discussion, then, and see if we need to add this one as whatever number.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I don't -- if it's inconsistent -- any of the language in here is inconsistent with the
LDC, it's supposed to be called out as a deviation; that's all I'm getting at.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about excavations? Why do we need that language there? I think I know what
you're trying to do. You don't want to be called a commercial excavation because you're crossing a road. Like
Orange Blossom Ranch has got one on both sides, and they have to cross Oil Well, and I think they got an
exemption from commercial excavation to cross Oil Well, didn't they?
MR. BELLOWS: That's my recollection as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know how they went through that. Do you, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: There was a PUD amendment where that was part of that process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a deviation to the PUD amendment?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's what I'm getting at.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This was -- this is actually a codification of -- and Mr. McLean's not here, I don't think.
We met with him way back when this was even part of the original town application; that he agreed that this was
the correct interpretation of the LDC. So it's not a deviation. It's just putting of record the interpretation as part
of the SRA document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, Matt McLean isn't authorized to provide interpretations to the LDC.
Only Mr. Bellows is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The correct application, and he does apply the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand he applies the code, but I think the interpretation is what Zoning
department does; is that not correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there has not been a request to officially interpret this provision. I don't know if Matt
has -- and it sounds like he may have been applying it this way. But my recollection is when -- Orange Blossom
Ranch, that was part of the PUD discussion. But I'd have to double-check if it was listed as a deviation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is one of those instances, Mr. Strain, when some of us are no longer here to say,
when you're going through this process, what was supposed to be the rules of the game. We wanted this in the
document so everybody understood the rules of the game.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all I'm trying to do is make sure it's consistent with the way we're supposed to do it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. I just want to make sure the consistency's
there, because whatever happens to this first village is probably what we're going to be seeing repeatedly in some
of the other villages in regards to how they operate. So I want to make sure we're right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will? Yeah, see. That's --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I said I don't think that you will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you said we will.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I don't think that we will. I'm trying -- you know, I'm familiar with what's
coming in and one that's already in, and I don't remember that being in any of those documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The deviations are the next item. And I asked Nancy to write up her summary of the
deviations, because so many have either changed, been withdrawn, or modified, and she did. The problem is,
don't match the document that Heidi produced, and they don't match the notes -- or the markup that I saw on the
other documents that we've had, what, five or six copies of.
So I'm afraid I don't know what deviations are good or bad. I don't know what modifications are good or bad. I
don't know how to say this is a deviation or not. I don't know where to start on this, Bob. I know you walked
through it last time, but then I've got now two different more -- two new different versions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Could we just hear what Nancy says is inconsistent with what Heidi wrote?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 15 of 55
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if Nancy checked them. I did, because I read Nancy's, then I read this,
and I said, wait a minute, these aren't the same.
MS. GUNDLACH: I've checked them, Mark. So I can help you if you need.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start -- well --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I need help, because I thought we were right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with No. 1 and make sure everybody's on the same page, and we
can -- we'll have to walk through them all and just get it done. And I don't mind if you move fast, Nancy, just so
we know -- I don't want to spend time on ones that have been withdrawn. I just need to know which ones are
withdrawn and which ones have been modified.
MR. KLATZKOW: And could you put them on the overhead so everybody can see.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of them are there now?
MR. KLATZKOW: A lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Hold on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to work off of Heidi's resolution attachment.
MR. MULHERE: Fifteen I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen? Because we started at 19. So you've withdrawn some.
Okay. And the way this one's written, instead of 1 through 19 or 1 through 15, it's written as 7.1.1 or 7.1.2;
whereas, Nancy had some that are 7.1.13 and 7.1.14, and those are the kind of things that I found I couldn't match
up, and I need -- that's where we're coming from today.
So let's start with the first -- on Page 10. Okay. There we are, right there.
So No. 1 is struck, is withdrawn?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 2, the only change you want on that, which will now become No. 1, is
what's in red. And I have a question: When you support a shopping center that includes a grocery store,
shopping center would need to be bolded. I believe it's a defined term in the LDC. And the reason that's
important is is because your TIS defined shopping center differently than the LDC does, and I want to make sure
they're all on the same page.
MR. MULHERE: I'm unaware of any bolding in any PUDs. I know the LDC uses bolding or any SRA
document. I'm unaware of that. If you want us to bold it, we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But say shopping center as defined in the LDC.
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't want us getting mixed up between the TIS which uses a different
standard.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Corby had some changes to the No. 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Mark, staff has a comment from Corby Schmidt.
MR. MULHERE: I got that, as defined in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, is Cormac Giblin here?
MR. MULHERE: He's out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point today we've got housing questions. We'll need him to respond to those.
Corby?
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with your
Comprehensive Planning section.
In order to resolve some of the issues with definitions or uses of terms, staff has come up with a better way to
address this listing and the one that follows it to the LDC section, the one below it. I'll read through it. It's
J.3.d.ii.q. They read somewhat similarly and had the same reference for the exception to front-yard parking.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 16 of 55
And in order to remove the shopping center reference but yet have the same result, staff recommends the
phraseology that parking is prohibited in front of buildings, then replace it with "except when such parking is
within the same block perimeter as and is in support of a grocery store." And for the following --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that particular one applies because of the reference, 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii),
that applies to No. 1. Is that the one -- the first one?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the one they've withdrawn. You're saying leave it in but change the
language.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's the new 1. The one which is numbered 1 to you --
MR. KLATZKOW: Why are we doing this? Honest to God. Can't we get these god damn documents just
straight? It's like every -- everybody -- time somebody looks at it, they've got to say, I've got to make a change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I don't know what we're voting on.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea. Honest to God, I've been asking for, I don't know how long, could we get a
box with a bow to go to the Planning Commission so everything's set. You guys get to read the documents once.
You comment on the documents. We get some changes. It goes to the Board of County Commissioners. This
is like the never-ending story here with changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what you expect us to do because --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm just -- why are we doing this?
MR. SCHMIDT: You've asked to make reference to the resolution version. That's what we're looking at now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm working off of the resolution version, so there should be no confusion for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we working off the top paragraph on this page that's in front of us or the bottom?
MR. SCHMIDT: The top.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The top paragraph, look at your reference, 4.08.07.J.3 whatever. That's the
reference that they're now saying they've withdrawn as a deviation. That's No. 1.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's not in your resolution. There's no withdrawn No. 1. The resolution that's already
withdrawn with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just got the -- this is the document Heidi gave us just -- just sent it out last week.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on. Let's go -- Mark, let's go back to the document that was originally on
the overview, okay. All right. So we got rid --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not --
MR. KLATZKOW: We got rid of 1. Now we're on 2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because -- you're on 2, because -- old 2 is now 1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Heidi's version that you're reading from is the Old 2, No. 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Corby is now trying to modify what Heidi provided to you-all right now for the first time
for anybody to see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: County Attorney and us, because we had gone through all of these, and I believe Heidi
has accurately reflected in -- and she said she was going to do that for everybody. That you were going to have
the resolution, and that's what we're going to review from.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, unless --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to do, yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless -- staff, unless you've got something that's material, I mean, this is nonsense. I
mean, we're not changing them on the fly here. I mean, Corby, you're in the same building as Heidi's in.
You know, you guys have got to sit down with us and just say, look, this is the reason why we want to have it
changed. Honest to God, it's not like you live in a silo without a door.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 17 of 55
But, no, I don't understand the change. I think the change is worse than what you have. And I would just go
with the way, you know, Heidi has it here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only exception I have then is that we define shopping center --
MR. KLATZKOW: As defined in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, can you put your language up so we can just make sure we get an agreement.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want Corby's language. I want Heidi's language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want Corby's language. I want Heidi's language. And we'll reference the LDC,
as you just talked about.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language that, you know, I provided to you is the version that you saw before as
modified. So these are new changes that I'm seeing this morning for the first time, and so is Nancy, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- you know, I can't comment on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have any concerns one way or the other?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we need to know what we're voting on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to be voting on Heidi's version that she used from the other
meetings, and I was real pleased she put this together, because it's a complete package that we're hopefully
working off of. Unless somebody's telling me it's the wrong package to work off, we've gotten I don't know how
many versions of this over the last month and a half. It's ridiculous.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever you decide to do is -- you know, you're the board who has to make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- decisions. I was just trying to put something together so we were all on the same
page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section.
We're going to withdraw Corby's edits and, if need be, we'll address that in front of the Board because we don't
want to cross -- obviously, we're contributing to confusion. That's not our intent. So, again, we'll just withdraw,
and we don't believe they're substantial, but regardless, we'll withdraw. We'll address at the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's move into the next one that we should be working off of. If we go
back to the most recent resolution language sent to us, which is the one we're referring to as Heidi's, we'd be
looking at 7.1.2, was the one we just corrected in that document, but where do we go from here? Because the
next paragraph, 7.2, and I believe you had 7.1.3 and 7.1.4, Nancy. Did you not? Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if we take maybe a five- or 10-minute break?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be a great idea. So let's come back at 10 minutes after 10 and try to
figure out what document we want to use.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 9:54 a.m. to 10:04 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. It looks like the discussion that needed to happen for 10 minutes or
so has occurred, so we are going to try to figure out how to move through with this.
And I am one of the people who has had multiple documents of the -- basically of this -- of different changes, and
all I'm trying to do is figure out which one we're supposed to be voting on.
Staff, I believe, now, has got some clarity. Nancy's going to walk through -- and you can do it quickly. Just tell
us which ones are in or out and which ones have changes and what staff's position are on them, and we'll be good.
MS. GUNDLACH: Great. Good morning, Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're using Heidi's SRA version.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 18 of 55
MR. YOVANOVICH: Resolution version.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The resolution version.
MR. KLATZKOW: The one you're voting on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wanted to make sure I understand it, because it's --
MR. KLATZKOW: Work off the one we're voting on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the one we're voting on already has No. 7.1.1 withdrawn, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. 7.1.2 is changed as the language indicates, but they're going to add a
reference to it's the LDC definition for grocery store -- or shopping center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shopping center.
Okay. Where is the next one, Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Next page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Give us a number. There we go.
MR. MULHERE: There's another deviation on the other page.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Does staff agree with Heidi's version?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. That's why we're walking through it, to find out.
MS. GUNDLACH: Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay. Zoning staff and legal staff are in agreement with the document in front of you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa.
MS. GUNDLACH: It is the SRA document dated 10/30.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Your agreement with the document in front of you on the overhead, because the
document that we have in front of us doesn't have No. 1 crossed out.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's not in there at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That's going to be fun to follow this.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll tell you what. Let's make this even easier. Can we put on the -- I don't know, the
resolution that we're voting on rather than what you have?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. That's what we've got in front of us.
MR. KLATZKOW: So the first one's fine except with the reference to the LDC in the shopping center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Second one, same thing.
MR. MULHERE: Same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 7.1.1 -- okay. Except for the reference to the shopping center and the language
to make it a definition as found in the LDC; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 7.1.1 in Heidi's document is not withdrawn. 7.12 in Heidi's document is the one
below. What's the status on that one? That also references the shopping center, so that would also need the
same language.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And anything else, Nancy, on that one?
MS. GUNDLACH: Staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any changes to that one?
MS. GUNDLACH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 7.2.1, on the second page.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Can you scroll down.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. Operator error.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: 7.2.1, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 19 of 55
MS. GUNDLACH: No changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 7.2.2?
MS. GUNDLACH: 7.2.2, staff recommends approval and no changes.
7.2.3, staff recommends approval, and there's no changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Moving along to 7.3 -- do you want me to go through each individual one or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have any changes to any of those?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. There's no changes to any of them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Staff is okay with all of those?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, we are.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it's whether or not the Planning Commission has any comments on any of those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm trying to find out. Okay. So staff's okay. There are no
changes. That's the language we've got in front of us?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
Moving along to Section 7.4, sign standards. Staff is recommending approval of 7.4.1 and 2.
And moving along to 7.5, landscape standards, staff is recommending approval of Deviation No. 1.
And regarding the other deviation, 7.6.1, 2, and 3 and 4, staff is recommending approval of all of them as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what basically remains, with the exception of changing on the very first one
or two, staff's approving all of those?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to find out.
I think that's only thing -- I don't have any questions right now on those. We may come back to them later, but
right now it's fine.
Anybody else have any questions on the deviation? Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't have any problem with the deviations. I have other problems.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have that in my rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are in the SRA document. If you have any questions about the SRA document,
great timing right now. Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, when would you like us to clarify the two items that you asked us to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as you have time to figure them out.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're ready, but I didn't want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's bounce back up. I'm going to be going to number -- Page 14, that's the last
page of the document, next. Why don't we finish that and we'll go back to your next two items.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to know when was appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C, it's under transportation, 8.3.C, no more than 1,750 dwelling units will be issued COs
until a minimum of 30,000 square feet of neighborhood retail and office uses have been developed and issued
COs.
So that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven years into the project. So for seven years the capture rate and
internal pass -- and pass-by rate on the TIS wouldn't apply.
How are we looking at that from a transportation perspective? And I don't mean you to answer that as much as I
need our staff. Since this was -- I don't -- I imagine this was reviewed by transportation staff and signed off?
You can't have a capture rate if the commercial isn't there. And I'm trying to figure out how that was allocated
in.
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager.
We realized that as the project takes off, that their internal capture will get greater as the project progresses
throughout; that they will need the rooftops to be able to support the commercial retail uses. So this language
had come in, and staff didn't have a problem with it.
Our bigger fear would be that they would build out all the residential and not build any commercial at all, and so
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 20 of 55
this gives a little bit of protection as far as getting some of that. And so, yes, we are fine with that language. We
understand that the internal capture will come as the project matures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the internal capture won't come until the commercial's there. Are you on the same
page as me on that thought?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not going to come as the project matures. It's not going to come until the
project has gone on for seven years with a capture rate that is not real hitting our road system because there is no
capture rate for the first seven years. So how we factored (sic) that in?
MS. SCOTT: So as they come in for their individual Site Development Plans or plats for these projects, they will
not be able to apply in internal capture if there's nothing to -- for that, and that internal capture gets applied for the
commercial side, not on the residential side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in the meantime, the folks that would drive to these commercial facilities
will be driving into the -- elsewhere. Orangetree, the urban area, somewhere else.
MS. SCOTT: Ave Maria, other areas around Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. SCOTT: All around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you took that into consideration in their traffic analysis for the local road
system for the first seven years?
MS. SCOTT: They don't break it down into that manner. We're looking at the project overall at buildout and
what it will look like on the roadway system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at buildout you're taking in full impact of the capture rate and pass-by rate.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, but it will be as they come in for their individual projects. It will be reevaluated at that time.
And they have a trip cap that would be their base -- or their maximum that they can go to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. So if they have a trip cap, does the trip cap get exceeded by -- say
without commercial but with 1,750 residential dwelling units?
MS. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that means we're covered because you based everything on the trip cap.
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If you said that at the beginning, I probably would have understood it better.
Thank you.
Richard, on the parks and recreation, 8.4.A, the SRA shall include a minimum of one children's playground that
conforms to yada, yada, yada at 2,500 square feet in size. The playground shall be located in the amenity center
tract on the SRA. There's only one of those, though, isn't there? So you're either going to have a playground on
the north side or the south side. You're not going to have two of them, because you've really got a separated
village.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have an amenity center tract on the north side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what are you going to do with the children on the south side? Oh, they
don't count?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: They get to cross the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, real -- Rich, I mean, if you're going to -- if you got communities -- the kids have
got to have probably two tracts.
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, providing a playground is not a requirement of the SRA in the first place.
Staff asked us to do at least one, which we've agreed to do. We may have more. So we've committed to the one.
Someone, I forget who it was, asked us, where is it going to be? Because they wanted to identify it, I guess,
because of the concern of having one on the south side that might actually be within somebody's subdivision and
you'd have kids playing and it somehow would create a problem. But I think we've addressed that now in the
development standards that exist. We can have more. We have to have a minimum of one, and the minimum of
one will be in the amenity center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 21 of 55
MR. YOVANOVICH: We can have more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just makes it -- but, see, it just accentuates the awkwardness of a village split by a
six-lane road. And -- because you're going to have kids using -- if the kids want to use the playground, they've
got to go to the north side of your development, and they've got to cross that road to get there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we have an issue where kids want to use playgrounds, my guess is the builders
who are going to develop are going to provide playgrounds for the people who are buying their homes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8.5 is other. Is "A" a deviation?
MR. MULHERE: No. No. That was a request from staff to put that in there. I reviewed the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why would they put it there if it's required by the LDC? Maybe Nancy can answer
that. I mean, if it's required by the LDC, it doesn't need to be there. If it's there, that means it's not required or
it's different than the LDC, and we would either need it as a deviation or whatever. You're -- explain.
MR. MULHERE: It is not a deviation. Street trees are required in the village center as specified in 4.08.07.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: You know, I can't really remember what the basis of the staff request was to put that in there,
but it's not a deviation because they're required as is written there. We can take it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just suggesting, why put it there if the LDC already requires it? That's all I'm
getting at. It says so in the first sentence.
MS. GUNDLACH: The LDC doesn't specifically address it, so they're just providing it for clarity.
MR. MULHERE: It does require street trees. I think it doesn't deal with, you know, what -- the dimension of
on center and so on.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, the spacing. The tighter spacing. So they're actually doing something -- they're
clarifying it. Giving us an equal amount of tree canopy, but just spacing it tighter so that they have an equal
amount of canopy. That's not addressed in the LDC specifically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: It sounds like it's more of a developer commitment than a deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think, yeah. If it's there and that's what we're going to get and it's better than
the LDC, that's an improvement.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's in the developer commitment section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm fine with it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying, in response to the comment, it's not in the deviation section; it's in the
developer commitment section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the two clarifications you had you wanted to bring up that we talked about
earlier you found out about?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are those?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's -- could we go back to the sections so I make sure -- Mr. Strain, what page was
that in the SRA that you brought up? Let's talk about the CCRC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 9. It's on your development -- your Table 5.2.2.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would cap the number of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's the table. You're -- that's the square footage. You -- you're talking
about the total amount of --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wherever --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acreage for ALFs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wherever appropriate -- and I think we were in the neighborhood general section when
the comment came up, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Page 5.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would cap the number of -- the CCRC, ALF, independent numbers at 300 units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 22 of 55
MR. YOVANOVICH: And then on the comment on 5.2.1.A, permitted uses, how do you know you're going to
get a diversity of these type of uses? We would commit to a minimum of eight of the retail and office uses
identified in 5.2.1.A being developed within the village center.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does that include a grocery store?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would have eight of them. If we had a grocery store, we'd have seven of the other.
If we didn't get a grocery store, we would have eight from this list.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That would give you the diversity. I think you were concerned that we would just have
one big whatever and not -- and not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're close to other developments. For example, if they have a grocery store and the
rooftops and yours can't support standalone, obviously then it wouldn't be good to put another grocery store side
by side, or it may not work right. So I'm not -- as long as there's some kind of mix that we're assured of -- and I
think by having at least eight retail and office, we get that mix, and you also qualify, I think --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That would meet the definition --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for shopping center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. That answers those two questions. And let me make sure I've got all
mine on the SRA part of it. And I don't know if any of you have anything left.
Oh, we've got to go to the master plan. The master plan is following the 14 pages of text. I mentioned this
before. I can't remember if it got solidified. We are going to be removing the references to the panther fence on
the north and south ends of the Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way area. Do you see where the word "panther
fence" is up on top and on the bottom? It's on all the master plans. And I don't think it's appropriate, because
we'd have to end up changing the master plan to have that -- to extend that road. It doesn't make sense.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I see it. Do you want the entirety of the panther fence, or do you want the panther fence
not -- you're right, it does look like it crosses over Big Cypress Parkway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm trying to say. Let's not show it there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we go to extend that, someone's got to amend the master plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it. I see what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And all of them have the same reference at the same location.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So it will stop on the east side of Big Cypress Parkway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I get the direction right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, you got that right.
Under your disclaimer, Bob, the master plan is conceptual, internal roadway alignments, golf course routing, light
siting and configurations of development areas are subject to modification within the RLSA guidelines at the time
of final development order. Your -- that is indicating then that they be insubstantial, because if you get -- you
can't do anything that's going to need a public process.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. If they rise to the level of substantial, we have to go through an amendment
process or a public process, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your next master plan -- it's the one that is black and white. On the table to
the right, you say Rivergrass Village SRA land-use summary. You go down, you have a lake ME and open
spaces in a shaded gray. Where is that? And you also have lake tracts, LME, which I'm thinking you're only
going to put an LME where the squigglies go north and south instead of east and west, but I don't think that's true
either. That's it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Judging by the light gray color, yeah, it's up here.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But all the -- okay. Because you've got a lot of lakes. I just don't know why those are
the only ones that you're calling lake ME and open space. Sixty-five acres, that's not just that. But the color
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 23 of 55
coding doesn't match the diagram is what I'm trying to say, so I couldn't follow it.
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you look at the table below where it says WRA land-use summary, see those little
squiggly things going north -- they're up and down? I see where that is, so that makes sense. But next to it
there's a little gray patch to the left of that symbol. And, again, I don't know where that occurs on this map.
And then you've got --
MR. MULHERE: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the little squigglies that -- I keep referring to them as that -- they look like a water
area. See your ones that go east and west, Bob, down in the core of your development? What symbolism is that
referring to? Because it can't be the club site and amenity center because that's on the south side of Oil Well.
Those aren't matching up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think what -- the right thing to do, get rid of that little gray and just make
sure that's all just the squigglies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like that word?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. If I didn't like it, I would have changed it. I didn't know what to change it to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But squigglies, I think that light gray should come out of that rectangle so it's just the
squigglies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so, too, because you don't intend that to be an LME that -- I don't see it
there at least. Do you see -- if you look at the lakes in between your two roads going north and south, you notice
the squigglies are going east/west.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, right --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What symbol do they fit under?
MR. MULHERE: So they fit under -- well, there's two symbols under lakes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says lakes include aqua range at 14.3.
MR. MULHERE: So these are -- obviously, you can see that those are not north and south. They're east and
west.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those are all the lakes and including the aqua range to the south.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is on the south side --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. I think, though --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me move down. If we go down to the next master plan, this is Page 3 of the master
plans. Under your notes --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all roads -- all road right-of-ways shall be 50 feet unless otherwise noted. They're
going to be --
MR. MULHERE: There are a couple --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be at least 50 feet unless otherwise noted, right? Because you don't have
anything below 50 feet, do you?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're not going to make a smaller road than 50 feet, because you're not --
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 3, project sidewalks will connect to future pedestrian facilities installed
during Oil Well Road expansion. Okay. What expansion are we talking about? Two lanes? Four lanes? Six
lanes?
MR. MULHERE: It's already two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already two. But, I mean, when it goes to four? It is going to go to six? So
what -- what time are they putting the sidewalks in? I guess that's going to answer it. And then
those -- wherever they are, you'll connect to them.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 24 of 55
MS. SCOTT: Once again, for the record, Trinity Scott.
The roadway is designed and permitted to be built to six lanes. We may build four within a six-lane footprint.
We'll make that decision when we program the construction of the project. But in either event, the sidewalks will
be built whether it's a four-lane or a six-lane.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will they be required by that sentence to connect at either point, whether it's
four- or six-lane? Because they'd be connecting twice, then. Because if you go to four lanes, then expand to
six -- or would you build a sidewalk out to the six-lane configuration?
MS. SCOTT: When we build a four-lane and a six-lane footprint, we build the outside lanes and then later widen
to the median. So we would build the sidewalks in their ultimate configuration, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you.
Number 4, at the developer's discretion, a 10-foot-wide pathway may be located within perimeter landscape
buffers 25 feet or greater in width provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the
pathway; however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in a width by five feet. So you take 25 feet,
you drop it down to 15, but you add five more feet giving you a 20-foot buffer if you put a pathway in it. Is that
what that's saying?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next one, a 10-foot-wide pathway may also be located within the
perimeter buffers that are less than 25 feet in width; however, in no such cases the buffer width shall be increased
in a width by 10 feet above the minimum required width.
MR. MULHERE: However, in such case, the buffer width shall be increased --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Can you explain how that -- so you've got a 10-foot pathway, and you've got a
buffer width of 15 feet, let's say. I mean, I'm not sure what buffer widths you're talking about.
MR. MULHERE: So the buffers that are less than 25 feet in width.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How -- say, a 10-foot buffer.
MR. MULHERE: Or a 20-foot buffer. 10 -- let's go with 10.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ten-foot buffer you put a 10-foot pathway.
MR. MULHERE: You'd have zero, so now you have to increase that by 10. So you're losing nothing on those
smaller ones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to understand, okay.
And that may, thankfully -- oh. On your -- I don't know what page it's on, a few more pages down, you have
what's called an SRA local street right-of-way section.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the intent of putting that in here?
MR. MULHERE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take a stab, and if I need to bring Dominic up, I will. But
there were issues -- apparently, this SRA program really never contemplated Public Utilities serving these CRAs.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rotate that 90 degrees, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I liked it better like that.
MR. MULHERE: So we worked with the Utilities Department to come up with a cross-section that was
supported by utilities, and this represents that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a cross-section of the streets you're putting it. You just said 50 feet. This is
48.
MR. AMICO: For the record, Dom Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage.
Forty-eight feet is the minimum cross-section for a local road in the SRA standards out of the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but they're putting in a 50-foot street.
MR. AMICO: We've got two more feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're adding something to the 48 standard that you're not using because you're
asking for a deviation or you're asking for -- you're going to be putting in 50-feet roads, right -- 50-foot roads?
MR. AMICO: Yeah. That extra two feet doesn't really change the situation that we had. The situation was the
interface between the street trees and the utilities. That's the entire purpose for this cross-section is for the utility
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 25 of 55
issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But --
MR. MULHERE: Change to 50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You're going to attach this to your PUD or SRA as you call it. Staff's going to
look at it when your plans come in. They're going to see 48 feet, and that's what's going to happen.
MR. AMICO: We can change the 48 to 50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's all you need to do.
MR. AMICO: The sole purpose of this was utility driven.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- I don't have a problem with -- I understand your purpose. I just saw
the road was the wrong configuration.
MR. MULHERE: Good catch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see. I think that's the last thing I have on the SRA document.
MR. KLATZKOW: Can I ask a question about the master plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: If we can put it back on the overhead, the color version.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I just want to get clarity on the record, because the Board of County Commissioners just
recently went through a hearing where initially it was supposed to be one PUD, it got separated into two PUDs,
both of them gets gated. And the issue here is, are we sure that we're not really creating two separate gated
communities here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they said these are going to be gated.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Within, for instance, Pelican Bay or the Vineyards, they have multiple gated
communities.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But you've got an activity center on the north, all right. So how -- if you got two
gated communities here, for example, the community that's now on the south, how are they getting to your
activity center?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean the amenity center?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, amenity center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I just want to make sure we're talking the same language.
Well, what they will do is they will -- the communities interconnect in multiple locations, but right here, they
would simply cross over Oil Well Road to get -- I can't tell from my reading glasses. Is that the amenity center?
Thank you.
So you could -- there's the ability to cross multiple locations to go from north to south.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just saying, is there a prohibition on where the gates go?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They would have access to get there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Until there's a gate. When you have two separate communities with two separate
HOAs -- and I've just gone through a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners on this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I watched it from the cheap seat, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. So you understand the issue I'm raising. How can we ensure that the people who
live on the south portion of this village actually have access to the north portion are not gated out?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there's an amenity center on the south portion, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a golf club, right?
MR. MULHERE: But it's also an amenity center.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So what you're saying now is you're contemplating two separate things. What
I'm saying is, can we get clarity that the residents in the southern portion will have -- will have access at least to
the amenity center to the north?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I misunderstood what you were saying. Okay. Step back. The amenity center on the
north is for the residents on the north.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not for the residents on the south?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 26 of 55
MR. YOVANOVICH: No -- there's no commitment today that the residents on the south will have access to the
amenity center on the north.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So for clarity, we're not talking about an integrated village. For clarity, we're
talking about two separate gated communities here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's not true.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is true, because you just said that you're not going to make a commitment that the
residents on the south will have access to the amenities on the north.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just like I'm not going to commit that people who are not members or playing at the golf
course will have access to the golf course either. That doesn't mean they're separate communities. We have
projects throughout the county where access to amenities are limited. Not every resident has access to an
amenity.
MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't a criticism. I'm just trying to get clarity. So what we are creating here, Richard,
are two separate communities that will be gated, all right. So when we're talking about amenities to the north,
that does not mean that the people on the south will get them, and the same thing vice versa.
So if the Planning Commission's fine with that, you know, that's fine, but that's what we're creating here. We are
creating two separate gated communities, not one integrated village. And unless there's a prohibition on gates
here or where gates can go, that's what's going to happen here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, are you saying that what we're really creating here is two villages?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Not -- you're not creating any village. What you're creating here are two separate
gated communities.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Frankly, I just -- I've got to respond to that.
The testimony from your staff is that we are, in fact, creating a village. Within that village there will be gated
communities. I just want the record clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hear what you're saying, but we're going to get to the staff report in a minute, which
those issues will all be requested --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anybody else? Go ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple of questions. One came up in the material that we got from the
Conservancy recently, and that has to do with the number of stewardship credits to be assigned to SSA 15.
Would you care to explain what is going on with respect to that process?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, SSA 15 is an approved SSA that is being held in escrow, and it gets released from
escrow when this SRA document and all of the required state and federal permits are issued. It already has an
identified number of credits. And I don't have the number right off the top of my head. Bob will look for it
while we're talking.
We are in to amend that SS -- and we meet -- that SSA as held in escrow by my law firm has enough credits
already assigned to it to allow for this village to go forward. It has enough credits.
We are doing some amendments to that to further reduce the types of activities that can happen in the SSA that
will generate more credits.
We're going through that amendment process right now. Those amendments are not necessary for the approval
of this Rivergrass SRA.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the consequence of this, I believe, is going to be that the owners of the SSA 15
will be able to provide lots more credits to other receiving units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's exactly how the program was intended to be developed. You were to create
SSAs, get credits, reduce the amount of activity that can happen in the SSA, i.e., doing a better good for the
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 27 of 55
environment and, in exchange for that, open lands that we went through the very first day, would be allowed to be
developed.
The process is working exactly like it's supposed to work. There's no consequence. It's the intended
consequence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of fairness to the applicant, the SSAs aren't something reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The application in front of us today is for an SRA. We really need to confirm that they
have the right amount of credits for the SRA, which was acknowledged by staff.
The program's issues with abundance of credits from SSAs really needs to be addressed during the review of the
RLSA, to be honest with you. I don't know how we'd bring that into play here today.
I read the Conservancy's document closely. I saw there's potential problems today, but I don't know how they
would enter in today's discussion, because they base the village on credits they already had, and we don't review
SSAs. So unless you've got another idea, Ned, I don't know how to bring that in.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I just wanted to remove the blinders for a moment so I could see what the
bigger picture was, and I think I see it. My next question is that -- am I correct that buildout is planned for 2032?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I believe that's correct. For some reason I have 2030 in my head, but I might be
confusing it with another project.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So really the achievement of neutrality, of cost neutrality to the county, won't be
measured until 2032 and conceivably could result in additional costs -- undoubtedly will result in additional costs
to the county between now and then.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the program is set up to measure neutrality at project buildout. That's when you
measure it. Those are the rules of the game. That's when we measure it. That's what all the documentation is
there for.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the program.
MR. KLATZKOW: Fiscal neutrality, forget it. What you have to ensure is that the impact fees will pay for the
growth. Because when you get to 2030 and you start calculating it, what are you going to do? Are you going to
give them -- are you going to ask the developer -- you know, you're $5 million short. It's not going to happen.
So I think what the county really needs to do is ensure that the impact fees are properly set so that hopefully
growth pays for growth. That's the only neutrality you're going to get.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it could be a rather long time before the project is off the dole, so to speak, in
relation to the county.
MR. KLATZKOW: The project's not going to be on the dole, though. It's -- the school board has the
opportunity to ask for land if they need land for the schools. I don't know if they have or not, but that's an
opportunity that they have, and the county has the opportunity to either ask or acquire land for, you know, its
government needs, and then we have the exact impacts fees that pay for it, at least a portion of this, and that's how
this is set up.
And truth be told, it's no different than any other PUD. Essentially, that's what we're approving here is a glorified
PUD.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, one of the policies refers to a progressive urban-to-rural continuum. So the
multifamily is a part of that equation. I wanted to just review the commitments regarding the multifamily and
make sure that I understand them, and it's out on the table.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe the commitment is a minimum of 250 multifamily units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Within a half-mile of the village center --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- at this point. The original --
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 28 of 55
COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. It's 250 single-family.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. We talked about this earlier. The minimum of 250 multifamily.
Minimum of 250 multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're right; you're right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Around the village center within a half-mile.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Within a half a mile of the village center.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The initial policy or the rule was written that it was maximum four-acre parcels for
these multifamily projects, but you've asked for a change to 25 acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, not to exceed 25 acres. So you can have the multifamily products that you're
familiar with seeing: Apartment complexes, condominium developments.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- I guess my question is -- it's similar to the question about the commercial
uses that go in the village center. And you've clarified. You've, more or less, made commitments to do eight
commercial uses within the village center.
Are there further commitments in terms of where these multifamily projects would go? I mean, I guess my
concern is that are we opening ourselves up for the possibility of one multifamily development on 25 acres, which
is two-and-a-half percent of this overall thousand acres, that's 2.5 percent, where all the multifamily is
concentrated, or is there a commitment to spread that around the village center and to define what types of
multifamily projects there are? I mean, are you committing to condos? Apartments? Villas? Townhomes?
I just -- I'm looking just to understand the commitment to make sure that we have this -- we achieve this
progressive urban-to-rural continuum.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And for clarity, you're referring to the half-mile distance to the village center related to
a deviation. If they comply with the LDC and do the four-acre projects, I don't believe that there is a
limitation -- Nancy, do you know -- as to the distance that multifamily needs to be from the village center? It
could be anywhere.
MS. GUNDLACH: There is nothing in the LDC.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's only if they elect to do the deviation that that applies.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. That's not -- if that's how it's being interpreted, that's not what was intended.
This came up with a question of how do we show that you're getting more dense to less dense as you got further
away from the village center, and we committed that our multifamily will be within a half a mile of the village
center regardless of the size of the acreage.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So we'll place that outside the deviation section?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So make sure we get that right.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Second, I don't know the exact mix right now, but we will commit that we have
multifamily on both the north and south side of the project, if that will help. I don't think I can commit to you
today the type and the exact location. I think the half mile helps.
But I think to give you -- to show you that we're spreading it out, if you will, we'll put it on both the north and the
south. I don't know the exact split right now, but we do plan on splitting that minimum of 250 to both the north
side and the south side.
We might be able to get you a better --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I can get you exact numbers by --
MR. YOVANOVICH: By when? How about we'll try to see if I can get you that exact number today, but if I
can't, I can definitely commit to it at the --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Exact number of what?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the split on the north and south side. I can definitely commit to that as part of the
final SRA document that the County Commission hears.
But if you want to -- what we talked about, I guess, at the last hearing is condition your approval upon there being
a split between the north and south side if I can't get the exact split before we conclude business today.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Would there be any commitment as to a mix of the types of units that would be put in?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 29 of 55
I mean, would you commit to at least there would be some mix of townhomes, condos, attached villas, that type
of thing, so we have a diversity of housing types as is called for?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We do, and we're already required to do that. But I cannot commit to you to X
percentage of townhomes, Y percentage of, you know, flat -- you know, I can't commit to that today.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac Giblin is here, and during the discussion in the staff report, there's a portion of
it about housing. I was going to ask him to talk about the issue of diversified housing in this location as well.
So you'll hear some more at that point, so...
Okay. Anybody else have any questions from the SRA document?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got that far through it. Let's move on to the staff reports. There are two
staff reports. One is the FLUE, and one is the staff report that Zoning Department did.
I think we'll just go through the Zoning Department's staff report, and then there are portions of that pertaining to
the Comprehensive Planning staff, and we'll ask for clarification to for those items that work. Is that okay with
everybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Nancy, I'm afraid to ask this next question: What version -- the staff report
that I'm working off of, September 19th, 2019, is that the right one?
MS. GUNDLACH: There's only one staff report, and that is the right one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have an issue, because that staff report still has your recommendations that
you've previously pulled the plug on. Okay. And so does the -- we don't have a Comprehensive Planning staff
report from either you or Zoning that says you no longer have these recommendations. We have it on record, but
our writing in our document still put all that stuff as part of the review. So we're going to have to review it.
Now, I know you stopped reviewing it last time because you changed your mind, but I'm going to need to know
why you changed your mind on each one of the things you previously felt so strong about you had to put it in
writing. So I guess we'll start there.
We'll work our way through the staff report done by Zoning first. And does anybody want to ask any questions
before I start?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy, on Page 5 of the staff report, back to the question I've asked repeatedly,
first bullet point, 2,500 residential units with a density of 2.5 units per acre. Again, we have a different -- did
anybody check that to see if they've gotten a resolution to that?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I've checked it. And there's two different definitions. There's one in the GMP, so
there's a density you arrive at per the Growth Management Plan, and there's density that you arrive at per the Land
Development Code. And the Land Development Code SRA section has an interesting definition for density in
that it's not -- it doesn't include the excess open-space acreage.
So if you take the number of SRA acres, total number, which is 997.53, and you subtract that excess open
acreage, which is 222.77 acres, you arrive at 774.76 acres divided by the 2,500 units, and you arrive at 3.099
dwelling units per acre or, if you want to round it off, 3.1 dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the SRA document an amendment to the GMP or the LDC, or is it a change
to the LDC or to the GMP?
Richard, I'm asking staff.
MS. GUNDLACH: I think I know the answer, but, Ray, I think it's the LDC --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a resolution. I know it's not an ordinance. But does it -- is it pursuant -- is it a
document that's under the LDC or GMP?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The SRA document is a designation process covered by the Land Development Code, and it needs to be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the calculations, definitions, and references in the zoning staff report are
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 30 of 55
those relevant to the LDC; is that correct? Because if it is, then we would be looking at a density of 3.1 rounded
to this number.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, correct. We are reviewing this to be consistent with the LDC requirements. And if
there's a consistency problem with the GMP, that would be part of the staff report as well, if there was one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The GMP, apparently, has a different way to measure it. But this document, if
it's -- and David's coming up, so maybe he can help us with that.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
I concur with what Nancy has stated. The difference in the Future Land Use Element RLSA overlay is it
provides for no exception. It simply says, take the gross acreage of the SRA and divide that into the total number
of dwelling units to get your density. The net result is, through the Future Land Use Element calculation, you're
going to end up with a lower density. Because, as Nancy's explained, the LDC provides that for the open excess
open-space acreage, two things go hand in hand. First of all, you don't require stewardship credits to be
consumed for the excess open-space acreage and, secondly, you don't calculate that -- use that acreage in
calculating density.
So because you have fewer acres divided into the number of units, your actual density, then, is higher than you
would get under the Future Land Use Element.
I would point out that this is not unique. We actually have a different circumstance. It's totally irrelevant to
what we're discussing here, but it's a parallel, and that's within the Future Land Use Element's density rating
system for how density is calculated.
If you have wetland acreage, that would still be included in the Future Land Use Element calculation of
acreage -- excuse me -- a specific type of wetland, tidally influenced or marine wetlands.
The Land Development Code definition of density, residential, would exclude those marina wetland acres. So
we have a parallel circumstance where the Future Land Use Element density would be using a larger acreage;
therefore, we're resulting in a lower density, and then the Land Development Code's requirements would have a
lesser acreage and resulting at a greater density. It's a direct parallel, in my mind, to what we're seeing here.
Different reasons, perhaps, but it's -- this is -- my point is, this is not unique that there is a difference between the
two documents.
MR. KLATZKOW: David, is the proposed density of this development consistent with the GMP?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is the proposed density, Nancy, of this project consistent with the LDC, which is 1
through 4? So they don't have excess of 4, but they have 3.1, and from the GMP they got 2.5. At some point
those multipliers get to be used in other documents.
I just want to make sure we know what the multipliers are and they're used in the correct documents to come to
the correct calculations. That's the whole question. That's where all this was coming from.
MR. WEEKS: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I appreciate your clarification, David. Thank you.
In the conditions of approval under -- in conclusions and conditions of approval under the Comprehensive
Planning section of the Zoning Department's staff report -- so I'm not sure if Nancy wrote this or if Nancy copied
this or Corby wrote this or David wrote this.
Conclusions: Where the proposed R -- SRA lacks consistency with the intent of the RLSA provisions of the
LDC, it may not be considered consistent with the FLUE. Where the proposed SRA does not conform to the
fundamental village design characteristics as identified in the standard review findings above, it is not supported
by a recommendation for approval. And based upon the above analysis, this proposed SRA may not be deemed
consistent with the FLUE; however, the application may be deemed consistent if and when the conditions of
approval below are met.
One, all formal SSAs have been approved and concurrent -- or -- before or concurrent with the SRA. Those
deviations, development standards, SRA statements, and suitability criteria, et cetera, listed under consistency
review findings above are removed or revised as discussed above. The ratio of multifamily to single-family
dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 31 of 55
Now, that's in this staff report. Are you going to issue a new report to the Board of County Commissioners, and
if you are, is it going to say that or not?
MR. WEEKS: We, I think, need to revise the memo. Here's the bottom line. Comprehensive Planning staff is
recommending to the Planning Commission that they find this petition consistent with the Future Land Use
Element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, David --
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this project, in some manner or form, has been going on for a long time. You-all
wouldn't have written this without putting some thought into it before you did.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then after you wrote it you changed your mind. Then I asked you about it, you
changed your mind back. We came to the meeting a week ago, and you changed your mind back again.
I need to know what drove you to originally conclude the conclusion I just read into the record, I mean, and why
did you change it? What made you change it? These -- you normally don't do things lightly.
MR. WEEKS: No. Here is what happened: There are objective standards in the Future Land Use Element.
There's the same table of SRA requirements, number of acres, density, number of acres of certain types of uses
using a metric of X square feet per dwelling unit of commercial, X square feet per dwelling unit of I think it's
civic uses, open-space requirements, and so forth. Those are objective, black or white. They either meet it or
they don't. And that's what we've always said they're consistent with.
The more subjective standards are those that pertain to innovative design, compact development, things of that
nature, things that are not defined. They're -- they are subjective.
And that is where staff was initially saying this petition is -- we're not finding it consistent. The deviations undo
some of those subjective conditions. You know, is it compact? Well, maybe it could be, but with certain
deviations, you have certain things about the way they've designed the project, we're saying they're not. And so
we were including that in our finding of saying this is not consistent.
The change that staff has made is to be, I'll say, consistent with what we have done on other projects looking at
the other portions of the Future Land Use Element. Let me explain that.
There are policies under Objective 7 in the Future Land Use Element pertaining to smart growth principles such
as interconnections, walkability. When staff reviews a rezone petition under those policies, if we find that the
policies are not being complied with, because the language in those policies says encourage, encourage
walkability, encourage interconnections, if they don't comply with those, the staff position is going to be to point
that out to you as the Planning Commission and the Board, recommend that they do certain things but,
nonetheless, if they meet -- if they don't do those things, we would not recommend that they be found inconsistent
with the plan; whereas, for example, the density rating system is a more black-and-white calculation, you either
meet it or you don't. And so if a project didn't meet the density rating system, we would be recommending that
the project be found inconsistent.
The parallel here is that those objective standards, those black-and-white in that table, if all of those are met, then
staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element under those other
subjective terms such as compactness and innovative design.
If we disagree there, we point that out to you, tell you we think they could do better, but we don't use that as a
basis for finding them inconsistent.
And as I stated at the last meeting, as far as the design goes here, staff does not like their design. We don't think
it's compact, or certainly it's not as compact as it could be. It's not an innovative design. This is just taking what
we do over here in the suburban Naples area and plopping it down out in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and
we don't think that was the intent. But we're not saying it's inconsistent with the plan because we don't have a
black-and-white definition or requirement for what that means.
Let me give you one example regarding compactness, which I think I might have said at the last meeting. At the
very high-level view, any SRA within the RLSA is compact development because it's taking that plus-or-minus
195,000 acres and changing from the checkerboard pattern of one dwelling unit per five acres and instead
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 32 of 55
concentrating the development into these Stewardship Receiving Areas. So at that high-level review, any SRA is
a compact development.
But looking at the site-specific petition in front of us on a case-by-case basis, compactness to staff means looking
at language in the FLUE policies and in the LDC that speak to a compact core, speaks to a continuum, of a
density hierarchy, whether it uses that word or not, where we start with a core of intense development and then
have gradients going outward to the edges of the SRA.
In this project, we don't see that much of a gradient. They do have a -- I say a town core. I mean village core.
They do have a village core, a village center, which is where the commercial, the higher intensity uses are at.
They do have multifamily proximate to that, and then they go to single-family. So there is some gradient, but
their gradient goes out all the way to the very edges at the same -- appears to be the same density.
They've designed it with lakes throughout the entire community with residential around it. So, yes, everyone gets
to enjoy a lakefront view, but here we have this low density spread throughout.
If they were to -- this is just an example. If they were to take a lot of these lakes and push them out to the edges
of the village, pull the residential units in closer towards the village center, that would be one way of achieving a
more compact development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. I appreciate it.
Now, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I confess to being somewhat surprised and disappointed that staff has come to the
place where it has, particularly in view of all the things that have been written in the beginning that I supported
and applauded staff for being able to stand up and take these positions, all be they perhaps unpopular in the
developer community, in the interest of making a better Eastern Collier County. And so I'm just -- I'm quite
disappointed in that.
And, first and foremost, the problem that I have with this proposal is its total lack of connectivity, and I mean
within the proposed village, and I'm focusing specifically on Oil Well Road and the numerous are they 15 or 18
cul-de-sacs which to me are just dead-ends. And those dead-ends and that potential six-lane highway running
through this so-called village, together, in my judgment, it is completely antithetical to what my understanding,
after hours and hours of reading of what led up to the RLSA, what was intended by the planners, by your
colleagues, by the Board of County Commissioners, and by our predecessors.
So I just -- I can't see how you're able to come to that conclusion which is so diametrically opposed to some of the
things particularly that Corby wrote early on and how you can square your recommendations at this point with
Section 163.3177 of the Florida Statutes that calls upon these types of developments to avoid resulting in poor
accessibility among linked or related land uses. This development fails, quote, to provide -- to promote walkable
and connected communities, and it fails to provide, quote, an innovative development that in any manner
addresses these obvious flaws.
Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes, calls for the use of innovative planning and development strategies and
creative land-use planning techniques. To me, this proposal is nothing more than a garden-variety urban or
suburban PUD.
Objective 7 of the FLUE in Policy 7.2 through 7.4 call for the use of smart-growth policies and practices in the
RLSA as well as to use, quote, internal accesses or loop roads to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby roads
and minimize the need for traffic signals and to provide walkable communities.
Objective 4, and Policies 4.1 through 4.7, call for creative land-use planning techniques in the Stewardship
Receiving Area and pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system serving all residential neighborhoods.
4.08.07 of the Land Development Code, which requires villages to be designed in a, quote, compact
pedestrian-friendly form, to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including all -- excuse me -- and
interconnected sidewalk and pathways systems serving all residential neighborhoods and for a high level of
mobility for all residents through a design that respects the pedestrian.
I just don't see how you get to where you have gotten. And I'm going to continue here while I'm -- while I'm
reviewing what I consider to be a transformation on the part of staff.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 33 of 55
Promotion of urban sprawl is obviously intended in the -- in the RLSA by the creators and the people whose
ideals were put to writing. To me, the geographical out-boundaries of this proposal -- it's got a long neck, it's got
a long tail. We've asked and we haven't received any indication as to how far people would have to walk or
bicycle from the remotest points, not to mention crossing Oil Well, but how far they would have to walk -- how
many -- what percentage of the occupants would have to walk or would be able to get to the amenity center and
get to the commercial area within a quarter of a mile? What percentage a half mile? What percentage
three-quarters? What percentage a mile? What about a mile and a quarter?
I'm not saying that everybody has to be able to be within walking distance, but it seems to me it should be
skewed, and there should be promises made to us that is it skewed in a way that most of the residents of the
development will be able to achieve walkability to these important places that they want to go.
And, again, those two statutes I mentioned, I think, call for the discouragement of urban sprawl, and FLUE
Objective 4 also calls for the discouragement of urban sprawl.
Lack of diversity in housing. Now, I grant that there is no requirement of affordable; however, that's the most
obvious way, it seems to me, to achieve diversity, and absent that what you have is 90 percent of the housing is
going to be single-family and 10 percent is going to be multifamily. To me, without affordable housing, I don't
see how you can get to the requirement of diversity.
Failure to move from greater to lesser density, as Commissioner Fry mentioned, I don't believe that that has been
represented to us in a fashion that coincidences with the requirements that I find in these various statutes and
regulations and, for those reasons, I am headed down a path almost certainly voting against this project.
MR. WEEKS: May I respond?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. First of all, because this is an SRA, staff did not review this under Chapter 163 of Florida
Statutes. If it were a Comprehensive Plan amendment, then we would have. But in this case we are
implementing the county's Rural Lands Stewardship Area program adopted in our county regulations, our GMP
and our Land Development Code.
Secondly, I think you've helped to make my earlier point about the more subjective provisions of the Future Land
Use Element and the LDC regarding the design of the project. I thought I said it clearly a moment ago; I'll repeat
it. Staff does not think this is a good design, period, but that is not, in our view, a basis for finding it inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan because it complies with the objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan,
specifically the Future Land Use Element RLSA policies.
But those FLUE policies that you've referenced about walkability, 7.1 through 7.4 and various ones within the
RLSA overlay, staff agrees with at least some, if not all, of the points that you've raised. It's up to this body and
the Board of County Commissioners ultimately as to how you react and ultimately recommend or act on those
more subjective provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code.
And, finally, I would just make a general comment that staff must acknowledge that there are certain geographic
constraints to this property. You know, looking at the shape of it, particularly looking on the north side where it's
long and linear, because they're bound by WRA and then SSAs further to the east. So they have some constraints
as to just what the shape of their property can be and, therefore, that does affect their development pattern. Staff
acknowledges that.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, in my belief, now is the last clear chance for us and, more
importantly, for the Board of County Commissioners to get this right for Eastern Collier County, and whatever we
do will set norms and the expectations for future developments.
I think it would be a serious injustice worked upon the county if we, with this very first project, allowed it to go
forward based upon the application in its present terms.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl?
COMMISSIONER FRY: David, what I took away from what you said is really your definition of where you feel
the boundary is of staff's scope in the level of review that you can provide, which is on the objective side, and
that -- and I guess I would ask for clarification from our County Attorneys in terms of our latitude today.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 34 of 55
We're here -- I interpret your statement by saying you handled the objective. The subjective is up to us and the
County Commission; is that accurate?
MR. KLATZKOW: Staff's role is -- they're administrators. They get an application, and they just check off
boxes. They don't make policy, all right. Your role as our Planning Commission is to recommend policy to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Your role is to review the Comp Plan, make change to the Comp Plan, or at least propose changes to the Comp
Plan; same with the LDC. You're our local planning agency so that your role is different from staff's role.
Staff gets an application, they say, does it comply with the LDC, yes or no? If it complies, they check off the
boxes and make the recommendation. Your role is far greater than that. Your role is to look at something and
say, wait a second, this isn't what we meant or this isn't, in my opinion, what this project ought to be. You're here
to do the actual planning.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So applying this to the points that Mr. Fryer -- Commissioner Fryer made, it's within
our latitude to look at the objectives of the RLSA and evaluate this application based on those objectives.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. At the end of the day, your primary responsibility is the Comprehensive Plan under
the statute. I mean, you look at the Comprehensive Plan, you know, you interpret the Comp Plan, and you then
make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners accordingly. And if you don't think this
application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then you'll make your recommendation accordingly.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would echo that I find this to be an extremely important occasion in that this is the
first of four villages to come before us. I see it's impossible to escape some precedential impacts from our
decision today on those remaining three villages as they come before us. So I just -- I believe we should all be
weighing all of these factors in consideration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David.
Nancy, if we move on with your staff report, under the section for Transportation, there are two conditions of
approval, and I need to know if Transportation's still on board with those or they've changed their mind, because
they're part of Nancy's overall recommendations which I think have been pulled.
Conditions of approval, 4, the companion developer agreement is required to be approved with the SRA request
and, 5, to provide for potential interconnections north, east, and south on the master plan. In addition, it's not in
here. We have heard discussion concerning itself about the ability to acquire what properties we could in some
manner of a commitment for Big Cypress Parkway. So I need to understand how those three things now fit into
your position on this project, because we're coming to the end, and we've got to get a conclusion on it, and I need
to know where you-all stand, so...
MR. SCOTT: The quick answer is is that Transportation Planning has not modified their recommendations. We
are still recommending that interconnections be shown, we are still requiring that the companion developer
agreement be approved along with the SRA, and we are requesting the right-of-way reservation north and south of
Rivergrass based on the Big Cypress Stewardship District in the discussions that occurred as part of that and what
would have been the required interlocal services delivery agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The part about Big Cypress Parkway, why wasn't that included in your conditions of
approval in the staff report?
MS. SCOTT: It actually is in the discussion, and if you notice in the companion developer agreement, we did
not have the acreage for the roadway that would be provided, so that would have been contemplated in that. That
acreage was changing up in -- our right-of-way widths were requiring the changes of the master plan up until the
last hearing, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what kind of a document are you looking for, or what kind of statement are you
looking for to assure that when and if the time is ripe for acquisition of those additional lands north and south you
have -- the county has the ability to actually look at that or consider acquiring them? How does that --
MS. SCOTT: We are okay with the reservation of right-of-way north and south, so that way it delineates where
the future right-of-way is and, currently, in a majority of the locations -- I'm not going to say in all of the
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 35 of 55
locations, because I know that there's been some property sales on the north -- the present landowner still owns
that land. And so we want that delineated so if the property is sold in the future that the people who would buy it
are aware that this roadway is planned and is necessary for the overall network to support the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Rural Lands West project, did you review that when it came through previously
multiple times?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. The Rural Lands West, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was what the -- that's the town that will be there.
MS. SCOTT: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The interconnections that were shown on the Rural Lands West project, were those
adequate for your department? Because you're asking for interconnections now in other villages that used to be
part of that town, and those interconnections, if they were --
MS. SCOTT: We were okay with those interconnections, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you don't get a commitment on right-of-way or some kind of deal to go north
and south further than this project for the Big Cypress Parkway, what does that mean in regards to potential traffic
elsewhere and road systems, potential failures elsewhere? How will that impact the overall network program?
MS. SCOTT: Without Big Cypress Parkway as it was delineated and we put on the record previously with our
alternative two-plus through our Randall/Oil Well Road corridor study, the traffic that would have utilized Big
Cypress Parkway will divert to the roadway network within the Golden Gate Estates. So DeSoto Boulevard,
Randall Boulevard would see an increase in traffic, Everglades Boulevard. The parallel roadways and the
adjacent roadways would see an increase in traffic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Traffic trying to go east on I-75 would have to go where if Big Cypress eventually
wasn't all the way acquired and connected to I-75?
MS. SCOTT: Well, the interchange is still an unknown at this point, but all the traffic would find its way to
Golden Gate Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, Immokalee Road, or it would go the other direction
and go to State Road 29 and get on the interstate at that location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they'd pile up on 951 to go to that interchange, which would be where you could go
east and west, 951 and I-75; is that fair?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. I mean, in this particular area, depending on which way you're going. If you're going to
Miami, you're going to go probably to State Road 29 and hop on there. If you're trying to go the other direction,
Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road, Pine Ridge, depending on the route.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I had left on that part of the section of the staff report.
Anybody else have any?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on, Trinity. I'm going to go to a different section; hopefully not
yours.
The Environmental Planning staff had a recommendation, a condition of approval. I'm assuming it still stands.
Have you heard anything on that, Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that's Condition of Approval No. 6, and there is a slight revision. Prior to the -- it
says, prior to the issuance of the first development order, strike through "development order" and replace with
"Site Development Plan or plans and plat."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: The rest remains the same.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Could we have it on the overhead?
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Nancy. Just for everybody to see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: A little too far.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I can see it, but I can't read it.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 36 of 55
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go down to the Public Utilities review, they had four recommendations.
Is Utilities here? Somebody's pointing to somebody.
MS. GUNDLACH: It would be Eric Fey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Eric Fey's here. Okay.
Eric, you had Recommendations 7 through 10 in the staff report. I need you to tell us where you stand on those
four, please.
MR. FEY: Yes. For the record, Eric Fey, principal project manager with Public Utilities Engineering and
Project Management.
All four -- well, the first three of my conditions have been satisfied.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning they no longer need to be conditions?
MR. FEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FEY: The last condition, I believe, should be part of any recommendation to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FEY: That is the interlocal agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Nancy, based on the discussions that we're having, you will be able to amend your
recommendations for this panel?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you would drop No. 7, 8, and 9, and incorporate 10 still?
MR. FEY: Correct, and that's simply because it's concurrent with the SRA resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Let's see -- okay. Thank you. That's all I've got on that matter, and next is the
housing issue, so...
MR. FEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know Cormac's here, and I've also -- so I'd like him to address us in their position,
because they have a requirement or a request for a housing need analysis. I need to know where the Housing
Department stands on that.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Development Grant
Manager, for the record.
My review and recommendation for this application has not changed since the very first submittal. So that
would -- that recommendation still stands. There was really nothing that I had to go on in order to perform my
review in terms of housing affordability.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And can you tell us what determines your ability to require a housing needs
analysis? Where did you -- how did you come into the thought that this was something that should be required
and, unless it is, you can't sign off on it?
MR. GIBLIN: I think that will -- it's not required that housing sign off on it; let me start with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we do look to you with your experience to --
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- weigh in on this stuff. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a diversity requirement that
we've heard different arguments about, so I need your position on that.
MR. GIBLIN: Correct. You've heard that. As David, I think, adequately and very well summarized earlier,
there are objective criteria and subjective criteria. The housing affordability criteria, I think, would fall into the
subjective side of the house.
I think that the policy that a village be primarily residential community with a diversity of housing type and mixed
uses appropriate to scale and character of that particular village, that FLUE 4.7.2, when you -- it would be a
subjective call on how one defines a diversity of housing types.
In my review, I review that as meaning different price points, different styles, different makeup of units, that sort
of thing. The applicant's economic assessment does go a little bit further into describing the different unit types
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 37 of 55
and price points that they propose.
It says that they're going to do about 1,086 residential condo/duplex or single-family attached product and 1,414
single-family detached. The multifamily condo/duplex they say will have a sales value of 270- -- an average
sales value of $272,000 a unit, and the single-family detached would have an average sales value of $394,000 a
unit.
Their economic assessment further states that the average assessed value for Rivergrass Village single-family
home is $370,000, which is 41 percent higher than the county's median value.
In reviewing the FLUE policy and, also, I also reviewed this against the housing element of the Comprehensive
Plan which has certain goals, objectives, and policies dealing with housing affordability, the analysis had not been
completed to let me know how the village would comply with that. And, in fact, the data that I was able to find
through their economic analysis seemed to point us in the wrong direction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you -- I know you were with the county, and you left for private sector for
a while and now you're back. Were you here with the county when the RLSA came through for its initial setup
back in the early 2000s?
MR. GIBLIN: I certainly was. I was a part of the team putting together the RLSA. When I separated with the
county, I actually went to the company that then invented the Rural Lands Stewardship, and I worked in the
department that implemented it in the private sector, and now I've come back here to the county again.
One of the reasons that there are certain things in this, when we deal about housing affordability, I think, and why
there is no specific objective criteria in our Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code is that at the time
these fell under the Development of Regional Impact state statute that required that same exact housing needs
analysis that I'm recommending now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The villages wouldn't have been under a -- they wouldn't have been big enough to call
for a DRI evaluation, would they? I mean, I know that Town of Ave Maria was, but usually you've got to have a
substantial impact regionally or show some kind of regional impact. Villages would be too small. So I'm not
sure they would have fit.
And the reason I'm asking you this, I was here like you were back then. I sat on this panel reviewing the RLSA.
I think I'm the only one on this panel that is still here. And I know that we -- at the same time, we have the
RFMUD coming through. The RFMUD, we actually required affordable housing as a component, and I can't
remember why we wouldn't have followed that same trend with the RLSA unless the language was intended to
include that. And I'm trying to figure out how all that -- I can't remember that. It's been 20 years. I just can't
remember back that far. Maybe David -- he's young. He's got a better memory.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, again, Comprehensive Planning section.
Commissioners, I believe that the county was relying upon the DRI requirements for affordable housing. And
the villages could fall under two scenarios. They could be small enough that they would be below the DRI
threshold, or they might be above that threshold, because remember the density ranges up to four units per acre,
so that could be 4,000 dwelling units. And if they opted for the density bonuses, the affordable housing density
bonus could be even higher. So not with -- the threshold -- the old threshold for DRIs was 2,000 dwelling units;
however, if you had a mixed-use project, the threshold then elevated higher. But I think that at that maximum
density of 4,000 dwelling units, even in a mixed-use scenario, would have crossed the threshold.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the mindset from the Housing Department and yours, most likely, was if they're
going to do a DRI, they're going to have to address the affordable housing issue, so it's covered.
MR. GIBLIN: Exactly, I think, and that covers many other reviewers' subject matter had that same mindset.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions? Karl.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Cormac, you mentioned numbers of multifamily versus single-family in the economic
analysis. Are those commitments? Because the only commitment I know of is a minimum of 250 multifamily
in the SRA document, so could you please clarify that.
MR. GIBLIN: You're correct, these do not read as commitments. These are estimates in their economic
assessment.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 38 of 55
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In Design Criteria 3.A.4 of the village, it does require a range of housing types and
price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. That's your affordability language.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions of Housing, and appreciate your time, Cormac.
Thank you.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on Page 26 of the staff report, it's under the section titled "Collier County Public
Schools fiscal neutrality." Maybe that's Tom Eastman. The last three paragraphs, I'm trying to understand, it
says, the village center is located along the northern edge of the southern half of the SRA along Oil Well Road, a
major arterial road and freight route. The village center is disconnected from the northern half of the SRA
village by Oil Well Road resulting in a less walkable community. Why did these -- why was -- why is that
located under the Collier County Public Schools fiscal neutrality section of your report? I think it is.
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, in the staff report it's located under the Zoning Services review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I'm going by the bold titles. You're going by the -- okay.
Then let's go back. Then it isn't Tom. It's under an italicized title instead of a bold title, so fine. Let's go to that
italicized title. Can you tell me what -- you added that because it must bother you from a zoning perspective.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, what page are you on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 26 of the staff report, bottom three paragraphs.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the intention was to be walkable, and it's difficult to walk across six-lane road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: It just segregates the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just needed your synopsis on that. Second paragraph of that section says some
of the deviations contained in the Rivergrass Village SRA development document, town, decrease walkability of
their SRA village. The result is a compact suburban-style development similar to many Planned Unit
Developments located in the urban area of Collier County.
So you're saying this is more like a PUD than what you expected as an SRA?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on your understanding of the LDC?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next paragraph: Staff believes that five of the proposed deviations are not consistent
with the development standards of the RLSA zoning overlay regulations contained in the LSD -- LSD -- LDC as
previously stated in the GMP consistency review. So you're on board with their previous position as the zoning
reviewer?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that mean you're still making recommendations on those items? While
they may be subjective in the GMP, are they more nonsubjective in the LDC, meaning are they more regulated?
Are they more required?
MS. GUNDLACH: They're more regulated in the LDC, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDC prohibition of no parking lots in front of buildings, a key element of a
walkable community has been eliminated. The "LDC prescribes maximum lot sizes of four acres" has also been
eliminated, creating the potential for super blocks areas which destroy vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. Is
that your writing?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's my writing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in your previous, kind of, lightening up on your position on your
recommendations, are those not your recommendations now? Are you still concerned about those things or not?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
In regard to the four-acre that's in the LDC -- and I believe that's part of a deviation now.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 39 of 55
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Didn't you guys just say --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one of the ones that you approved? And I'm trying to wonder how that approval
corresponds with the statement I just read that you wrote.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, when I was reviewing this, my opinion is that a developer can combine these four-acre
parcels into larger parcels. So I didn't see that there was a practical benefit to holding onto that position. So that
was my call.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the reviewer didn't like it, but as her superior you're okay with it.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same with the no parking lots in front of buildings, because now we're reversed,
and that one is one that you're now saying you don't -- you're approving, but it wasn't.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just checking to make sure I got all my questions from the -- that's all the
questions I have from the staff reports. And, you know, I don't know -- we'll probably -- we're going to -- I'm
going to make every attempt possible to wrap this up today. I'm going to need your help a little bit by telling us
what recommendations on your staff report will remain when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
And then we will go from there --
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during our debate and discussion up here, and that will help us out a lot if you could
do that.
And that -- anybody else have any questions from the staff reports?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to LDC/GMP questions. Anybody have any specific questions on those
documents and your reading? I know, Ned, you've already expressed your concerns. If you have more, now's a
good time to bring them up. It's up to you. If not, then we will move on to other things that I may have or
anybody else.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only thing that I would say further is at the end of the staff report there is a
section called County Attorney's Office review, which I thought was very helpful in identifying the scope of our
review of this and examination of it, and so thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm looking through the questions I have. Anybody else have any other? If not,
I'll just quickly go through what I've got and see if there's anything here that hasn't been discussed. And I don't
have anything.
So we've -- in the GMP we're thoroughly -- I can talk to staff about that.
In the GMP -- I'm going to move through those real quick. I had questions on the ALF, but that was about the
fact that they needed to give us a size on it, because from the LDC it seemed necessary. And now we've got that;
that cures that problem.
The density one, we seem to have concluded that, so I don't have anything else on that.
And I think that takes us to the end of it. I don't have anything left on the two. They were resolved with the
discussions we've had, so I can pass on any more discussion on that.
I have a question of the applicant. Rich, I took a look at the Rural Lands West town proposed. I took a look at a
development to the west called Hyde Park. Hyde Park is at the corner of Oil Well and at the edge of the Estates
from DeSoto over to that point. Your project has a corner right up against them separated by the future extension
of Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well to the south, and then to the south you have your commercial center in that
northeast corner. In fact, I think I put it on a little drawing to better understand it.
Ray, could you put this on the overhead? You need to zoom out a little bit to get all those squares in.
Rich, what I was trying to do is figure out how could you make a more cohesive village, and I took the fact that
you could have developed the town on the areas you previously were coming through for, I'm assuming you could
have, and I tried to approximate by the time you take out the excess open space and the preserve areas and all that,
what you'd end up with for a couple of villages. Because you've got the villages to the left, which is the Hyde
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 40 of 55
Park village that's proposed, and the red of each one of these could indicate potential commercial.
And I'm just wondering why didn't you do villages in a manner where you've got one to the north of Oil Well and
one to the south? Because Oil Well Road is a big divider. And I'm looking at the developability of the one to
the north, and the fact that you could have had some really nice housing with the amenity of that preserve or
WRA in the center as a view amenity or something would have been a good asset. Likewise, on the south, you
could have had a championship golf course across from the preserve areas and working down there.
I'm just curious, why did you divide the village -- why was the decision made to divide the village in half; do you
know?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm not trying to do you're planning. I'm just suggesting, here's a couple
scenarios. I just don't know why it was look at like it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And you know what, we've evaluated many scenarios and arrived at the scenario that
was -- made sense and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And let me know when I'm allowed to
go beyond that response, or do I hold the rest of my comments to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to my rebuttal and close because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to go to the Planning Commission next. I don't think -- anybody have any
more questions on anything at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're more than welcome to have a discussion, and you can go into rebuttal after that.
I'm not trying to hold you up on time. I'm just -- this thing has gotten --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not worried about time. I'm worried about subject matter, because your question
leads me to a comment that I think's appropriate here. You'll tell me to stop if not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, Rich. Get it all on the table.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Rural Land Stewardship program is a voluntary program for landowners to put into
SSAs for the benefit of the environment and the benefit of agricultural lands in return for being able to develop
open lands.
The option and permutations of how to divide up those open lands is probably hundreds of different options that
can occur. You may have an idea like that plan right there that you think's a great plan. It's consistent with the
program.
You don't have to like our plan, but our plan is consistent with the program, and the program has multiple aspects
to it. And what I've heard people say is we don't like your design. That's not one of the review criteria, whether
you like the design or not. And I feel like when exhibits like this get put up and it's not -- and I know you had
good intentions of talking about it. And when we start talking about Rural Lands West -- and I could show you
the countless comments from your Transportation and Planning staff saying why they hated Rural Lands West,
including where we had decided to put the two million square feet of office and retail and business park and all
the reasons why they didn't like that. But they come up here and they show you that and say, hey, this is what
they were originally proposing. What they didn't tell you is that they were originally throwing up all over it and
didn't like it.
So I find it a little bit -- I'm trying -- I'm looking for a different synonym for disingenuous, but I can't think of one
right now, to get up there and put that exhibit up there and say this is what we want when I can show you
hundreds of pages --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what Transportation staff is saying. This is what they want, interconnectivity.
They want all these things, but they didn't tell you -- they didn't tell you they were recommending denial of that
town.
So don't -- it's wrong what they're doing, and it's wrong to say there are other options, and that's why you should
deny the project, because there are options. I'm going to tell you there are options. There are many options that
are consistent with your Growth Management Plan.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 41 of 55
And I'll stop on that topic right now, because I think that's really what you were talking about, and I'll go into
other things later. But there are other options. You may like other options, but that's not the measuring sticker
are "are there other options."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wasn't trying to say they were. As you had pointed out earlier, I was on the
development side of the table for a while, and I saw some assets there that would have been valuable to maybe
consider. And I just was wondering why you thought the best avenue was to split that village like it is --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And all of those --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when it may not have had to be. That's all.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, there are other factors to be considered, and they were all considered as
to, what's the market? What do people want? What's the best location for the village center? How many
rooftops can, in fact, support a village center before you start dividing this up?
And, you know, those -- all of those factors were, in fact, considered in arriving at this configuration of this
village as well as the other villages, and including Hyde Park's village.
It's not -- it's not like you have a perfect square for a section and you have a blank canvas. This whole program
recognizes that there's flowway areas, there's habitat areas, there's WRAs. So you have some physical constraints
on how to make the program work, which one of the most important parts of the program was the preservation of
Habitat Stewardship Areas and other sending areas, Flowway Stewardship Areas. All of that was part of the
program. And as David pointed out, there are constraints in how to make it work, and that all was factored in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Is there -- now, as far as Planning Commission goes, do you have anything -- do you want to ask anybody before
we go into -- first we'll do Rich's rebuttal, and then we'll decide where to go. Do you have any more rebuttal you
want to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: A little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. YOVANOVICH: A little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you go forward.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer one question first before I get into rebuttal.
I told Mr. Fry that we -- it turned out that we actually have committed to splitting a minimum of 125 multifamily
both on the north and south side. It doesn't mean we won't do more, but we have an absolute commitment to 125
multifamily north, 125 multifamily south.
I want to go through a couple of -- and Jeff and I go round and round on this, so I would appreciate if you'd just
let me say what I'm going to say and try not to rebut me too early into the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have I ever rebutted you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I said Jeff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I have a different legal opinion as to what your Growth Management Plan does
and what your Land Development Code does and what it can't do, and one of the things it can't do is it can't be
ambiguous; you have to have laws that have objective and measurable standards.
I fundamentally disagree with the concept that your Growth Management Plan is subjective; it's not. You have
measurable objective standards that have to be met for villages. We showed you the checklist, and I'll show you
that again when I finish my rebuttal.
You're also here in a role -- we're in a quasi-judicial process. Quasi-judicial process means you're the judge.
You leave your personal biases out and you listen to the evidence that's presented as to whether or not we meet
the criteria in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
You may dislike this project in its entirety. Some of you have said some pretty strong statements about it.
You're not to apply your personal opinions. You're to look at the code and whether or not we meet the objective
standards.
And you're to look at the code based upon the evidence that's presented to you. What is the evidence that's been
presented to you? The evidence as presented to you has been our professional staff, or our consultants, that have
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 42 of 55
prepared documents, TIS, the environmental report, Mr. Mulhere's analysis. That's evidence that's into the
record. Your staff is evidence that's in the record. It's got to be competent substantial evidence.
I think I pointed this out in my opening, but that was so long ago that -- it was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was. No, you're right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was so long ago that perhaps it was forgotten over time. But in order to submit a
master plan, which is up on the -- well, it went away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Put theirs up so we know as he speaks what to look at. There we go. Thank
you. Can you zoom out just a little bit so we can get the top and bottom. You don't know how to do that either,
huh. I don't know either, so...
MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, that's fine for purposes of where I am and what I want to say. But I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, that's sufficient enough for the point I want to make.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, that will work. That's good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The point I wanted to make was your Land Development Code requires that the plan be
prepared by an urban planner who possesses an AICP certification together with at least one of the following:
One is a professional engineer licensed in Florida or a qualified environmental consultant per Chapter 10 of the
LDC, or a practicing architecture.
So your Land Development Code recognizes that you have to have a specialty in order to prepare the master plan
and testify to the criteria of whether or not you meet the Land Development Code requirements through
the -- through this design of the master plan.
Mr. Mulhere is even further qualified because he's a fellow -- do I have that right, Bob? That's even a more
limited set of people who have the AICP required credentials. So you've had testimony from an AICP planner
who prepared this plan together with Mr. Amico who is a professional engineer in the state of Florida, and they've
all testified that we meet the Growth Management Plan provisions and the Land Development Code provisions.
You haven't received any testimony from the public that we don't meet those criteria from people who have the
right credentials, and those credentials are they have to be an AICP planner or any of the others.
You didn't have a professional engineer get up here, you didn't have a qualified environmental consultant pursuant
to Chapter 10 get up here, or a practicing architect get up here and provide any testimony that our master plan is
not consistent with your Land Development Code and your Growth Management Plan.
That's competent substantial evidence, and that's the standard. Your own research, your own feelings is not
competent substantial evidence. It's what's in the record before you over these last three days. And I submit to
you that the record before you proves that we meet all of the required criteria.
You've heard Mr. Passarella testify to all the environmental requirements and the types of lands that can be
qualified. Heather also testified to that. They all have the required credentials. They've applied the rules.
Your environmental staff applied the rules. You've heard testimony from some groups that had previously
supported the adoption of this program. I showed you the quotes. I don't back down from those quotes. They
said this was a great program. It was a compromise.
They don't like the program anymore, and all they did was provide you testimony as to what should be changed in
the program. That's one of your roles -- and you'll be going through that role -- what changes need to be made to
this program, in your opinion, and through recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners after you
have public testimony on that issue.
But under the rules that are adopted today, we meet all the environmental rules. And you've seen that testimony
both through your staff and our expert testimony.
Transportation, Mr. Trebilcock testified to -- that we satisfied all of your requirements. I've asked Trinity, and
I'm assuming -- because she hasn't provided a provision as to how they can require interconnectivity of some
future villages through SSA lands, where that exists in the Land Development Code. She hasn't provided it to
me. I can't find it. I've word-searched it, you know. I don't think it exists.
And if you remember, David Weeks even said there's nothing in the Growth Management Plan that requires
interconnectivity of villages. He got up there and he showed you the provision, and I'll show you again. It
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 43 of 55
defers interconnectivity to the Land Development Code. When it's appropriate is in the Land Development
Code. And it talks about it with PUDs. It doesn't talk about interconnectivity with regard to SRAs. It doesn't
exist. There's no requirement.
You can't impose requirements that don't exist just because you'd like to do it. That's not how Land Development
Codes work. You can't require us to give you the entirety -- or set aside the entirety of the Big Cypress Parkway
when we have no relationship to the need for the Big Cypress Parkway, and we've given you that testimony.
You don't need -- this project doesn't need Big Cypress Parkway for it to meet any of your criteria. We have said
to you on more than one occasion, and we've committed to you that for the length of the Rivergrass Village, we
will set aside that right-of-way. And then when we come in with the two other villages that we've shown you, we
will set aside the right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway for those villages as well.
We've never said we're going to get in your way on Big Cypress Parkway. In fact, I think Trinity said Big
Cypress Parkway's not coming any time soon.
The county has a lot of powers to get Big Cypress Parkway if for some reason we decide to not go forward with
the next two villages or those villages are denied. It's like every other project that Collier County has for road
right-of-way. If they need to, they can use their eminent domain powers to get Big Cypress Parkway.
We know it's a public purpose and a public benefit. We can't fight the eminent domain. We just talked about
how much does it cost the county to buy it at that point.
So to characterize us as being unwilling participants in the ultimate provision of Big Cypress Parkway is not
accurate.
I personally like Cormac a lot, and I wouldn't want Cormac's job for anything because having to try to get
affordable housing from property owners is a difficult task. It's even way more difficult when there's no legal
basis to ask for it.
And he's really trying hard to say, do a housing needs analysis even though I've got nothing to hang my hat on to
require a housing analysis. And that was the one thing that was resolved. I don't know if you understand the
process. We submit. We get a round of comments. Then we get all the reviewers in a room, and we go
through all the comments, and we chip away at which comments are valid, which comments are not valid.
And in that very first meeting where everybody was there -- I think even Mr. Cohen was there at that very first
go-round -- it was clearly stated on the record by Cormac and others, I can't make you do a housing needs
analysis. There's nothing I can hang my hat on it, yet I get a recommendation that I need to do a housing needs
analysis.
And we meet the diversity requirement. The word "diversity" means multiple types. Single-family,
multifamily, check the box. We meet diversity. We meet the diversity requirements. Nobody's saying we
don't. They'd like to -- they'd like to come up with a new requirement that somehow affordability needs to be
factored in.
If they were relying on the DRI statutes for villages, that's not what the Growth Management Plan says because,
as you know, we all know, you don't have to trigger a DRI for a village. So perhaps the way they really intended
to deal with it was if a DRI comes in, that's when we're going to make you deal with affordable housing. If you
come in at something less than a DRI, we don't -- we're not going to make that a requirement.
So I think you could take -- we're not a DRI, we don't trip any of the thresholds to be a DRI, and the fact that
DRIs are basically gone anyway doesn't matter. This project was never intended under anything you have in
your code to require affordable housing. In fact, your code gives bonuses above the 4, however you calculate it,
if you decide to do affordable housing. It doesn't require it as part of your base. We meet those criteria.
There are three founding principles in that final order that became part of your Growth Management Plan and
Land Development Code: To protect prime agricultural areas; that's being done through the RLSA program and,
in fact, we've assured that by selling some lands that were formerly in the town to an agricultural company.
Check the box.
Directing incompatible uses away from upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain
the natural water regiment -- or regime, I'm sorry, as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their
habitats. I showed you the code and Comp Plan provisions that say you do that through the SSA process and
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 44 of 55
through the SRA process by prohibiting development on anything that scores greater than a 1.2. Check the box.
We meet the requirements.
And then assess the growth potential of the areas by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses
in appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl. I showed you the provisions in the Growth
Management Plan that said that this RLSA program is not urban sprawl, and the governor and cabinet and the
Department of Community Affairs, now the Department of Economic Opportunity, agreed that the Growth
Management Plan provisions that I showed you the very first day we were going through this do not -- they are
not urban sprawl. So whoever keeps saying we're doing urban sprawl, go back and read the order and read the
provisions. We're not urban sprawl.
As I do this longer and longer and as I get older and older, I have fonder memories of law school than I did as I
was experiencing it. And one of the things that we had in law school -- and, frankly, the bar exam, it's a pass/fail.
I had some classes in law school I just had to pass. There was no A, B, C, D. It was a P or an F. That's what
the RLSA program is. It's a pass/fail analysis. And I pass; I get approved.
These are the requirements that are in your Growth Management Plan and in your LDC, and we meet them all.
You may like us to meet them a different way, and you may just say you get a P. I really wish you got an A, but
you got a P. And that's all I have to get is a pass, and we've passed them all.
Mr. Weeks got up here two weeks -- was it two weeks ago, whenever we did it the last time, and he got up there
and said, it's a grading scale. Same analogy, pass/fail. We passed. According to your staff, we passed all of
your criteria.
I stood up here the first day and I said, the only issue that I'm aware of that there was a disagreement on was the
interconnectivity of the villages and when we needed to give you Big Cypress Parkway or set it aside.
And one thing that wasn't mentioned was we got the staff report, and we sat down with staff and addressed all of
those recommendations. And when I left that meeting with your staff, they said, we're in agreement. You meet
diversity of housing, you meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, you meet the requirements of
the Land Development Code based upon the changes we made, which included maximum size of 25 acres now
for multifamily.
That's when Mr. Bellows said, you know what, I can live with it. Before it was -- it could have been 100 acres.
He didn't like that. He liked the 25 acres. He liked the fact that we agreed to the half-a-mile requirement for
where multifamily would be to show the grade of more dense to less dense. Mr. Weeks was in that meeting, and
so was Mr. Cohen.
We had that meeting, and that's why there was a change in their recommendation. David's already said -- he's
told us that, you know, if he had a different -- if he had the ability, the wherewithal, the financial -- the ability to
do it, he might lay it out differently, but we meet the criteria. That's all that matters is, do we meet the criteria?
And if we meet the criteria, we're entitled to a recommendation of approval.
We meet every one of the criteria. That's the testimony from your staff, that we meet the criteria. There's only
one criteria that -- and I don't know where it is, because Trinity hasn't provided it to me, the interconnectivity, and
she hasn't provided me anything in your code that says you could make me set aside road right-of-way beyond my
project when my project doesn't even cause the need for that road right-of-way, and I'm willing to give you the
road right-of-way through the Developer Contribution Agreement or, I'm sorry, the Landowner Contribution
Agreement along the entire boundary of this project.
There are people who clearly are not happy with the current rules and regulations. There's a process for that to
change, and you're starting that process. That's -- if you see flaws in the current code, deal with it in the process.
You can't deal with those flaws because you want to change the rules at this time.
So my rebuttal is over. We've met the criteria that are established today, and we're entitled to a recommendation
of approval from the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, it's noontime, and I think we've got a lot to think about. I'd
rather we take a break for lunch now, come back, have our discussion, any comments and questions we have of
Mr. Yovanovich or follow-up with staff that we may need, and then go into final discussion and vote.
So with that, we'll come back at 1:00 and resume the meeting on Rivergrass at that time.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 45 of 55
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the
remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from the lunch break. We're going to resume the
meeting.
The first announcement is Patrick Dearborn had to leave for a meeting that he got called away to, so he won't be
here for the rest of the afternoon. That means the rest of us will deal with the remainder of the time on
the -- we've got Rivergrass and finish up today's agenda.
We left off with discussions -- with the rebuttal by the applicant. And I want to know if the Planning
Commission has any questions they have of anybody else before we close the public hearing and go into our own
discussion. Do any of you have any questions of anyone?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to ask, is Trinity here? Poor Trinity. She knew she might be
called.
Hi, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Hi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some discussion about the need for -- the ability for you to ask for the Big
Cypress Parkway. How did you fit that condition into your responsibilities?
MS. SCOTT: As noted within the staff report -- and I didn't bring my staff report up here with me, sorry -- we
looked at the commitment based on the Big Cypress Stewardship District when that was going forward within the
Board in 2003 and 2004, and the commitment for an interlocal services delivery agreement, which was never
executed. And so that is -- as shown in our staff report, that was -- thank you -- that was why we were requesting
the right-of-way within the entire Big Cypress Stewardship District.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And remember when they -- that exhibit where it showed the stewardship
district lined out in greens, and then the potential location of Big Cypress. It was Exhibit H. I think it was one
of those exhibits that showed it connecting to I-75. Do you remember that one? We talked about it last time.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, we did talk about it last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that originate? Did you -- you might have said it before, and I just can't
remember.
MS. SCOTT: That -- where I actually found that exhibit was as part of the I-75 interchange justification report.
It was an attachment with the memorandum of understanding. That particular exhibit was produced by Collier
Enterprises, I believe, and then it was -- the snippet we had was taken from, it looked like, a Naples Daily News
article.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything else.
Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a representative of the Conservancy if she might come
up and perhaps reply to statements that had been made by counsel for the applicant concerning the original
planning for this effort, if they care to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the request of a Planning Commissioner, that's appropriate.
MS. OLSON: Which one?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Whichever one you want. Since you were referred to earlier today, I thought, in
fairness, we ought to hear from you, if you have a different recollection of history.
MS. OLSON: For the record, April Olson with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Just two points to make regarding Mr. Yovanovich's statements about, first of all, the Conservancy's support for
the RLSA program. We did support the program at the time it was being created when the public was told that
only 16,800 acres could be built, but then we found out five years later that it was a whole different program, and
we no longer support -- we support the fundamental goals, but we feel there are a lot of fundamental flaws within
the program. So I just wanted to clarify that.
The other statement that Mr. Yovanovich said was that because the program is set up to basically direct
development away from the SSAs or the WRAs, HSAs, FSAs, that that means that the program automatically
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 46 of 55
creates compact communities, and DCA had actually stated that. DCA was in agreement.
But I have a quote here from DCA that they wrote during -- at the same time of the five-year review that they also
reversed their opinion that -- and they believe that the 93,000 acres worth of open space is actually sprawl. And I
can put this quote on the prompter if you'd like to see it.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. OLSON: Okay. It's right in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, would you orientate that properly. Everybody misses that.
MS. OLSON: Okay. It says that the large 93,000 acres eligible for designation of receiving areas which also
allows the conversion of land uses to the underlying low density uses is the exact opposite of a plan to direct
growth to the most suitable areas.
This may lead to fragmentation of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and agricultural areas. The overall rural
character of the area is under threat from the potentially large amount of urban development. And here is the
citation right there from the DCA 2007 December RLSA annual report to the legislature is where that comes
from. So they did reverse their position on that, okay?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, April.
MS. OLSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I get to rebut the public.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get to rebut the rebuttal of the rebuttal? I mean, you opened door for this activity,
so what is it --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's not take another 20 minutes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't need 20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I do want -- a couple things for the record. First of all, she showed you the
Conservancy's analysis of what the DCA did. That was not the DCA's full report. It was a footnote of what they
picked that they thought was important to include in their memorandum; "they" being the Conservancy.
Those are the Conservancy's actual words when this program was adopted. You can --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you move it in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how to do any of that, so...
Those are the Conservancy's actual words. It doesn't say anything that Ms. Olson just said on the record. It
says, we think it's a great program and we think it's a compromise. And I'm not quoting verbatim, but not
everybody gets what they want. You have to compromise.
The program it going through a review process, and the review process will change the program. Until the
program is changed, you have to apply the standards that exist.
You don't get to simply say we don't like it now, apply a different standard. You have to change the standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this point?
Go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to ask Trinity again.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I have one more thing about that. Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: I'm getting my steps in today.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you or did you have locations for interconnections from Rivergrass to
Longwater or any other communities?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. I have ideas of where they could be.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The connection roadways?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have them?
MS. SCOTT: And I'm actually going to pull up Mr. Yovanovich's prior presentation, because I think it
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 47 of 55
shows -- well, maybe I will. There it goes. So this was the exhibit that Mr. Yovanovich showed that showed
open stewardship area. Oh, it's coming up. Let's see if I did it right. Yes.
Of the pink areas that were open stewardship area that could be developed in the future, this -- on the north side of
the property, I understand this is a large WRA area, and interconnection could occur here. An interconnection
could occur in this location. And in prior submittals -- and I understand that they were that of the town -- there
was another interconnection shown in this location as well. Those were the three interconnections that I was
referring to.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was discussed in the --
MS. SCOTT: In the staff report we were asking for potential interconnections in the north, the east, and the
south.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that will alleviate a lot of the traffic impacts in the future 10, 20, 30 years
from now if that were to happen.
MS. SCOTT: In my original presentation we talked about the Master Mobility Plan and that the Master Mobility
Plan specifically did a subarea model with regard to these interconnections and that based on that subarea model,
that there would be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? Did you summarize the remaining recommendations of staff?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you --
MS. GUNDLACH: Happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tell us which ones. I think there were -- let's see. There were 11. Which ones of
the 11 are we still staying with from your view?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Do you want me to go through them one by one, or I can just generally --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us the numbers. I think that's all we need to know.
MS. GUNDLACH: We're going to be keeping No. 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, and we are just -- are going to be revising
No. 6 to state SDP and PPL. Those are the ones we're keeping. All the others we are removing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the ones that you're removing are --
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We're removing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 2 and 3. Two is about the SRA statement of suitability criteria. Three is the ratio of
multifamily to single-family that was brought up by -- originally by Comp Planning.
MS. GUNDLACH: Four and 5 remain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six.
MS. GUNDLACH: Six has been revised. Seven has been removed; 7, 8, and 9 have been removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Ten and 11 remain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: And that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's the summary I was looking for.
As far as the deviations go, I know we walked through all those, so I think we're comfortable. You've got a list.
You know which ones -- you've got that all organized now. So, wherever -- if this gets recommended, those
deviations will be concise when they go to the Board. Accurate.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let's -- yeah, I knew you were going to say correct. No, they're not going
to be.
That takes us to the end, I think, of any questions. Anybody else have any questions of anybody before we close
the public hearing?
(No response.)
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 48 of 55
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing on this matter, and we'll go into discussions from
the Planning Commission. Do you guys have anything you've got to say? Ned, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
I have the utmost respect for Rich Yovanovich. He's a great lawyer. He's an advocate, and he's doing a great
job as an advocate, and I always listen carefully to what he has to say; however, our lawyers are the County
Attorney's Office, and they come to us not to advocate but to explain to us what the law is.
And we were favored with 14 points of consideration that we were -- that was explained to us that we could
utilize when we apply whatever it is we apply to this process before we vote.
And No. 10 said, consider conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth
Management Plan.
And No. 12 said, consider the SRA master plan compliance with all applicable laws of the RLSA district
regulations.
So what I take away from that is the sense that our responsibility is not a totally objective or pass/fail
check-the-box kind of endeavor. If it were, I don't think we would need a planning commission but, rather, I
think we have to bring to bear a number of skill sets, if you will, or points of considerations, including what I
would call our own common sense to the analysis.
And when I apply my common sense in relation to the many thousands of words that have been put before us on
behalf of the advocate on the issue of connectivity, my common sense tells me that the standard of connectivity
has not been reached, and with Oil Well Road in there and with 15 dead ends, I don't see how you can responsibly
get to a conclusion of connectivity. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl, then Stan.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you want to go first, Stan?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm just happy that I waited to speak after Ned today, as he always elucidates things
so well.
I guess in the question that we posed to Jeff earlier, I would agree it does appear we have latitude and I think even
responsibility to look at the objectives of the RLSA and see if this project as a village supports those objectives.
So as of now I'm -- I guess I'm -- my great question is, we have four villages ahead of us. I definitely view this
whole process of the RLSA only working if it's a partnership between the applicants, the developers, landowners,
and the county in working together to come up with a solution that not only gives them a profitable -- a viable
project, but one that also supports the objectives of the RLSA to create something different in the east, seize the
opportunity to focus the development, preserve natural areas, preserve key agriculture, protect natural resources,
but create a different dynamic where we don't have the same thing we have in the west where we have gated
communities and everybody is forced to travel only main roads in most cases to get where they want to go.
So there are a few objectives of the RLSA that I do think are key. I lament the fact that although we know Rural
Lands West is not before us now, that a lot of the vision of the RLSA I felt was encompassed very well in the
master plan that I saw for Rural Lands West, which was there was interconnectivity.
There were public roads through the middle of what are now becoming villages with interconnections between
what are now the villages and outside of the villages. There were pathways. There was a large commercial
section that was a destination, which I think was one of the objectives, and maybe not formally. I don't know if
Ned would know better than I if it was formally part of it, but the idea being so that the people in the eastern
RLSA did not have to travel back far to the west to get essential goods and services.
I'm not sure how I see a Publix and a couple of outparcels in 60- or 80,000 square feet as keeping people from
having to make the long trip to the essential services. I note that there are some PUDs in our -- in the western
side that do have public roads through them that seem to offer alternate routes to travelers but not at the detriment
of the development. The Vineyards being one, Lely being another.
I look at this application -- and I have great respect -- Rich is a great attorney. Far better arguer of his points of
view than I ever will be, so I always feel a little outgunned if I'm even attempting to express a different sentiment
than, perhaps, you're stating up there. But I really would like to see these four village as they come through, and
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 49 of 55
this one being the starting one -- and I think it has no less responsibility than the others to support a success for
the RLSA program.
And my opinion is more could have been done on this village to support the goals of the RLSA. Definitely, the
great win here, which I think is inherent to the RLSA program, is that we're preserving over 5,000 acres to
develop a thousand acres. That's a wonderful win, and I think that's kind of the foundation of the RLSA
program.
Some agricultural land was sold after the town was withdrawn, thereby preserving some key agricultural, so
preventing the premature conversion from agricultural to developed lands.
But when I look at some of the tenets of the RLSA, creative land planning techniques, I don't find that -- the mere
fact that we're using credits and preserving land in order to focus a thousand acres of development, I don't find
that in itself to be an example of creative land planning techniques.
I'm not able to see a lot of creativity in this plan. To me, this plan looks as if it's a gated PUD -- actually, two
gated PUDs that are very similar to what would be in the western part outside of the RLSA that have simply been
moved east and added to it a little bit of commercial as a requirement of the village.
I actually see this -- I don't know why this is not two villages. This is, to me -- it's hard for me to -- while I'm
willing -- if there were other components that were present in order to satisfy the -- what I think are the objectives
of the RLSA, I would be okay with the village center being south of Oil Well Road and really not easily
pedestrian friendly or bikeable for the people to the north. Is -- crossing a two-, four-, or six-lane road to get to
what is supposed to be a village center to provide internal capture, is that really bike and pedestrian friendly? Is
that really an integrated single village with an integrated village center that serves all the people equally?
Certainly, it favors the people to the south side, and it becomes a little bit of a challenge for the people on the
north to get to. So I really don't see the creative.
When it comes to bike and pedestrian friendly, I guess that -- this is on the subjective side, as we discussed.
I -- the position seems to be taken that we have neighborhoods with roads and driveways and that you can walk
the sidewalks, you can bike down the roads, you can bike down the sidewalks. And that, in itself, is bike and
pedestrian friendly. I guess I have a different vision of that; speaks to what Ned would say maybe is common
sense.
Personally, I think you could -- it's a hard case to say that it's really a friendly biking environment to ride through
100 driveways and have cars backing out, pedestrians, kids playing. You know, who-all has golf carts, perhaps,
in this case going down the street?
Bike and pedestrian friendly to me means you walk and you're really not at risk of being hit by a car, you're not at
risk of being hit by other types of activities.
A bike path -- separated bike path or walking trail is bike and pedestrian friendly. I don't see why there couldn't
be some accommodation for that in the thousand acres where there's a trail around the perimeter or through the
center of it that is not competing with automotive traffic to get where you want to go. So I don't see that as bike
and pedestrian friendly.
Diversity of housing types with a progressive urban-to-rural continuum as you move from the village center
outward. I appreciate the commitments to split the multifamily between the north and south halves. I noticed in
the economic plan there are over a thousand multifamily units that are predicted and proposed, but only 250 being
committed to and only -- and no committed mix of whether they are apartments, condos, villas, townhomes, this
type of thing.
I think that in order to build the case that is -- meets that criteria, there should be more definition about where
these -- where these areas go and what the mix of diverse housing types might be in there. That is only
two-and-a-half percent. Twenty-five acres is two-and-a-half percent of a thousand-acre proposal. And if we're
supposed to have a propensity of the density toward the center, I don't see how you really meet that objective with
that undefined footprint.
The increase from four-acre parcels to 25 acres, which has been requested, I don't have an issue with that on its
own, but it does raise the possibility of one multifamily development that's in one small corner, one small area of
this thousand-acre development. And by that, the whole requirement for this progressive urban-to-rural density
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 50 of 55
continuum is met. I don't feel it does meet that criteria.
And I think -- and this, I do not believe, is an official requirement, but to the extent that the RLSA is intended to
create destination-type commercial areas where there really is -- there are enough services where people don't
have to make a long trip somewhere, I'm not sure how we get there with the collection of villages with a minimal
commercial footprint that really only provide a grocery store. There are many other reasons you have to travel
other than a grocery store, although that is definitely a main one.
So I really -- I see this as almost two villages rather than one. I sure wish we were talking about a town here. I
was excited at the prospect of being part of the group that gets to preview the next RLSA development for a town.
I think it's really important in terms of being a precedent for future developments, and I just find myself -- and I
believe the applicant spent millions of dollars to develop the town. So I just find it unfortunate that we're here
talking about a village. And I believe the reaction, understandably, is that the town, for whatever reasons, was
economically not feasibly. And so let's draw back and let's go for what we think we can get through. I believe
we need to meet further in the middle to achieve the objectives of the RLSA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, thanks, Mark.
One of the first things I do when I get a project like this, or most projects, is I ask for a LiDAR of the site because
I can tell a lot from the flow of the water and the elevation of the ground. And I looked at this, and then I looked
at the historic aerials. And I'm looking at the shape of the parcel.
I heard comments that nobody -- people don't like the idea of developing south of Oil Well Road. You could do
the whole thing north of Oil Well Road. That's going to make an even worse situation than what you two guys
are describing if you moved everything up to the north side. Just be more people. Well --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. It's the impression I got. But, okay.
Anyway, I've looked at the shape of the parcel, and what could you do with it? The north parcel has a very bad
shape for development. You know, too many thin areas. The south one is a little nicer. It's probably more
easily developed into something that might look like one of the towns you guys are talking about.
But as I look at the plan they prepared, to me it looks like a logical alternative to -- a logical solution to what
they're stuck with. They're pressed up against Golden Gate Estates. They're pressed up against an
excavation -- you can see the -- on the LiDAR you can see the holes there -- that, eventually, I'm told, is going to
become a PUD of some kind. They're probably going to fill in all the excavations, and that's difficult to do
properly, but, okay, I believe it.
And the other side you have an area that's natural, part of a slough that starts up at Lake Trafford that is never
going to be developed. So it's kind of isolated in there, and looking at what I see, I thought they did a pretty good
job, and I'm not sure what else they could do.
Yeah, it would be nice to have a bike path, and it would be nice to have a pedestrian overpass so people could go
from one side to the other, but I'm not sure that would accomplish that much. So I'm probably going to vote yes
on this.
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I just clarify. If I mistakenly gave the impression that I only thought the
development should be to the north of Oil Well Road, it really wasn't my intention.
It was more that -- I even -- with the village center south of Oil Well Road, I think, considering this parcel, which
is all farmland, it looks like a very good place -- it makes sense for development overall.
I would even be able to look past the Oil Well Road cutting in in the middle if some of those other criteria were
met to meet the objectives of the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. You never said no development south, but what you said
was -- there were other people that said no development south of Oil Well Road. And what you said was you
wanted all these amenities, and if you take everything that you want to do south of Oil Well Road, don't develop
that and move everything north of Oil Well Road, your amenities are going to be a lot less, and your density's
going to be greater, and your design is going to be a lot harder than if you spread the thing out north and south.
It's a difficult parcel to design to.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 51 of 55
You know, if you really want to kill it, I guess, not a problem, but...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, did you have anything you wanted to say?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I think they've pretty much said it all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have just a few comments. You know, there's been a -- we have a program
that's going to come through for a restudy, and there's some things that should be addressed there. One of them
that I understand is going to be addressed, it's something that was raised by one of the environmental groups about
not having the original documents to understand how the NRI values became to be initiated, base issue apparently
with the RLSA, and that's the piece that has disturbed me with this. I asked for a working document for the fiscal
neutrality, fiscal impact analysis, and I was told no.
That helps me understand how you got to where you needed to be. When you can go in and see when the
multipliers change, if they have an impact, that sure raises questions, which may be why it was not given to me.
But if you don't have an impact, it settles questions. So I'm really disappointed that that document couldn't have
been provided. I did it not out of a concern to find something wrong but to understand how the neutrality was
proven. Without that document, I certainly have no faith in the analysis for fiscal neutrality, and I certainly don't
know how the consultants we hired, if they didn't have that document, could have done the same thing. So that's
a big issue with me, and it's one that I'm very disturbed over.
The second one is, I think the village interconnections can be made. They were part of the Rural Lands West
submittal. There's no excuse not to make them. They were there, they can be made, and it's an opportunity to
take some traffic off the road and keep interconnectivity among those villages, especially when that golf course is
probably going to have members of a village nearby that maybe want to join it.
The diversity for the housing was insufficient. Yes, they're going to -- they say, well, we're going to 250 (sic)
and we're going to have a mix of single-family. Well, that really isn't telling us how diverse it is. I think there
could have been a better opportunity to show adequate diversity by the types of mixes, the types of units that
they're going to have and provide what was referred to as a gradient density that would flow through the town.
Even Comprehensive Planning says that was something that they had expected to see, and it's not there.
The issue of Big Cypress Parkway, I firmly believe the county has a right to ask for some reservation of that land.
It was part and parcel to the basis for the approval of the Big Cypress Stewardship District, and it should have
been -- the county's remiss, just maybe as the developer is. It should have been addressed decades ago or years
ago, whenever it was. It wasn't -- it's not bad to ask for it now. We're not saying we're not going to pay for it or
we're not going to work out provisions, but it would be nice to know we can count on planning a road system that
that system's going to be part of rather than say, well, we're not sure where it's going to go, but it's going to impact
a lot of other areas if it doesn't go north and south. And that part bothers me. We can't have enough of a
commitment to count on it on a long-term planning basis.
The village center not being centralized because it's split by Oil Well Road. I mean, it's center, but it's split by a
six-lane freight road, soon to be six-lane. That will do exactly what was referred to is probably end up with two
separate gated communities. That's no different than all the PUDs we have in the urban area. And if -- I was the
only one on this panel sitting here when the RLSA came through. It was supposed to be the new town concept,
more of the Ave Maria style for what they came through and were asked to be.
Walkable communities. We were supposed to have a certain density, a certain quantity of everything. None of
that seems to be sticking like it was when it was first presented. And this does not give us anything more than
the PUDs we have in the urban area. I was expecting more out of that eastern area.
The deviations. I think it's interesting that we're stuck to the language in the code as not being a requirement in
something that they have -- they're entitled to, but yet they have, at one time, up to 19 deviations. Now it's down
to a different number. I think it's 14 or 15. So they don't have to stick to the language, but we're supposed to.
So for those reasons, I cannot go along with this plan, but at the same time, I'm not saying they don't have a right
to develop. I just don't think this is the right plan for the way they've approached it. And I can't support it.
So with that, if anybody has any other comments or questions. Karl?
COMMISSIONER FRY: A question for you, Mark. When you mentioned the interconnection between the
villages, that would also mean that the road -- at least one road through the village is a public road, correct? An
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
November 7, 2019
Page 52 of 55
interconnection to a private gated community, is that really an interconnection, or does that meet your criteria?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I -- their original town plan on the south side showed two interconnections
between the east and west portions. Those interconnections were there. We know they can be made. They
should still be there. They should connect those villages.
Now, how they operate them to let people through and use them and converse, that's something that would come
out during further review once we know we had them. But they would have to be open to the residents in some
manner or form, kind of like -- we've got a similar problem going on with the -- I think it's the Orchards and some
other place up in the north end of the Vineyards, and another problem going up like that in Heritage Bay that's
potential.
So those things don't need to happen. We can fix them now. And I think that's part of what we're supposed to
do for better planning for Collier County.
So, anyway, I hope that --
COMMISSIONER FRY: It does. I guess I wonder -- I wonder what the future of the RLSA is since we had a
town that was very dynamically designed that did not survive, and now we have four independent villages
coming, don't know what would come after that.
It seems to me -- I was reading through the RLSA restudy white paper, and it seemed like that -- this reality might
have been the reason for an item that is to create an aggregation rule for villages if adjacent and under common or
related ownership or control and judged to be part of a uniform plan of development, town standards should apply
if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage.
So by coming through with all these one-thousand-acre maximum size villages but just slightly underneath the
town requirement, all the advantages of the town with the larger commercial areas, the interconnections,
the -- you know, just the more diverse housing, all those benefits of the RLSA go out the window, and I'm very
concerned about that.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, enough said. Then is there a motion by anybody?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move to deny the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the discussions that we've just had?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Karen.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor for the motion of denial, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 4-1 for denial.
Thank you, all, for the three days' worth of effort and the 3,000 pages we received.
***And that will take us to the next remaining item on our agenda, which is 9.3. It's PL20180002741, 3600
Radio Road CPUD located just east of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Radio Road.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than what's in the public record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan?
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes)9.E.15
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: 11.7.19 CCPC Minutes - draft (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.16
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10935 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.17Packet Pg. 855Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
9.E.17
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (11-19-2019) (10935 : PL20190000044
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA
1
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Rivergrass Village SRA -PL20190000044
Collier County Review Team:
§Planning and Zoning -Ray Bellows, Manager and Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner
§Comprehensive Planning -David Weeks, AICP, Manager and Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
§Tr ansportation -Tr inity Scott, Planning Manager
§Environmental -Jaime Cook, M.S., Principal Environmental Specialist
§Community and Human Services -Cormac Giblin, AICP, Housing, Grant Development and Operations
Manager
§Public Utilities -Eric Fey, P.E., Principal Project Manager
§Fiscal Analysis -Amy Patterson, Division Director
2
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
Comprehensive Planning
3
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Rivergrass Village SRA
§Is consistent with the FLUE -complies with RLSAO objective requirements: size, permitted uses, density, open
space, non-residential uses
§However, does not fully meet the intent of the RLSAO policies pertaining to: innovative design, compactness,
housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, interconnectedness, etc.
§Is, with some exceptions, a typical suburban development plan placed in the RLSA, contrary to RLSAO intent.
§This is greenfield development -there are no known natural resource (or other) constraints that preclude:
•A more compact development with majority of DUs proximate to the Village Center
•Village Center located in the interior rather than on the edge
•Commitment to provide some DUs in the Village Center
•A grid street system
•Greater number of multi-family DUs
•Commitment to provide some affordable housing
•Interconnections to future nearby developments to the north/east/south
4
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
Tr ansportat ion Planning
5
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Growth Management Plan & Land Development
Code
Tr ansportation Element of the GMP -Policy 9.3: The County shall require, wherever
fe asible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate
convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the
circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring
developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe
interconnection of such local streets.
LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.iii: Create an interconnected street system designed to
disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips.
6
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Interconnected Roadways Benefit
the RLSA Area
Reduction in Vehicle Miles Travelled
and Vehicles Hours Travelled
Interco nnectivity
Collier County Master Mobility
Plan (Section 4) –RLSA Sub
Area Modeling
7
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RLSA History
§RLSA is an OVERLAY to the existing Agricultural land use.
§Participation is voluntary. Base Zoning (1 unit per 5 acres) remains in place.
§The system is based on scientific data.
§RLSA uses incentives, not regulations
§Conservation is provided at no cost to tax payers.
Rivergrass Village SRA
The pink “Open Stewardship
Area is eligible for development.
8
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
10
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Connectivity
§The Village is designed to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle
circulation with interconnected
streets and sidewalks
§Interconnected systems of streets
will disperse and reduce number
and length of vehicle trips
§Direct access to Oil Well Road
(classified as an arterial road) and
to future Big Cypress Parkway
Rivergrass SRA Mobility & Interconnectivity Plan 11
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Po licy 9.3 of the Tra nsportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan
Staff Recommendation:
§Amend the Master Plan to show the planned interconnections to the
adjacent villages and incorporate the construction into each
development order as it proceeds forward.
12
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
Environmenta l Review
Fo r RLSA Development
13
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Purpose and Intent of
RLSA Program
§Protect agricultural and prevent
premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses
§Direct incompatible uses away
from wetland and upland habitats
§Enable the conversion of rural
land to other uses in appropriate
locations
§Led to creation of SSA’s (areas to
protect) and SRA’s (areas to
develop)
14
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment
§Original RLSA Study and current LDC define all Index Values for the entire RLSA
§Quantifies the number of acres by Index Values (4.08.07.D.3)
•All lands within proposed SRA with an Index Value • 1.2
•Any lands within SRA with an Index Value > 1.2 must be retained as open
space
•If the Index Values are no longer valid, document the current Index Value
§GIS Data is analyzed in 1-acre polygons to obtain NRI score
§Applicant submits a summary of NRI Values and total acreage for each Value
15
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Aerial photograph delineating the SRA boundary
Natural Resource Index Map of the SRA
FLUCFCS (Vegetation) Map of the SRA
Listed Species Map of the SRA
Soils Map of the SRA
Documentation to support a change in NRI Values, if appropriate
NRI Supporting Documentation
16
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Rivergrass = 0
Rivergrass = 0
Rivergrass = 0
Va ries
Va ries
Va ries
Stewardship Credit Worksheet:
17
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
§Preferred and Tolerated Pa nther Habitats
(LDC 4.08.01.Q):
•FLUCFCS Codes: 310, 321, 411, 425, 428,
434, 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624, 630
Listed Species Habitat Indices
Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated)
plus other listed species
0.8
Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated)0.5
Other documented listed species habitat 0.4
None of the above 0.0
Stewardship Credit Worksheet: Listed Species
18
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Stewardship Credit Worksheet: Soils/Surface
Wa te r
Soil Types (LDC 4.08.01.GG):
Classification NSLP Category
Open Water / Muck Depression Soils NSLP 1 and NSLP 5
Sand Depression Soils NSLP 6
Flats (Transitional) Soils NSLP 7
Non-Hydric Soils NSLP 8, NSLP 9, NSLP 11
Soils/Surface Water Indices
Open Water and Muck Depression soils 0.4
Sand Depression soils 0.3
Flats (Transitional) soils 0.2
Non-hydric soils 0.0
19
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Map Source: USDA NRCS Ta ble Source: SFWMD Soils Classification Te chnical Report20
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Stewardship Credit Worksheet: Land Use / Cover
FLUCFCS Codes Vegetation Groups (LDC 4.08.01.N):
Land Use –Land Cover Indices
FLUCCS Code Group 1 0.4
FLUCCS Code Group 2 0.3
FLUCCS Code Group 3 0.2
FLUCCS Code Group 4 0.0
Group 1 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624, 630, 641, 643
Group 2 321, 411, 4119, 425, 434, 439, 428
Group 3
211, 212, 213, 214, 221, 222, 241, 242, 243, 250, 260,
261, 310, 329, 330, 422, 510, 521, 523, 533, 534
Group 4 All Other Codes
21
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Index Factor Subject Acre Va lue Assigned
Stewardship
Designation
No Designation 0.0
Proximity Index None 0.0
Listed Species
Habitat
Other Documented Listed
Species Habitat (Sandhill
Crane)
0.4
Soils / Surface
Wa ter Index
Flatwood Soil (Immokalee
Fine Sand)
0.0
Restoration
Potential
None 0.0
Land Use / Land
Cover
FLUCFCS 210 (Group 3)
(Cropland and Pasture
Land)
0.2
To tal NRI Score 0.6
Scale: 1 acre
22
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Index Factor Subject Acre Va lue Assigned
Stewardship
Designation
No Designation 0.0
Proximity Index None 0.0
Listed Species
Habitat
None 0.0
Soils / Surface
Water Index
Sand Depression
(Holopaw & Okeelanta
Depression)
0.3
Restoration
Potential
None 0.0
Land Use / Land
Cover
FLUCFCS 4221 (Group 3)
(Brazilian Pepper, Hydric)
0.2
To tal NRI Score 0.5
Scale: 1 acre
23
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Environmental Reviews
•Document Review:
•Listed Species Survey
•FLUCFCS (Vegetation) Map
•Soils Map
•On-site Verification:
•Field verification of specific
locations
24
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
Community and Human Ser vices
Housing Affo rd ability Review
25
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
§Housing Element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
•Goal 1: To create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and Affordable Housing for all residents of Collier County.
•Objective 1: Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low,
moderate and affordable workforce incomes,including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier
County.
•Objective 2: Increase the number of affordable housing units, by the methods contained in Objective 1 and subsequent Policies, for very-low,
low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents with the assistance of for-profit and not-fo r-profit providers of affordable housing,
within the County and its municipalities.
•Policy 2.2: Partnerships shall be encouraged between private developers, non-profit entities, local governments and other interested parties to
ensure the development of housing that meets the needs of the County ’s very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents.
§Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
•Policy 4.7.2: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and
character of the particular village………Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
§Land Development Code
•4.08.07 -SRA Designation J. Design Criteria. 3. Village Design Criteria. a. General criteria. iv. Offer a range of housing types and price levels to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes. Accessory dwelling units shall not count towards the maximum allowed density.
Standard of Review (applicable sections of GMP and LDC):
Housing Affo rdability Review
26
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
§Staff has continued to recommend that a Housing Needs Analysis be performed to estimate affordable housing demand, and to
create a plan to address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village SRA
o The applicant has not undertaken such an analysis
§The Applicant ’s Economic Assessment states: “The average assessed value for Rivergrass single-family homes is $370,000,
which is 41% higher than the County ’s median value”
§The Rivergrass Village SRA submission offers no details as to how many residential units will meet the County ’s affordability
standards for various income levels
o It also offers no detail on the number of affordable units, or price points that will be included to accommodate the
additional need for affordable units that is created as a result of the Village
§While a Housing Needs Analysis itself is not a requirement of the Code, it would have provided the needed data with which to
review this application for compliance with the applicable Codes
§If approved as submitted, Rivergrass Village would be the first development of its scale to be approved in Collier County
without addressing Housing Affordability in at least the past 20-years
Housing Affo rdability Review
27
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Insert Tagline Here, if Any
Northeast Service Area (NESA)
Utility Extension Project
28
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Proposed NE Developments and Pipe Corridors
29
(Borders are approximate)
Hogan
Island
Village
Hyde Park
Village
Immokalee
Road Rural
Village
Rivergrass
Village
Northeast
Utility
Fa cilities
NESA October 2019
Longwater
Village
Bellmar
Village
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
NESA Pro ject -5 Segments
30
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Rivergrass Village Utilities
NESA Segment/Area NESA Plan Completion Developer ’s Schedule
Segment 1: 39th Avenue
NE Fairgrounds
1/26/2020
90% Complete
Fire Service and Full Service by
9/30/2020 per Integration
Agreement
Regional systems capable of
handling initial projected flows
Segment 2: Big Corkscrew Island
Regional Park site
9/28/2019
Complete
Segment 3 Pipes: NE Utility Facilities site 9/20/2020
50% Complete
Segment 4: 41st Avenue
GG Canal to Rivergrass
8/30/2020
1/6/2020 Start
Segment 3 Plants: NE Utility Facilities
site
6/1/2021
6/2/2020 Start (1)
Interim Plants online to handle
increased flows
(1)Assumes receipt of ACOE permit by 6/2/20
31
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
Staff Conditions of Approval
1.The companion Landowner Contribution Agreement pertaining to transportation facilities is required to be
approved with this SRA request.Staff and the applicant are not in agreement with all items as noted in the
companion item for the Landowner Contribution Agreement.
2.Provide for potential interconnections (north, east, and south) on the Master Plan and acknowledgment that
residents on the north side of Oil Well Road will have internal access to the commercial area on the south side of
Oil Well Road without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or the future Big Cypress Parkway.
3.Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a Listed Species Management Plan must be provided for review, with
approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther and all other listed species.
4.The negotiated Interlocal Agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big Cypress
Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA Resolution.
5.The following CCPC requested revisions shall be incorporated into the SRA Document:
•Add “as depicted on Master Plan” after the Clubhouse and Amenities reference in Section 5.1.1. A. 6)
•Increase the front yard setbacks for all land uses to 12 feet to avoid utility easement conflicts
•Make the lake symbol on the Master Plan one color, not two colors
•Add the words “at least ” to Note 2 on Page 3 of the Master Plan
•Change the minimum width of the Right-of-Way Cross Section from 48 feet to 50 feet
32
9.E.18
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Rivergrass Team Presentation (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 1 of 40
STAFF REPORT
TO:COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:ZONING DIVISION ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190000044, RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA (SRA)
_______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS:
Applicant:
Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President
Collier Enterprises Management,Inc.
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Property Owners:
Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and
CDC Land Investments, LLC
2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100
Naples, FL 34103
Agents:
Robert J. Mulhere,FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Hole Montes, Inc.Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 2 of 40
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 3 of 40
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 4 of 40
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)consider a
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.96 acres
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving
Area,to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow
development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet
of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 60,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial in the village center;a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic,
governmental and institutional uses;senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing
care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square
footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap;and
approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village SRA and
establishing that 5877.44 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the
Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 999.96 acres, is located south of 45th Avenue NE and north of
26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff
Report.)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (R LSA) was developed in order to protect
natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to
voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve
the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Area
(SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits,which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Area
(SRA). One of the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index
Assessment,which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA.
The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource
Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Rivergrass Village SRA. It should be noted that
the NRI scores demonstrate that Rivergrass Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section
of this Staff Report for further information.
The Rivergrass Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County
or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages
located within the vicinity of Rivergrass Village SRA along the future Big C ypress Parkway are
Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622)which is currently under review and Longwater Village
(PL20190001836) and Belmar Village (PL20190001837) both of which held pre-application
meetings in August 2019.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 5 of 40
The Rivergrass Village SRA consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA
Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. Approximately 45%
of the Village acreage is located north of Oil Well Road,and the remaining 55% is located south
of Oil Well Road. A long perimeter lake system runs along the eastern boundary of the Village,
both north and south of Oil Well Road. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater
system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. The proposed Big Cypress Parkway is located along the
western boundary of the Village. This SRA application for Rivergrass Village SRA will include
approximately:
2,500 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.5 units per acre;
a minimum of 250 multi-family dwelling units;
a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial;
a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses;and
senior housing,including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities
subject to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage area.
The Village will also have other uses such as a Golf Club and Amenity Center, an 18-hole golf
course,and park and community green space. The required minimum of 35% open space is
349.99 acres, and 65% open space or 615.27 acres has been provided.
For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) and a zoning
designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(A-MHO-RLSAO)
East:Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home
Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Are a Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO)and a zoning
designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(A-MHO-RLSAO)
South:Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Collier Land Holdings and Collier Development
Corporation (A-MHO-RLSAO)
West:Undeveloped land and developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E),
and developed land with excavation ponds with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile
Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO)
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 6 of 40
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. Please see Attachment C-FLUE
Consistency Review along with the Findings, Conclusions,and Conditions of Approval below:
Consistency Review Findings:
1. The St ewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (revised to
8/08/2019, from 6/07/2016) for SSA number 15 [originally prepared for SSA number 17 (and
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 7 of 40
others) and the now-defunct Rural Lands West SRA application]; and, the St ewardship
Receiving Area Credit Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/04/2016)have been reconciled
and updated, and may be found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials. The
Applicant has elected to consume credits for public benefit use areas and count the acreage
toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA.
2. The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document (revised to 8/15/2019, from 8/09/2019)
proposes Deviations and departures from Development Standards for this SRA project that do
not conform to fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC, and are not
consistent with the intent of the RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, as follows:
Section VII, DEVIATIONS:
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 1., Vi llage Center Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.v), re: Village Center design, resulting
in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs. [distances to
goods and services are too great given its location.]
Proposed SRA d ocument, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 2., Vi llage Center Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii), re: parking locations, resulting
in a project that allows for off-street parking arrangements discouraged in Villages.
Proposed SRA document,Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 3., Vi llage Center Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), re: parking locations, same as
above.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 4., Vi llage Center Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: parking structure requirements,
NO COMMENT.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 5., Vi llage Center Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: multi-family residential lot sizes,
resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages,
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 1., Neighborhood General Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a), re: the mix of uses in
Neighborhood General areas, resulting in a project that does not serve the daily needs and
community-wide needs.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2.2., Neighborhood General Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), re: non-residential use building
sizes, NO COMMENT.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 3., Neighborhood General Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), re: multi-family residential yard
setbacks, NO COMMENT.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 4., Neighborhood General Standards,
requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i), re: multi-family residential lot
sizes, resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in
Vi llages.
Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.3. 1., Transportation Standards,
requests deviation from [multiple] LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. cross-section figures, re:
sidewalk designs along collector streets and local streets in Neighborhood General areas,
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 8 of 40
may result with an interrupted sidewalk system; this Deviation will benefit from additional
language statin owed where a fully interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system is maintained.
(No further remarks regarding additional proposed Deviations)
3. Other proposed departures from Development Standards can be determined to be
uncharacteristic o ,as follows:
Section V, CONTEXT ZONES:
Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.1.A., Neighborhood General
Permitted Uses and Structures: list incomplete, as it does not allow the mix of uses in
Neighborhood General areas;
Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.2.A., Neighborhood General
Development and Design Standards,Required Minimum Ya rds & Maximum Building
Heights, including table and footnotes:front setbacks too shallow; most measures reflect
conventional standards, not Village design;list too exclusive, omitting the allowed mix of
uses in Neighborhood General areas;
Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.1.A. and B., Vi llage Center
Permitted Uses and Accessory Uses:list that includes uses
listing directs determinations
back to a standard LDC reference, when additional direction to consider Vi llage
characteristics of being compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient (and other aspects) would
make this listing internally consistent within the SRA;
Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.2.A., Vi llage Center Development
and Design Standards, Required Minimum Ya rds (Setbacks) & Maximum Building
Heights, including table and footnotes:lot width too wide; distance between structures is
unnecessary; most measures reflect conventional standards, not Village design;
Supportable Deviations and Development Standards from the LDC are those where:
a.The Deviation or Development Standard is consistent with the RLSA Overlay (or where
mitigation practices are pursued to reach consistency);and
b.It can be demonstrated that the proposed Deviation or Development Standard further
enhances the tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and
development strategies, as outlined in RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District.
Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principles of innovative planning and
development strategies in Florida Statute.
4.Review the SRA materials throughout, to find related entries requiring related and similar
changes, including, in particular, the proposed SRA Document, SRA Statement of Suitability
Criteria per LDC.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 9 of 40
Substantive Review Findings:
The requisite credits are sufficient number from approved or pending SSAs to enable the
development of the SRA.The approved Stewardship Credits must be submitted before or
concurrent with this SRA.
The proposed density and uses may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element,
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. However,a number of other design and development
characteristics for the project may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element,
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay,as follows:
This essentially thousand-acre project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single-
family and multi-family residential dwelling units as the ratio is 90% single-family and 10%
multi-family residential dwelling units. By comparison, the County as a whole has a ratio of
approximately 50% single-family to multi-family. (reference RLSA Policy 4.7.2, in the
attached Exhibit B-FLUE Consistency Review).
A significant number of Deviations from the LDC are requested,the preponderance of which
remove the proposed project from consistency with the RLS A Overlay.
The relevant Deviations and departures from Development Standards proposed for this SRA
project do not conform to fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC and
are not consistent with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District. Collier
County RLSA regulations are based on the principals established to enhance the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies.
Conclusions:
Where the proposed SRA lacks consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC, it may
not be considered consistent with the FLUE.
Where the proposed SRA does not conform to fundamental Vi llage design characteristics as
identified in the Substantive Review Findings above, it is not supported by a recommendation for
approval.
Based upon the above analysis, this proposed SRA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE.
However, the application may be deemed consistent if and when the Conditions of Approval
below are met.
Conditions of Approval:
1. All formal SSAs have been approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent
with this SRA.
2. Those Deviations,Development Standards,SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria, etc.,listed
under Consistency Review Findings,above, are removed or revised as discussed above.
3.The ratio of multi-family to single-family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 10 of 40
For further information, please see Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends the following:
Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP:
The County shall acquire a sufficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and
collector roads as appropriate to meet the needs of the Long Range Transportation Plan or
other adopted transportation studies, plan or programs, appropriate turn lanes, medians,
bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, a shoulder sufficient for pull offs, and
landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered when it can
demonstrated, through a traffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at
build-out will be less than the standard.
Staff finding: On October 28, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)approved a
Resolution related to the creation of the Big Cyp ress Stewardship District. A requirement of the
Resolution and the enabling legislation for the District required the District and Collier County to
enter into an Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement. The Agreement provided a fair share capital
construction funding contribution for the long-range traffic capacity improvements of county
arterial and collector roads,within and proximate to the District,within 90 days of the Act taking
effect.
At the October 26, 2004, BCC meeting, Agenda Item 10C, the Board entertained the approval of
the Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement with the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In this
specific agenda item, County staff pursued a right-of-way reservatio
Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard among other right-of-way reservations. It was acknowledged
during the meeting by both the County and representatives of Collier Enterprises, that there was
disagreement as it related to the During the meeting, Tom Conrecode, representing
We understand the constraints at Oil Well and Immokalee Road. We
ap ill have plenty of opportunities to do that
in the futu ot doing anything with the land but farming it today. At some point in the
future when we come back with a zoning action before this county commission, staff will have the
opportunity again to go after that road and many, many more to serve the needs of the are r.
Conrecode went
Randall and Oil Well Road. Th .If we take the
time and agree to work together, work on a solution that solves
to come up with a better solution that serves all the transportation public in Collier Co Mr.
ange requested of
the county.The count
he county and talk with the county on that and many other
corridors that the county puts into its long-range pl dentified man The
;however, the District did not act
on it. Ultimately, the District did enter in a Land Donation Agreement with the County as it
pertains to Oil Well Road, but not the remaining items.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 11 of 40
In 2016, Collier County began the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study. This
study evaluated several corridor alternatives to enhance traffic operations and safety conditions
based on current and future travel demands. While the County was studying the corridor, the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted an amendment (May 25, 2018) to the 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan that added a new needed roadway that became known as Big
Cypress Parkway between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The County continued
forward with the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study,which included
coordination with Collier Enterprises as it related to their SRA development at the time (Rural
Lands West SRA). In May 2019, the Board adopted Viable Alternative 2+, which included the
following improvements:
Randall Boulevard (8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard 6 lanes)
Randall Boulevard (Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway 4 lanes)
Oil Well Road (Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road 6 lanes)
Everglades Boulevard (Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road 4 lanes)
Additional regional roadway needs to enhance access, safety,and mobility:
Vanderbilt Beach Road (16th Street NE to Big C ypress Parkway)
Everglades Boulevard (Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. to Randall Boulevard)
Big Cyp ress Parkway (Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road)
Consistent with the commitments previously made by Collier Enterprises for the Stewardship
District, staff is requiring a right-of-way reservation for Big Cypress Parkway within the limits of
the Stewardship District. The companion Developer Agreement contains the rights-of-way
necessary to accommodate the right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway within the Stewardship
District. This reservation is consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan, Randall
Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study final alignment network,and the commitments made
to address the regional roadway network at the time of rezoning. Collier Enterprises, Inc., has not
fulfilled the commitments made at the time of support of the redistricting, specifically, the
requirement to donate 100-feet of right-of-way for Immokalee Road and the necessary stormwater
management for the said roadway. This donation should be completed immediately, without
regard to this petition. However, it has been included in the companion Developer Agreement.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 12 of 40
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved.A petition or application
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links,the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point
where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impa
significant impacts on all
Staff finding: In evaluating the Rivergrass Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant s Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS ) dated August 5, 2019,for consistency using the applicable 2018 Annual
Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
According to the SRA document and noted above,the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,250
single-family residential dwelling units and up to 250 multi-family residential dwelling units, up to
80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and
institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for
1,414 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,086 multi-family dwelling units, up to 25,000
square feet of governmental and institutional uses, 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses,and an
18-hole golf course.
Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation
calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network,and reflects a reasonable
development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap
commitment in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation.
According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways:
Existing Roadway Conditions:
Link #Roadway Link
Location
2018
AUIR
Existing
LOS
P.M. Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Projected
P.M. Peak
Hour/Peak
Direction
Project
Traffic1
121.2 Oil Well
Road
Oil Well
Grade to Ave
Maria Blvd
B 2,000/West 1,464 186
121.1 Oil Well
Road
Desoto Blvd to
Oil Well
Grade
B 1,1002/West 564 655
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 13 of 40
120.0 Oil Well
Road
Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
B 1,1002/West 541 530
119.0 Oil Well
Road
Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
C 2,000/East 863 633
136.0 Everglades
Blvd
Oil Well Road
to Immokalee
Road
C 800/North 350 39
135 Everglades
Blvd
Golden Gate
Blvd to Oil
Well Road
B 800/North 445 133
118.0 Wilson Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Golden Gate
Blvd
B 900/South 560 103
133.0 Randal Blvd Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
C 900/East 261 60
132.0 Randal Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Everglades
Blvd
E 9003/East 40 60
112.0 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Logan Blvd to
Collier Blvd
C 3,000/East 1,052 106
111.2 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd
Livingston Rd
to Logan Blvd
C 3,000/East 859 53
17.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Collier Blvd to
Wilson Blvd
C 2,300/East 590 106
123.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Wilson Blvd
to 18th Street
NE/SE
B 2,300/East 1,095 166
123.1 Golden Gate
Blvd
18th Street
NE/SE to
Everglades
Blvd
B 2,300/East 1,105 166
124.0 Golden Gate
Blvd
Everglades
Blvd to Desoto
Blvd
B 1,010/East 783 113
46.0 Immokalee
Road
Oil Well Road
to SR 29
C 900/East 322 14
45.0 Immokalee
Road
Wilson Blvd
to Oil Well
Road
C 3,300/East 891 606
44.0 Immokalee
Road
Collier Blvd to
Wilson Blvd
D 3,300/East 681 386
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 14 of 40
43.2 Immokalee
Road
Logan Blvd to
Collier Blvd
D 3,200/East 188 265
43.1 Immokalee
Road
I-75 to Logan
Blvd
D 3,500/East 530 159
42.2 Immokalee
Road
Livingston
Road to I-75
D 3,500/East 871 53
30.1 Collier Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Vanderbilt
Beach Road
C 3,000/North 773 53
30.2 Collier Blvd Vanderbilt
Beach Road to
Golden Gate
Blvd
B 3,000/South 1,662 32
31.1 Collier Blvd Golden Gate
Blvd to Pine
Ridge Road
C 3,000/North 1,142 106
31.2 Collier Blvd Pine Ridge
Road to Green
Blvd
C 3,000/North 1,160 53
50.0 Logan Blvd Immokalee
Road to
Vanderbilt
Beach Road
C 1,000/North 371 53
1.Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is August 5, 2019;Traffic Impact Statement provided by the
petitioner.
2.P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (subject to an approved
developer agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000.
3.A portion of this link is committed for widening;Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service
volume will increas service volume will remain unchanged.
The companion Developer Agreement fulfills the mitigation necessary to comply with the Growth
Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 5.1.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
ia of the Access Management Policy
as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial
Staff finding: The Rivergrass Village SRA is proposing several access points on Oil Well Road
and the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points
shown on the master plan for this petition, nothing in this development order will vest the
developer to anything more than a right in/right out at the locations. Directional and full median
openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan. To be
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 15 of 40
explicit regarding a future signalized intersection, a provision of the companion Developer
Agreement includes a commitment from the developer that they will not seek a traffic signal along
Big Cyp ress Parkway within one-half mile of the intersections of Randall Boulevard or Oil Well
Road.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states:
developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC
shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of
neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe
interconne
Staff finding: The proposed Rivergrass Village SRA s Master Plan shows potential-future
interconnections to adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway. The Collier County
Master Mobility Plan tested sub-area road connectivity (Section 4) specific to the RLSA area,and
noted benefits of interconnected roadways such as reduction of vehicle miles traveled,and vehicle
hours traveled within the sub-area. Therefore, staff recommends the establishment of potential
interconnections (north, east,and south) with the knowledge that other Stewardship Receiving
s)are anticipated.
Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with
this SRA request.
Staff Recommendation:
Tr ansportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP subject to the following
Conditions of Approval below.
Conditions of Approval:
4.The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request.
5. Provide for potential interconnections (north, east,and south) on the Master Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)and FLUE related to
Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent
with the CCME and FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element,
preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is
addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been
approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a
recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require
staff evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 16 of 40
denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County
Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate
findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition and recommends
approval subject to the condition of approval below.
Site Description:
The subject property consists of 999.96 acres of predominately intensive agriculture acreage.
Land use consists of row crops, improved,and unimproved pasture and other agriculture-related
uses with a small area of native vegetation. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in
Listed Species Survey (Appendix B). The natural area is 0.13 acres, which is classified as
disturbed Hydric Pine.This area is impacted by exotic vegetation and would not meet the LDC
definition of native vegetation for preservation purposes. The property contains 1.30 acres of
disturbed wetlands;wetland mitigation for impacts to these areas are addressed through South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
11-03949-P.
Listed Species:
The Rivergrass Village SRA project is located within the boundary of previously proposed Rural
Lands West SRA. Protected Species surveys have been conducted throughout the area in various
years between 2007 and 2017.The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC)and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants
listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)and USFWS as
endangered, threatened or commercially exploited.Eagles and their nests were also included as
part of wildlife survey observations.Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through
2017 indicate the following species have been present in the boundary for the Rivergrass SRA:
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea),tri-colored
heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
pratensis), Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway),Bald eagle (Haliaeetu leucocephalus),Florida
bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and Florida black bear
(Ursus americanus floridanus).The current wildlife survey conducted in 2019 revealed the
following species were observed onsite: wood stork (Mycteria americana), little blue heron
(Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis; see Appendix H). There are five protected plants listed in LDC
P that may occur on the project site: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine air
plant (Tillandsia utriclata), inflated wild pine air plant (Tillandsia balbisiana),stiff-leaved wild
pine air plant (Tillandsia fasciculata), and twisted air plant (Tillandsia flexuosa). Additionally,
there are five protected plants listed in the LDC as Plants -site,
including:Cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii),Cu
milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleate)and West Coast prickly-
apple (Harrisia gracilis).
Environmental Planning staff also reviewed this petition per LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.d.,which
requires Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA)with lands greater than one acre and a Natural
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 17 of 40
Resource Index (NRI)value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a
predominantly natural vegetated state.There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain
acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The majority of the Rivergrass Village SRA has been
historically agricultural and cleared for crops.
Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species
habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of
the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been approved for the petitioner to
obtain credits for the development of the SRA.
Evaluation of Suitability criteria in LDC section 4.08.07. A:
Residential,commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient
housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on
lands that receive an NRI value of greater than 1.2 (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.b).There are
no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses may be sited on such lands.
Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of
those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that
receives an NRI value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC
section 4.08.07.A.1.c).There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore,
conditional use essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted
uses and for public safety, and governmental essential services may be sited on such lands.
Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2
shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state
(LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2.
An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and
shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to or
encompass,a WRA (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA
or HSA;it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan.
SSA credits required for SRA designation:
Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff who provided
the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits:
The Stewardship Credits for Rivergrass Village SRA are created from SSA 15 located on
properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting
Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit
calculation is based on the total acreage of Rivergrass, which is 999.96 acres. The minimum
open space requirement is 349.99 acres; the applicant has proposed 615.27 acres of open
space. Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 734.68 acres. In addition,
approximately 104.81 acres are being reserved for future County Arterial Road Rights-of-Way
for the expansion of Oil Well Road. The petitioner has elected to consume credits for the benefit
use areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. Therefore,
Rivergrass Village requires 5,877.44 Stewardship credits.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 18 of 40
Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use
Land Cover (FLUCCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA
application, minor changes to the Land Use Land Cover Classifications have not occurred as a
result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in May 2015. No changes have occurred to
the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA. A comparison of the
detailed 2015 FLUCFCS map with the pr 2019 FLUCFCS map revealed the total acreage
under agriculture did not change; some conversion between different agricultural uses did occur.
The remaining acreage, comprised of previously disturbed vegetated areas,required minor changes
to FLUCCS classifications. These changes reflected the more detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping
recently performed for state permitting efforts, as opposed to the comprehensive planning level of
the Study FLUCCS mapping. These minor classification changes do not produce any significant
overall changes to the SRA Natural Resources Index (NRI) Value scores.
Rivergrass Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15 which has
7,261.8 total available credits.
Environmental Planning staff recommends the following Condition of Approval:
6.Prior to issuance of the first development order,a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the
Florida panther and all other listed species.
Public Utilities Review:The Rivergrass Village SRA lies within the regional potable water and
northeast wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water,
wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project from the
Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site located at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier
County fairgrounds).
The CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection at the northeast corner of the
adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA (pending approval, PL20180000622). The pipelines will be
designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the point of connection. Additionally,
the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to
serve the project. Utility services are scheduled to be provided by September 30, 2020,pending
Board approval of the interlocal agreement that accompanies this petition.
The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility
system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and
Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance Number 2004-31, as amended).Residents and businesses will
receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Per the interlocal
agreement, the golf course may be irrigated from onsite water sources. Additionally, the developer
has agreed to reserve a 5-acre utility site in support of future developments anticipated south of
Rivergrass Village. The site will revert back to the developer if the site is deemed unnecessary.
The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following conditions of
approval:
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 19 of 40
7.The SRA document identifies a minimum of 62,500 to a maximum of 80,000 square feet of
neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of
civic, governmental, and institutional uses for a total of 105,000 square feet of non-
residential uses. Yet, the demand tables provided in the Public Facilities Impact
Assessment and in the Economic Assessment report 200,000 square feet of commercial
floor space. The text and table in each document should be revised for consistency with the
allowable uses.
8.The SRA Local Street R.O.W. Section shall be revised to properly show minimum setbacks
and separation distances, which should be designated by "MIN." rather than "+/-," which
would imply the actual measurement could be less than that shown.The detail shows the
HDPE force main 4.6 feet from the edge-of-pavement/gutter. This is less than the
minimum 5-foot setback required by the Design Criteria (CCWSD Utilities Standards
Manual, Section 1), and no reduction of this setback has been approved by utility d eviation.
The detail should also show the 5-foot minimum setback distance between pressure mains
and street trees. Lastly,a footnote identifying standards reduced via the utility deviation
approved on 6/25/2019 should be added for documentation and to avoid confusion at the
development permit application stage. Staff reviewed and approved a revised detail sent via
email by the engineer on 8/26/2019.
9.The SRA document should incorporate the following deviation language to avoid a conflict
between the interlocal agreement and the LDC:
A Deviation from
separate potable water and r
at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments and Reuse
water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier
County,s and/or appurtenances to be conveyed
to and maintained by Collier County.
10.The negotiated interlocal agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the
Big C ypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance.
Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and
has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary,
middle,and high school levels. Therefore, there are no requirements for the applicant. At the time
of Site Development Plan or Plat,the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity
either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency
service areas.
Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Archeology and Historic Preservation Review:Archeology and Historic Preservation Review
staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Landscape Review:Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Fire Review:Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval.
Community and Human Services Review (Housing)Review: Housing staff has reviewed this
petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 20 of 40
The first submittal of the Rivergrass Village SRA proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7.2
that villages be marily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of
uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village,by stating that,
allows for up to 2,500 dwelling units, a minimum of 62,500square feet and a maximum of 80,000
square feet of neighborhood-scaled retail and office uses,and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of
civic, government, and institutional use
The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the types and
proposed sales pricing of the housing units:
The assessment states:verage assessed value for Rivergrass single-family homes is
$370,000,which is 41% higher t value.
The assessment also states that of the 2500 residential units, 1086 units
duplex, or single-family attached,with an average sales value of $272,000 per unit. The balance
of the 1414 residential units is planned as single-family detached with an average sales value of
$394,000 per unit.
The Rivergrass Village SRA submission offers no details as to how many residential units will
meet the C affordability standards for various income levels. It also offers no detail on the
number of affordable units or price points that will be included to accommodate the need for
affordable units created by the Village.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 21 of 40
Without such details, it is not possible to evaluate the submittal to determine if it meets Goal #1 of
the Housing Element:TE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE,
SANITARY,AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIER
COUNTY.
Furthermore, no details are given as to how the submittal will comply with Objective 1 of the
Housing Element to:rovide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and
future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce
incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural
Collier Cou The documentation provided indicates the residential units proposed will exceed
the Count , offering no accommodation for affordability to Very-low,
Low, Moderate,or Gap income residents.
Housing staff recommends the following Condition of Approval:
11.A Housing Needs Analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand and to
create a plan to address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village
SRA.
Economic Assessment Review:
Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the
requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA).The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate
fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government:
transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste,
parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire,and school. In the event the
Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to
address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community
development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service
Taxing Units (MSTU), etc.
As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating
999.96 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be
known as the Rivergrass Village SRA (Rivergrass), allowing for the development of residential,
commercial, civic, governmental, institutional and senior housing land use components.
Rivergrass submitted an Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial
Group, Inc, (DPFG)in accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an
alternative fiscal impact model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality
at the horizon year (2042 buildout) using a to
dete
Co ates to estimate the demand and impact fee
contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not include the cost of
future infrastructure financing, which cannot be determined at this time,or provide for positive or
negative adjustments in costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development
for the project.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 22 of 40
DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture
information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As
part of this process, the need for new facility s ites and other capital items, specifically related to
the proposed project were also analyzed.
An outside peer review was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an
independent, evaluation of the report. See Attachment E: Peer Review. The Jacobs report
concluded that the analysis is reasonable and confirms the ,as
defined.It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal
neutrality requirement and that the proposed Rivergrass development is fiscally neutral, as defined,
for Rivergrass Village SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the
Collier County School District.Jacobs noted that the companion Developer Agreements for the
project are important elements in the overall fiscal neutrality objectives.
The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also
reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility.
This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the
current, adopted rates,and as previously stated,does not include any projections for impact fee
increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue is
provided below, otherwise,the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of
residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The
same approach, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, was
used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for
the purpose of this analysis.
Transportation Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and
Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
scal analysis and public facilities impact assessment should be updated to reflect
the latest traffic impact statement, intersection analysis,and fair share mitigation reports as
provided by the applicant on August 5, 2019,and August 19, 2019, respectively.
Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis,and fair share
mitigation reports, the projected deficiencies exist both without and with the project.The adopted
level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed and
vested trips, plus additional project background trips from sources other than the development
project under review. The project is not causing the deficiency,nor can the projected deficiency
be cured by the development.The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses
to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. In addition, the applicant has analyzed
multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be paying a proportionate share
toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This proportionate
share is included in the companion developer agreement.
Law Enforcement Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly w ith Collier County Sher
Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 23 of 40
proposed development. At this time,there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed
development.However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed
developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund
a portion of a substation and/or other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the
calculated deficiency be cured by the development.As stated above,the applicant will be paying
impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E-Public Facilities
Impact Assessment,to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services
representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the
proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed
development, with additional planned,co-located facilities in the area. Therefore, currently, there
is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development.
This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and
achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the
calculated deficiency b e cured by the development.The applicant will be paying impact fees for
the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Additionally,
proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for certain
EMS capital construction needs.
Regional Parks Fiscally Neutral.The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted
achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact
Fee Stud y.This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay
impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (Naples Zoo, Sports Tourism
Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development. This method is
generally acceptable with the following condition:
The analysis uses the 2018 Peak season population combined with the inventory for the 2015
adjusted achieved level of service.This method generates a calculated level of service that is lower
than any used for the Impact Fee Study or Annual Update and Inventory Report. The population
year and the inventory year should be the same. Therefore, based on the 2015 Impact Fee Study
(current) the adjusted achieved level of service should be 1.82 acres per 1,000 population verses
the 1.68 acres per 1,000 population which then, based on the Rivergrass proposed population,
requires 9.32 acres of Regional Parks attributable to the proposed development. At the current full
cost per acre, there is a calculated negative fiscal impact of $89,763 based on the estimated impact
fees and other capital revenues anticipated to be generated by the project.
Staff concludes that the project can still be considered fiscally neutral based on the minimal
estimated revenue shortfall, as it is primarily based on 2015 rates, which may increase in the
future, especially as this area develops and land prices in Eastern Collier County continue to
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 24 of 40
increase; the shortfall in acres is less than 1 acre (0.7) and the future Regional Parks Impact Fees
paid related to this development will likely contribute to funding the construction of the Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close proximity to the proposed project.
Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding
for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
Community Parks Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within
the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital
funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate to establish fiscal neutrality
related to Community Parks.
Public Utilities (Water,Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) Fiscally Neutral.
See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact
Assessment,to be read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Public Utilities representatives
regarding the future needs of the project.As provided by the representatives: Utilities service will
not trigger above-to serve the
Rivergrass Village SRA development and several other potential developments is no different than
what has been done in the past to serve an expanding service area. The current construction project
is the first phase of establishing regional treatment facilities in the northeast region of the County.
When complete,these facilities will serve Rivergrass Village SRA as well as growing areas
currently being served by the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant and the North County
Water Reclamation Facility. The northeast treatment facilities will increase the reliability of the
existing systems as the population expands. As an additional comment, all user rates are consistent
The proposed development will be required to pay User Fees, Impact Fees and Special
Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both capital and operating costs
attributable to the project. With respect to Irrigation Water, there is no responsibility or cost to
Collier County.
Stormwater Management Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact
Assessment, to be read in combination with the following:
Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater
Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by
a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001)and the Unincorporated
Area General Fund (111). The Big Cypress Stewardship District, which includes the Rivergrass
Village SRA,is responsible for the management of all designated flowways, which are also
governed by the provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The project water
management system will be fully permitted through the South Florida Water Management District
and Collier County. Collier County will have no responsibility for the capital construction or
maintenance of the Rivergrass water management system. Therefore, the determination of fiscal
neutrality is reasonable.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 25 of 40
North Collier Fire & Rescue District Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff
Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the
following:
DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any
specific needs (land,capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed
development. As provided by North Collier, there are locations in the area that will service the
proposed development, with an additional planned,co-located facility with EMS in the area.
Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development.
The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related
demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to
adequately address the potential operational needs.
Collier County Public Schools Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District
Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be
read in combination with the following:
DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific
needs (school sites,etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As
provided by School representatives, the new students from Rivergrass are not expected to trigger
level of service issues given existing and planned schools.
School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a
capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by th e project through these funding sources
provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the
proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by
the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs
attributable to the development. At this time, the total student population is unknown. However, a
portion of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a very-low student per household
number. Therefore, the assumptions used are conservative and support the determination of fiscal
neutrality.
The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings,
and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public
Facilities Im pact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the
analysis is fairly consistent with the impact fee methodology,and thus the determination of fiscal
neutrality is reasonable.
As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout.
Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may
affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis
concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating
needs of the specified public facilities. Further, the specified public facilities do not have
projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore,
overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 26 of 40
Zoning Services Review:The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document sets forth the
design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., Villages are primarily
residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale
and character of the particular village Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community s support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods As
previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village
Center.
The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 979.18 acres and allows for residential
development consisting of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group
housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF)and Continuing Care
Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 5-acre Utility pump/tank station for water
and sewer is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context zone. The maximum zoned and
actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet.
The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.78 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for
multi-family development, commercial,office, civic,governmental,and institutional uses. As
previously stated, a minimum of 60,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental,and
institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and
60 feet.
The Village Center is located along the northern edge of the southern half of the SRA along Oil
Well Road, a minor arterial road and freight route. The Village Center is disconnected from the
northern half of the SRA Village by Oil Well Road resulting in a less walkable community.
Some of the deviations contained in the Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document Town
decrease walkability of the SRA Village.The result is a compact suburban-style development
similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)located in the Urban Area of Collier
County.
Staff believes that five of the proposed deviations are not consistent with the development
standards of the RLSA Zoning Overlay R egulations contained in the LDC. As previously stated in
the GMP Consistency Review, Where proposed SRA lacks conformity with the LDC .it may
not be considered consistent with the FLUE. The LDC prohibition of g Lots in Front
of Buildings,a ke y element of a walkable community, has been eliminated. The LDC prescribed
maximum lot size of 4 acres has also been eliminated, creating the pot superblocks
areas which destroy vehicular and pedestrian connectivity.
For further information, please see the Deviation Discussion section of this Staff Report below.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 27 of 40
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking 19 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. and
staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
SRA Document Section 7.1.Village Center Standards:
Deviation # 1 (SRA Document Section 7.1.1):
A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.v.: Village Design Criteria,which requires that the
Village Center be developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density,
intensity and diversity occurring within the Village Center, to the least density intensity and
diversity occurring within the Neighborhood General, to instead allow the Village Center to be
located as depicted on the SRA Master Plan.
Petition ication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Village Center is located in the southeast corner of Oil Well and future Big Cypress
Parkway. This is more or less in the center of the Village, with about half of the Village located
north of Oil Well Road and half located south.Locating the Village Center at the intersection
of Oil Well Road is the only location that makes sense to ensure a viable market condition for
these uses. Easy access for nearby residents from the surrounding neighborhood and for pass-
by traffic on Oil Well Road is critical. Moreover, this is the best location for maximizing use of
transit.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation results in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs as the
distance to goods and services are too great given the location of the Village Center.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overla and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)r enhances the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 2 (SRA Document Section 7.1.2):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii)General Parking Criteria,which states,The
majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side
secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings,to instead allow parking in front of
buildings in the Village Center. A Type D buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required
when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road.
Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Village Center fronts on Oil Well Road and is separated from Oil Well by a 25-foot wide
Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place,the Village Center commercial uses need to be
both accessible and convenient to motorists from Oil Well Road. This may warrant parking in
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 28 of 40
what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25-foot wide Type D buffer along
Oil Well Road, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and
exposure) to and from Oil Well Road,the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the
market place. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be
located within any yard.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation encourages an off-street parking arrangement discouraged in Villages. Furthermore,
staff is constrained from approving a prohibition such as this.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
deviations are consistent wi and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)rther enhances the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 3 (SRA Document Section 7.1.3):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be
located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on-street parking
within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards. A Type D buffer
per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road.
s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side or rear yards in the Village Center in
order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of
commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2,
above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the
nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic,which is
absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also
necessary.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation encourages an off-street parking arrangement discouraged in Villages.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)her enhances the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 4 (SRA Document Section 7.1.4):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that parking structures fronting on
a primary street shall include ground-floor retail to instead require ground-floor retail in parking
structures supporting non-residential or mixed-use development only,and not in the case of parking
structures supporting only residential development.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 29 of 40
on: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The SRA provisions allow multi-family dwellings in the mixed-use Village Center Contact
Zone. Within the Village Center Context Zone, such dwellings may be located in a structure
that is mixed-use (i.e., retail on the ground floor and residential above) or may be located in a
structure that is all residential. Such residential-only buildings may have accessory parking
structures which may not be suited or located to support retail type uses on the ground floor.
While this makes sense in the case of parking structures supporting commercial only or mixed-
use buildings, it does not make sense in the case of a parking structure supporting residential
only.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)her enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 5 (SRA Document Section 7.1.5):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e).i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, Maximum
Multi-family lot size,which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4
acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed 4 acres.
tification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Village Center is not based on any recognizable
beneficial outcome. Presumably,it is applied scale. However, a larger
lot can ale by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and
through design. For example, a 300 unit multi-family development consisting of multiple
buildings may exceed 4 acres in the Village Center but would still be required to meet all other
applicable development and design standards and would provide an excellent buffer between
the surrounding lower density Neighborhood General development to the south and east.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation encourages exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)her enhances the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards:
Note:LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a
Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 30 of 40
Therefore,the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a) through i) on
the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village.
Deviation # 6 (SRA Document Section 7.2.1):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a) Neighborhood General Context Zone, which
requires the inclusion of residential, neighborhood-scale goods and services, civic, institutional,
parks, schools and accessory uses within the Neighborhood General Context Zone,to instead not
require neighborhood-scale goods and services or schools as permitted uses within the Neighborhood
General Context Zone.
Petit The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Village does not have sufficient size or density to generate demand for additional
neighborhood goods and service beyond what is proposed for the Village Center. It makes no
sense to move any of the required neighborhood goods,and services use from the Village
Center Context Zone. Schools are not needed based upon student population projection s.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation results in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs as the
distance to goods and services are too great given the location of the Village Center.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
demonstrated deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overla and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)ces the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),F.S.
Deviation # 7 (SRA Document Section 7.2.2):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), Non-residential uses,which states the
maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall
be 15,000 square feet,to instead allow the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites and related uses to
be a maximum of 50,000 square feet each.
Pet The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Community Centers, both north and south of Oil Well Road will provide multiple amenities
and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also
requires flexibility in size in order to be sufficient to meet market demands.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
deviations are consistent with the RLS and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)ances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 31 of 40
Deviation #8 (SRA Document Section 7.2.3):
A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07J.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of Multi-Family
residential, side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of 20 feet for the primary to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet
and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1:
Neighborhood General -Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height.
P The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type
development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build
such units effectively and efficiently,they must be consistent with design used in other similar
developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved P UDs
that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes.We have maintained the required
minimum 10-foot side and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family product,and
this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has dem deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)es the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 9 (SRA Document Section 7.2.4):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, Maximum
Multi-family lot size,which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4
acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed 4 acres.
Petition s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable
beneficial outcome. Presumably,it is applied to mai scale. However, a larger
lot can also of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and
through design. There is no discernible benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style
development to parcels of 4 acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi-family
buildings may also be feasible on parcel greater than 4 acres in Neighborhood General
adjacent to or near the Village Center. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum
parcel size to 4 acres, as all of these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village
definition,which is as follows:
Villages are a form of S RA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of
housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular
village. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-
use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and
facilities.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 32 of 40
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL,finding that the
deviation encourages exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages.
The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not
dem the deviations are consistent wi and LDC Section
4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s)r enhances the tools,
techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies,
as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.3. Transportation Standards:
Deviation #10 (SRA Document Section 7.3.1):
A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements,which states that Cul-de-
sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing topographical conditions or other
natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs,to instead allow the maximum
permanent cul-de-sac length to be 1,200 feet as measured along the centerline of the right-of-way from
the intersecting right-of-way centerline to the end of the cul-de-sac right-of-way.
Pe tification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The Master Plan design has minimized the occurrence and maximum length of cul-de-sacs.
The longest cul-de-sac depicted on the SRA Master Plan is now 1,050±feet. However, this
deviation (to allow cul-de-sacs up to 1200 feet) is to allow for design flexibility. This deviation
has been approved and utilized throughout Collier County (including in other SRAs).
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that he deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 11 (SRA Document Section 7.3.2):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. Figure(s) 5, 6, and 7, Local Street |Neighborhood
General for cross-sections requiring 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of a local street, to instead
allow for a 10-foot-wide sidewalk or multi-use pathway on only one side of such street only where
residential development is located on only one side of the street.
Petition ustification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This option of allowing a 10-foot-wide pathway rather than 5 or 6-foot sidewalks on both sides
of a street provides for flexibility without reducing pedestrian mobility. This will only occur
where residential development is located on only one side of the street.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overl and LDC
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 33 of 40
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 12 (SRA Document Section 7.3.3):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood
General,which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to
instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in
Neighborhood General.In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized.If the
option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree
crown projection shall be provided.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet,
measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on
the driveway without parking over the sidewalk.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overla and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)r enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.4. Sign Standards:
Deviation # 13 (SRA Document Section 7.4.1):
A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, On-premises directional signs within residential
districts,which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the
edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet
from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA
only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A
unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and
drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned
residential developments in Collier County.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrat deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 34 of 40
Deviation # 14 (SRA Document Section 7.4.2):
A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, On-premises signs within residential districts,which
allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet at each entrance to a multi-family or single-
family development,to instead allow a maximum height of 12 feet for such signs,limited to the two
primary project entrances from Oil Well Road (not including access points to the Village Center
Tract).
Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The increased height of signage at the project entries will allow the project to feature a more
pronounced, grand entrance, and will result in a recognizable entry for pedestrians and
motorists.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a),the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)urther enhances the
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.5. Landscape Standards:
Deviation # 15 (SRA Document Section 7.5.1):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, Types of buffers,Table 2.4
Information, Footnote (3)which requires Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within
a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet
wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet,to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide
with each abutting property contributing 5 feet.
Pe tification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and
parking areas within the Village Center.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated th deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
SRA Document Section 7.6. Other Deviations:
Deviation # 16 (SRA Document Section 7.6.1):
A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Parking Space Requirements,which requires 1 parking
space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, a erobics, or health
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 35 of 40
clubs to instead allow for parking for the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1
space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes
throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car.
Additionally, the centrally located Golf and Amenity Centers (both north and south) are
restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public.
The one space per 100 square feet for
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent wi and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Deviation # 17 (SRA Document Section 7.6.2):
A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. Location Criteria,which requires that LSPA [littoral
shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a
preserve area,to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain
specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the
eastern perimeter of the SRA.
The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
These areas will be designed to create,enhance,or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat
and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat
value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area
plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger
lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action,which negatively
affects these littoral planting areas.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the deviation
and has found the concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters along the eastern edge of
the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve
water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is
reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting
areas.
Environmental Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in
compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has d e deviations
are consistent wi and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation(s),and strategies based on
principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11),
F.S.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 36 of 40
Deviation # 18 (SRA Document Section 7.6.3):
A deviation from LDC ing
hich states that fences or walls in commercial or industrial areas are limited to a
maximum height of 8 feet, to instead allow a maximum height of 10 feet.
Petitione Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
The requested additional fence/wall height allows for better screening between residential and
commercial uses.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstra deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overl and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
Note: Deviation below has not been added to 8-15-19 SRA Resolution and will be added to a
future revised SRA Resolution:
Deviation # 19 (SRA Document Section 7.6.4):
A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, Potable Water System,which states separate potable
water and reuse waterline shall be provide the applicant at no cost to Collier County for
all subdivisions and developments and Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will
not be maintained by Collier County, to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to
be conveye d to and maintained by Collier County.
P on: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation:
This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to
allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or
appurtenances (i.e.,the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is
support by Utilities staff.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the
petitioner has demonstrated that deviations are consistent with the RLSA Over and LDC
Section 4.08.07.J.8(b),the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s)
tools, techniques,and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development
strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 6, 20189 at 5:30 p.m.at
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida.For further
information, please see Attachment D: NIM Summary.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 37 of 40
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County A ,
Rivergrass Village SRA on September 9, 2019.The following criteria applies to the creation of an
SRA:
1. Consider:Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider:An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider:Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall
not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider:Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with
the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not
be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2,
regardless of the size of the land or parcel.
5. Consider:Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly
natural vegetated state.
6. Consider:Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the
gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100
acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that
requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits.
7. Consider:As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an
SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained
open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider:An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into
such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6.An
SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider:The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial
road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity
to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation
planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the GMP.
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 38 of 40
11. Consider:Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section
4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider:SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA
District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away
from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider:Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider:Im pacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is constrained from recommending that the Collier County Planning Commission,acting as
the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-
PL20190000044, Rivergrass Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. All formal SSAs have been approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or
concurrent with this SRA.
2. Those Deviations,Development Standards,SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria, etc.,
listed under Consistency Review Findings,above, are removed or revised as discussed
above.
3.The ratio of multi-family to single-family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level.
4.The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request.
5. Provide for potential interconnections (north, east,and south) on the master plan.
6. Prior to issuance of the first development order,a listed species management plan must be
provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the
Florida panther and all other listed species.
7. The SRA document identifies 62,500 (min.) to 80,000 (max.) SF of neighborhood-scale
commercial and office uses and a minimum of 25,000 SF of civic, governmental, and
institutional uses for a total of 105,000 SF of non-residential uses. Yet, the demand tables
provided in the Public Facilities Impact Assessment and in the Economic Assessment
report 200,000 SF of commercial floor space. The text and table in each document should
be revised for consistency with the allowable uses.
8.The SRA Local Street R.O.W. section should be revised to properly show minimum
setbacks and separation distances, which should be designated by "MIN." rather than "+/-,"
which would imply the actual measurement could be less than that shown.The detail
shows the HDPE force main 4.6 feet from the edge-of-pavement/gutter. This is less than
the minimum 5' setback required by the Design Criteria (CCWSD Utilities Standards
Manual, Section 1), and no reduction of this setback has been approved by utility d eviation.
The detail should also show the 5' min. setback distance between pressure mains and street
trees. Lastly, a footnote identifying standards reduced via the utility deviation approved on
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190000044
September 10,2019
Page 39 of 40
6/25/2019 should be added for documentation and to avoid confusion at the development
permit application stage. Staff reviewed and approved a revised detail sent via email by the
engineer on 8/26/2019.
9.The SRA document should incorporate the following deviation language to avoid a conflict
between the interlocal agreement and the LDC:
A Deviation from LDC h states
water and reuse waterli the applicant
at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and de n euse
water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier
County facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed
to and maintained by Collier County.
10.The negotiated interlocal agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the
Big C ypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance.
11. A Housing Needs Analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand and to
create a plan to address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village
SRA.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution
Attachemnt B: SRA Credit Use and Reconcilliation Application
Attachment C: FLUE Consistency Review
Attachment C-1: DRAFT Developer Agreement
Attachment D: NIM Summary
Attachment D-1: Peer Review
Attachment E: Public Facilities Impact Assessment
Attachment F: Letters of Objection/Support
Attachment G: Application
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)
9.E.19
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: REFERENCE COPY ONLY-OUTDATED CCPC Staff Report.docx 12-2-19 (10935 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village SRA)